Defending the Case

June 9, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Limits Police Authority During Traffic Stops

A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Rodriguez v. United States, establishes limits on police authority during traffic stops. The court ruled that an officer’s authority over the driver ends once the officer accomplishes the “mission” of the traffic stop, which in this specific case involved writing a warning ticket for a minor traffic violation. Anything that occurs after the “mission” is complete violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Since many DWI cases begin with a traffic stop for a minor infraction, this ruling could have a significant impact. At the same time, it still allows police to conduct further investigations, such as field sobriety testing, if they can show probable cause to suspect DWI.

A police officer pulled the defendant over for driving on the shoulder of a highway. He questioned the defendant and his passenger, ran a criminal check on the defendant’s license, and issued a warning ticket. While he acknowledged that he had completed the purpose of the stop, he did not let the defendant go. Instead, he ordered the defendant and the passenger out of the vehicle and made two passes with a drug-sniffing dog. On the second pass, the dog alerted to something in the vehicle, which turned out to be methamphetamine.

The drug-sniff search prolonged the traffic stop for an additional seven or eight minutes after the officer wrote the ticket. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence from the search of his vehicle, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, finding that, while the officer lacked probable cause to search for drugs, the seven- or eight-minute extension of the stop was a minimal intrusion on the defendant’s rights and was therefore permissible. The court of appeals affirmed this ruling.

May 20, 2015

New Jersey Appellate Court Considers Whether “House Arrest” May Be Credited Towards Mandatory Minimum DWI Sentence

by Evan M. Levow

A charge of alleged driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New Jersey requires a thorough and vigorous defense from the moment charges are filed. A recent decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, State v. Haas, demonstrates that a court may not be able to reduce certain penalties prescribed by state law, regardless of the circumstances. The municipal court ordered that the defendant was subject to “house arrest” while his appeal of the merits of his conviction was pending in the Superior Court, Law Division. The Law Division, while denying his appeal, credited his 149 days of house arrest as “time served” towards the 180-day minimum sentence for a third or subsequent DWI offense. The state appealed this decision, and the Appellate Division ruled that a credit against the mandatory minimum sentence is not authorized under New Jersey law.

The municipal court convicted the defendant of his third DWI offense. For a third or subsequent DWI conviction, § 39:4-50(a)(3) of the New Jersey Revised Statutes imposes a sentence of “not less than 180 days in a county jail or workhouse,” with the possibility of reducing the total sentence by up to 90 days for participation in certain drug or alcohol treatment programs.

The defendant asked the municipal court to stay the sentence while he appealed the conviction to the Law Division. New Jersey Court Rule 7:13-2 allows a municipal court to stay all or part of a sentence “on such terms as the court deems appropriate.” The court ordered the defendant confined to his home during the appeal. He could only leave to see his counsel, his doctors, and, at the defendant’s request, for one three-hour visit per week with his adult daughter, for whom he provided care after she suffered a brain injury.

May 13, 2015

Drug Court Program May Be Available in Some New Jersey DWI Cases

by Evan M. Levow

Diversion programs, commonly known as “drug courts,” are becoming increasingly common around the country. Courts may refer a case to a local drug court in order to provide more focus on rehabilitation and recovery, rather than guilt and punishment. Defendants charged with nonviolent drug- or alcohol-related offenses may be eligible. In New Jersey, drug court procedures are mandatory for certain cases, and they may be available in some DWI cases. A recent decision by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, State v. Borges, examined some of the factors that may prevent admission of a defendant in a DWI-related case into a drug court program.

New Jersey’s drug courts are established within the existing Superior Court system. They typically involve a team of specialists in substance abuse and treatment, who work with prosecutors, court staff, probation officers, and others. Defendants who are admitted to drug court must complete various court-ordered services, submit to regular drug testing, and generally stay out of trouble. Failure to complete the program could result in jail or prison time. The use of drug court procedures is growing, with the number of voluntary admissions increasing by 25 percent between 2012 and 2013. A bill signed by the governor in 2012 makes drug court procedures mandatory in certain cases. Mandatory drug court sentencing began in 2013 in five counties, followed by four more counties in 2014.

Drug court procedures may be available in some DWI and DWI-related cases as an alternative to a jail sentence. The defendant in Borges was charged with driving while license suspended (DWLS), where the license suspension was due to a DWI conviction. The municipal court denied her request for admission to drug court. State law excludes defendants from drug court if they are subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. Since the defendant’s license suspension was due to a second or subsequent DWI conviction, state law requires a minimum jail sentence of 180 days. The municipal court therefore held that the defendant was not eligible for drug court. It did, however, offer to admit her to the program after she completed a 180-day jail sentence. The defendant refused this offer and filed an appeal.

May 3, 2015

New Jersey Appellate Court Reverses DWI Conviction, Finding Problems with Field Sobriety Tests, Other Evidence

by Evan M. Levow

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division reversed a defendant’s DWI conviction in January 2015 in State v. Barillari, based on discrepancies between the municipal court’s findings and the findings of the Superior Court, Law Division. The state had presented the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s driving, demeanor, appearance, and performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs). Several fact witnesses and an expert witness, testifying for the defendant, challenged the officer’s testimony and his handling of the FSTs. The municipal court found the defendant guilty of DWI, relying on some, but not all, of the state’s evidence. The Law Division appeared to rely on evidence specifically disregarded by the municipal court. Because of this discrepancy, the appellate court remanded the case for a new trial.

The defendant was arrested on a snowy night in December 2009. The arresting officer testified that he witnessed the defendant “doing fishtails in a Jeep” in a restaurant parking lot. He claimed that he detected the odor of alcohol and that the defendant’s eyes were “bloodshot and watery.” The defendant reportedly stated that he had two beers earlier in the evening. The officer had the defendant perform several FSTs, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, in an area of the parking lot with “a light coating of snow.” The defendant did not perform well on the FSTs. When completing the standard questionnaire after his arrest, the defendant allegedly stated that he had four beers that night.

At trial, the defendant called four lay witnesses: two friends who were with him from at least late afternoon, the manager of the restaurant where the arrest took place, and the restaurant bartender. They offered generally consistent testimony that the defendant and his two friends arrived at the restaurant for dinner. When the manager decided to close at 9:00 because of the snow, he offered to give the defendant a ride home. The defendant offered to warm up the manager’s Jeep and drove it around the parking lot to warm it up and to make room for a snow plow.

April 27, 2015

Court Rules on Right Against Self-Incrimination, Right to Jury Trial in New Jersey DWI Case

by Evan M. Levow

A defendant in a New Jersey DWI case claimed that the municipal court denied him two important constitutional rights: the right against self-incrimination and the right to a trial by jury. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no one may be compelled to give testimony against themselves in a criminal case. This has led to the well-known “right to remain silent” during and after an arrest, as well as strict rules prohibiting prosecutors from using a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in many, but not all, criminal cases. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division’s opinion in this case, State v. Engle, explains how these rights apply in many DWI cases.

A police officer pulled the defendant over for allegedly making an illegal left turn. The officer claimed that he “detected an odor of alcohol” coming from the defendant’s vehicle and observed that the defendant’s eyes were “bloodshot and glassy.” He asked the defendant to perform several field sobriety tests (FSTs), and he testified that the defendant did poorly on all of them.

A medical doctor testified for the defendant, stating that his “excessive weight and reconstructed left knee” prevented the defendant from performing well on the FSTs. He also testified that the defendant’s bloodshot and glassy eyes were consistent with a cold the defendant stated he had at the time. Prosecutors countered by noting that the defendant did not complain about pain during the tests, nor did he inform the officer of any medical conditions that could affect the FSTs. The municipal court convicted the defendant of DWI, improper turn, and several other offenses.

April 13, 2015

DWI Appeal Claims Faulty Alcotest Machine Invalidates Conviction

by Evan M. Levow

Are breath or blood test results required to prove that a driver was legally intoxicated? While test results showing blood alcohol content (BAC) above 0.08 percent might be the most well-known means of proving intoxication, it is not the only means. A defendant recently asked a New Jersey appellate court to reverse his DWI conviction, arguing that the state lacked sufficient evidence to prove DWI without BAC evidence. The trial court had based its decision on testimony from the arresting officers. The appellate court reviewed New Jersey law regarding how the state may prove impairment in a DWI case, and it affirmed the convictions in State v. Robinson in February 2015.

According to the court’s opinion, the arresting officers observed the defendant’s pickup truck at about 2:00 a.m., traveling on I-287 at between 80 and 85 miles per hour and changing lanes without signaling. The defendant, after pulling over, reportedly told the officers that he had just worked a 14-hour shift, was very tired, and simply wanted to go home. The officers stated that they did not detect any odor of alcohol, although they claimed that defendant’s speech “was a little slurred.” They accepted his explanation, cited him for careless driving, and warned him against speeding.

At that point, according to the officers, the defendant “bolted” in his truck, quickly accelerating back to around 85 miles per hour. The officers testified that they had to drive close to 100 miles per hour to overtake him. The other officer spoke to the defendant when he pulled over. He also did not notice any alcohol smell, but he claimed that the defendant had difficulty getting his driver’s license out of his wallet. This officer had the defendant perform several field sobriety tests, including the walk and turn test and the one-legged stand test. He claimed the defendant did poorly on both. At this point, the officers arrested the defendant for DWI.

April 9, 2015

Out-of-State DWI Convictions Count as Prior Convictions in New Jersey DWI Cases, Appellate Court Holds

by Evan M. Levow

A defendant appealed his conviction of driving while license suspended (DWLS) to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, claiming that the trial court should not have counted DWI convictions from New York as prior convictions under New Jersey law. State criminal law treats DWLS as a criminal offense, not a traffic offense, when the suspension is due to prior DWI convictions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in State v. Galdieri, finding that state law includes out-of-state convictions, even if a prior case included mistakes of law.

DWLS is normally a traffic offense under New Jersey law. It is a crime of the fourth degree, however, if the reason for the suspension is a second or subsequent conviction for DWI or refusal to submit to breath testing. According to the court, the defendant in Galdieri had two DWI convictions from the state of New York, although it does not say when these occurred. The defendant pleaded guilty to DWI in a New Jersey court in October 2012. The court suspended his license for three months, which is the penalty for a first DWI offense. This apparently happened because the judge was not aware of the New York cases. Twelve days later, the defendant was pulled over and charged with DWLS, which resulted in the present case.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal DWLS in June 2013, based on the prior DWI convictions. On appeal, the defendant apparently conceded that he had prior DWI convictions from the state of New York, but he claimed that they should not count towards enhancing the offense to the criminal level. He argued that the October 2012 DWI conviction in New Jersey should count as a first offense, since it was the only New Jersey conviction and the judge imposed the penalty for a first offense.

March 18, 2015

Defendant Not Obligated to Disclose Prior DWI Conviction, According to New Jersey Appellate Court

by Evan M. Levow

A New Jersey appellate court recently considered the question of whether a defendant must inform the court of prior convictions that, under New Jersey law, could result in an enhanced sentence. In an unpublished February 2015 decision, State v. Kane, the court ruled that a defendant charged with driving while license suspended (DWLS) was not obligated to inform prosecutors or the court that the suspension was due to a driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction. State motor vehicle and criminal statutes include enhanced penalties in certain DWLS cases where DWI was the reason for the suspension. The court rejected the state’s arguments that the defense’s failure to provide this information constituted fraud and a breach of attorney ethics rules.

The defendant was arrested in January 2012 in Ocean City for talking on a cell phone while driving. She was subject to a 10-year suspension of her driver’s license at the time, according to the court, because of multiple DWI convictions. She pleaded guilty to DWLS in municipal court that March. DWLS is normally a “non-indictable offense,” and the judge sentenced her to 30 days in jail, to be served intermittently.

New Jersey law prescribes enhanced penalties for a DWLS if the underlying reason for the license suspension is a DWI offense. About seven months before the defendant’s plea, in August 2011, a new criminal statute became effective that made the defendant’s DWLS offense an indictable offense, with substantially greater penalties. The statute allows prosecution of DWLS as a fourth-degree crime, as opposed to a traffic offense, if the license suspension was due to DWI, and the defendant has one or more prior DWLS convictions.
Continue reading

March 6, 2015

Motorist Settles Lawsuit Against City Involving Arrest for Alleged DWI

by Evan M. Levow

An individual who has made a name for himself publicizing the locations of police checkpoints in Southern California recently settled a wrongful arrest lawsuit against a California city. A police officer arrested him for alleged DWI, he claimed in his lawsuit, after he refused to submit to a field sobriety test. He maintained that he was not impaired, and that the officer had no probable cause to suspect that he was. While we as DWI attorneys would not necessarily encourage anyone to make a spectacle out of their assertion of their constitutional rights, this lawsuit demonstrates how police can infringe on the the rights of drivers during traffic stops, which can lead to dismissal of charges.

The plaintiff, using the name “Mr. Checkpoint,” operates a website that publishes the locations of police checkpoints, where officers stop vehicles at random to check for DWI. He makes this information available to people on the website, via the social media service Twitter, and through text message subscriptions. The practice is reportedly not popular with some law enforcement agencies, but L.A. Weekly noted in 2013 that making this information easily accessible encourages people who might otherwise drink and drive “to think about either staying home to party, finding a designated driver or calling a cab.”

The traffic stop that led to the lawsuit occurred in late 2011. He was pulled over in Santa Monica for allegedly making an illegal right turn. He recorded audio of this incident on his phone. The officer arrested him for DWI when he refused to perform a field sobriety test. He spent the night in jail, his car was impounded, and his dogs, who were in the backseat, were taken to the pound. He was able to retrieve the car and his dogs, and the prosecutors declined to file charges when blood test results showed no alcohol.

March 1, 2015

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Important Ruling on Pretrial Intervention, Which Is Still Not Available in DWI Cases

by Evan M. Levow

Pretrial intervention (PTI) is a program operated by the New Jersey court system that allows defendants the chance to avoid the ordinary criminal prosecution process. Although it is not available to people charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), it is still worth understanding because traffic stops and DWI arrests sometimes lead to criminal charges instead of, or in addition to, a DWI charge. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently considered the question of whether the state could deny admission to a PTI program based on prior dismissed charges or arrests. The case, State v. K.S., began with an arrest for alleged DWI, which led to additional criminal charges. The court held that the state cannot infer guilt based only on an arrest or a charge, and therefore it cannot keep a defendant out of PTI based on charges that were dismissed.

Defendants who qualify for the PTI program can avoid criminal prosecution in New Jersey courts. Participants in PTI may be ordered to perform community service, pay restitution, and complete other services. They must also avoid any further criminal trouble during their time in the program. If they complete the program, which can take up to 36 months, the case is dismissed, and they may be eligible to have the charge and arrest expunged from their record. Failure to meet any of these requirements results in the return of the case to the criminal docket.

New Jersey court rules and statutes set out the criteria for prosecutors and PTI program directors to consider regarding admission to the program. The program typically excludes people with prior convictions, people who are on parole or probation, and people who have previously been admitted to PTI or a similar program. DWI and related offenses are considered traffic offenses under New Jersey law, not criminal offenses. Defendants are therefore not eligible for PTI on the basis of a DWI charge.
Continue reading