Articles Posted in Refusal

by

Getting pulled over for suspicion of DUI can be a terrifying experience, even if you only had a single drink. Most drivers have a pretty good idea of when they are no longer safe to drive, but you can never be sure. And you wouldn’t be the first person to think that you were not impaired when you actually were. Unfortunately, when it comes to DUIs in New Jersey, there is not requirement that you knew you were intoxicated. Instead, law enforcement officers typically rely on chemical tests—usually of your breath or blood.

Whenever the issue of breathalyzer tests comes up, the issue of refusals frequently follows. DUI refusal is the name that New Jersey DUI lawyers give to the situation where a driver refuses to provide a sample. The thought goes: if you don’t provide a blood or breath sample, the police can’t prove you were intoxicated. And, while this is not correct, it’s also not entirely incorrect.

A Primer on New Jersey Refusals

New Jersey has an implied consent law. Essentially, this law provides that by operating a vehicle on the state’s roads, you automatically consent to submit to breath tests to determine your blood alcohol content (BAC) if law enforcement suspects you are driving under the influence.

Continue reading

by

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) law imposes substantial penalties for offenses, including driver’s license suspension, fines, and even jail time in some cases. New Jersey also has a law that deals with boating while intoxicated (BWI) and imposes similar penalties. The similarities do not stop there. Just like with DWI, people who operate certain types of watercraft on New Jersey waterways have given implied consent to submit breath samples to police, which they will use to measure blood alcohol content (BAC). Refusal to submit to breath testing for suspected BWI is a separate offense. The penalties are similar to those in New Jersey DWI refusal cases.

A person commits BWI if they operate “a power vessel or a vessel which is 12 feet or greater in length” while intoxicated. A “vessel” is any type of watercraft. A “power vessel” is one that does not rely solely on “sails or…muscular power” for propulsion. A person who operates a motorboat while under the influence, therefore, commits BWI no matter the size of the watercraft. If that same person is operating a canoe, kayak, or sailboat, on the other hand, state law probably would not consider it to be BWI unless the craft was at least twelve feet long. That said, other boating laws and regulations might apply if someone is operating a large sailboat in a reckless manner.

A member of the New Jersey State Police or a local law enforcement officer can instruct a person operating any type of watercraft covered by the BWI statute to submit a breath sample. The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. State law establishes procedures that police must follow in order to collect breath samples. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Chun requires police to meet additional requirements when using an Alcotest device in BWI cases.
Continue reading

by

Prosecutors in New Jersey may offer two types of evidence to prove guilt in driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. First, they may introduce testimony from police officers and others who witnessed a defendant’s appearance and demeanor. This may include testimony about field sobriety tests, or testimony from officers trained as drug recognition experts. The second method allowed by the New Jersey DWI statute is evidence of blood alcohol content (BAC) of at least 0.08 percent. Most police departments in New Jersey use a device known as the Alcotest to collect breath samples and test them to determine a DWI suspect’s BAC. A landmark 2008 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Chun, established standards for the use of these devices in order to maximize their accuracy. One rule created by the Chun decision requires women who are over sixty years of age to provide a smaller breath sample than other people, based on findings that women at that age are generally unable to provide as much breath as their male peers. A 2013 follow-up order in the Chun case limited the state’s ability to prosecute women over the age of sixty for refusal to submit a breath sample.

New Jersey’s implied consent statute requires drivers to submit to breath testing in DWI investigations. Refusal to do so is a separate motor vehicle offense, punishable by fines and driver’s license suspension. The Alcotest requires an individual to blow into a tube connected to the device for a sustained period of time, in order to provide the 1.5 liters of air needed for the test. The individual must seal their lips around the tube so that no air escapes while they are blowing. New Jersey courts have held that an individual may be found guilty of refusal for repeatedly failing to provide an adequate breath sample, such as by failing to seal their lips around the tube or failing to blow for long enough.

Prior to the 2008 ruling in Chun, a court-appointed special master issued a report that recommended various standard procedures for administering the Alcotest. This included the 1.5-liter minimum volume of air. The special master also noted that the evidence supported a lower required volume for women older than sixty. The court reviewed research showing that, after age sixty, women’s average volume of breath was 1.4 liters. This average volume decreased by 0.1 liter every ten years afterwards. The court accepted these findings and ruled that women over the age of sixty must only provide 1.2 liters of air. It also dismissed possible objections to the two standards under the Equal Protection Clause.
Continue reading

by

Prosecutors in New Jersey DWI cases have the burden of proving every element of driving while intoxicated (DWI) beyond a reasonable doubt. They must also ensure that the proceedings accord with a defendant’s due process rights. This includes a defendant’s right to understand the charges brought against them and the likely penalties that could result from a guilty verdict. New Jersey, along with many other states, has an implied consent statute that effectively requires drivers to submit to breath testing when ordered to do so by a police officer. A separate code section makes it a motor vehicle offense, punishable by a fine and driver’s license suspension, to refuse to submit to breath testing. The New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled in two cases that alleged due process violations because of summonses that cited the wrong code section. In both cases, State v. Dito and State v. Horton, the summonses cited the implied consent statute, rather than the section making refusal an offense.The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from depriving persons of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” One aspect of this requirement involves “fair notice” of potential criminal penalties for specific conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court has found statutes to be unconstitutional for failing to provide fair notice. In a 1964 decision, Bouie v. City of Columbia, the court held that a trespass statute did not clearly define the offense, such that the defendants knew that their conduct was illegal.

The defendants in Dito and Horton argued that New Jersey’s implied consent and refusal statutes present a similar question. The implied consent law, found in § 39:4-50.2 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes, states that anyone operating a vehicle on a public roadway in New Jersey “shall be deemed to have given his consent to the taking of samples of his breath” in DWI investigations. It does not, however, prescribe any penalty for refusing to provide a breath sample. The provisions for penalties are found in § 39:4-50.4a, which mandates driver’s license revocation and a fine.

The question presented in Dito and Horton was whether a summons for refusal that cites § 39:4-50.2 instead of § 39:4-50.4a constitutes “fair notice.” The defendant in Dito moved to dismiss the refusal charge in municipal court on this ground. The Law Division granted the motion, holding that “that the error was fatal because it failed to inform defendant of the nature of the charge against him.”

Continue reading

by

New Jersey DWI (driving while intoxicated) and related offenses are not considered criminal offenses. Instead, they are classified as traffic offenses, meaning that the maximum penalties, while still potentially quite onerous, are generally not as severe as in many criminal cases. A case involving alleged DWI can include criminal charges when injury or death occurs, but a defendant may also be subject to criminal prosecution merely for driving while their license is suspended (DWLS) when they have prior DWI-related convictions. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division recently considered what prior convictions are necessary for the criminal DWLS statute to apply in State v. Dougherty.

New Jersey’s criminal DWLS statute imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 days in jail. The statute identifies two scenarios based on the reason for the license suspension and the defendant’s prior record.
1. An ordinary DWLS charge can become a criminal charge if the license suspension is because of a conviction for first-time DWI or refusal to submit to breath testing, and the defendant has a prior conviction for DWLS during the same period of license suspension. This provision appears to require two prior convictions: one for DWI or refusal, and one for DWLS.
2. The criminal statute may also be invoked if the reason for the license suspension is a second or subsequent DWI or refusal conviction. This provision does not require a prior conviction for DWLS, but does require multiple prior DWI or refusal convictions.

The defendant in Dougherty was charged with criminal DWLS under the second scenario identified by the statute. He was convicted of DWI in August 2015, resulting in a three-month license suspension. In November 2015, he was convicted of refusal and sentenced to a seven-month license suspension. A police officer pulled him over while driving in December 2015, during the suspension period resulting from the refusal conviction. A grand jury indicted him for criminal DWLS.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) statute allows prosecutors to use several methods to try to prove that a defendant was too impaired to operate a vehicle. One of these methods requires test results showing that a defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.08 percent or higher, the so-called “legal limit” for DWI. This is the preferred method for most prosecutors, and New Jersey law helps facilitate the collection of BAC evidence. Refusal to submit to a breath test is a separate traffic offense alongside DWI, punishable by a fine and license suspension. Courts have expanded the scope of the refusal statute beyond merely refusing even to attempt to provide a breath sample. The Alcotest device used by New Jersey police to measure BAC requires a sizeable sample, and a refusal charge can result from not trying hard enough. The New Jersey Appellate Division reviewed this sort of situation recently in its decision in State v. Hernandez.

Under New Jersey law, anyone operating a motor vehicle on a public road is deemed to have given their consent to providing a breath sample to police upon suspicion of DWI. This “implied consent” law overrides any concerns about Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless searches or Fifth Amendment rights regarding testifying against oneself. A conviction for a first refusal offense can result in a license suspension for seven months to one year. For a second offense, the period of suspension is two years. A 10-year license suspension comes with a third or subsequent conviction. Fines range from a minimum of $600 for a first offense to a maximum of $2,000 for a third or subsequent offense.

New Jersey police use a device known as the Alcotest 7110 MK III-C to measure BAC. A New Jersey Supreme Court decision from 2008, State v. Chun, established various standards and procedures for the Alcotest. The device requires a minimum sample size to ensure consistency and, to the greatest extent possible, accuracy. Most people must breathe into the device enough to produce 1.5 liters of air, although for women over the age of 60, this minimum amount is lowered to 1.2 liters. They must also breathe into the device for at least four and a half seconds, something that may not be possible for some people. Courts have attempted to distinguish between people who are incapable of providing a sufficient breath sample and those who could provide a sample but do not do so.

Continue reading

by

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right against self-incrimination. The extent of this protection is not always clear, however, and the right to refuse to provide information to police has limits. In driving while intoxicated (DWI) investigations, suspects are often asked to provide breath samples for chemical testing. The evidence obtained from breath testing can provide the state with nearly all of the information it needs to bring a DWI charge. In New Jersey DWI cases, providing a breath sample is actually mandatory under the law. Is this the sort of self-incrimination covered by the Fifth Amendment? A long line of court decisions says that no, it is not, but understanding why may be helpful in understanding the rights a DWI defendant does have.

Under New Jersey law, a refusal to submit a breath sample for chemical testing, upon a request by police, is a motor vehicle offense punishable by a fine and a driver’s license suspension. New Jersey courts have imposed strict requirements for submitting to breath testing. Anything other than unambiguous agreement could constitute refusal. A 2007 decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division, State v. Spell, held that a DWI suspect has no right to request testing after they have already refused. In that case, the defendant claimed he was having chest pains and could not provide a breath sample, but he told an officer he was feeling better after a hour. He offered to submit a sample at that time, but the officer “declined because defendant had already refused.”

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This applies to sworn testimony in a court of law, which is where we get the term “pleading the Fifth.” It also protects the “right to remain silent” during custodial police interrogations, which generally means after a person has been placed under arrest and advised of their rights. In most situations, a person must affirmatively state that they are invoking their right against self-incrimination, or else police may continue questioning them.

Continue reading

by

When police detain and question a person on suspicion of driving while intoxicated (DWI), the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect that person’s rights. The Fourteenth Amendment officially extended most of the Bill of Rights to state-level law enforcement, meaning that local police are subject to the same constraints as the federal government. In the context of New Jersey DWI cases, the Fourth Amendment states that police cannot detain someone, such as by pulling over their vehicle, without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The Fifth Amendment states that a defendant cannot be forced to testify against themselves, and limits the state’s ability to use certain statements made by defendants against them in court. Exactly when this right against self-incrimination applies has been a matter of ongoing dispute in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has made several rulings specifically addressing incriminating statements in DWI cases.

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the right against self-incrimination during police interrogation is Miranda v. Arizona, decided in 1966. Information obtained by police from a person, after they have invoked their “right to remain silent” during “custodial interrogation,” is inadmissible in court. While people can refuse to answer police questions at almost any time, Miranda obligates police to advise people of their rights in specific scenarios. Many subsequent court decisions have found that Miranda only applies once a person has been formally placed under arrest and read this list of rights. Whether a person is “under arrest” during a traffic stop is a complicated question.

Police do not typically give Miranda warnings to DWI suspects at the beginning of a traffic stop. Still, officers may ask questions of a driver, and ask the driver to perform field sobriety tests. With some exceptions, courts do not consider this to be a “custodial interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda. Police are therefore not obligated to advise people of their Miranda rights at this point, placing the burden of invoking the right against self-incrimination on the driver.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey’s implied consent law states that a person who operates a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways of this state is deemed to have consented to providing breath samples during investigations of suspected driving while intoxicated (DWI). Prior to collecting a breath sample in this situation, a police officer must read a “Standard Statement” explaining the law and the consequences of refusing to submit a sample. Penalties for refusal can include license suspension, monetary fines, and the use of an ignition interlock device. A defendant appealed his refusal conviction under the “confusion doctrine,” which the New Jersey Supreme Court described in a 1987 decision, State v. Leavitt. The Appellate Division rejected this argument in June 2016 in State v. Byrne, holding that the “confusion doctrine” only applies to refusal cases in very limited circumstances.

Law enforcement officers throughout the country are required to read a list of rights to a person during or shortly after their arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court established this obligation in its 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona. This list of rights, which begins with the familiar phrase “You have the right to remain silent,” is commonly known as “Miranda rights.” The process of reading those rights to someone is sometimes called “Mirandizing” them.

The Standard Statement used in DWI arrests in New Jersey is significantly different from the Miranda statement. While the Miranda statement discusses an individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination—i.e., the “right to remain silent”—and the right to representation by an attorney, the Standard Statement says that these rights do not apply with regard to the taking of a breath sample.

Continue reading

by

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” by police, requiring them first to obtain a warrant from a judge. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a Fourth Amendment challenge to state laws regarding “implied consent,” by which anyone operating a motor vehicle on that state’s public roads is considered to have consented to breath testing in investigations of suspected driving while intoxicated (DWI). Unlike New Jersey’s implied consent statute, the statutes at issue, from Minnesota and North Dakota, impose criminal penalties, including jail time, for refusing to submit to breath testing. The court’s eventual decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota is still likely to have an impact on New Jersey DWI law.

Evan Levow, President of the DUI Defense Lawyers Association (DUIDLA), was part of the amicus team from DUIDLA that submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

New Jersey law defines refusal as a traffic offense, which is generally not subject to as great a penalty as a criminal offense. A New Jersey refusal conviction results in a license suspension and a fine, but no jail time. For a first conviction, the period of license suspension is seven months to one year, and the fine is $300 to $500. This increases to two years’ suspension and a $500 to $1,000 fine for a second offense, and 10 years and $1,000 for a third or subsequent conviction. Penalties are further increased if an offense occurred in the vicinity of a school.

The North Dakota statute being challenged in Birchfield includes refusal in its definition of DWI, making it a misdemeanor or felony offense to refuse “a chemical test, or tests, of the individual’s blood, breath, or urine.” New Jersey’s law, it is worth noting, only requires breath testing. The penalty for a first offense does not appear to include jail time, but a second offense carries a mandatory minimum of 10 days in jail. A felony offense includes “at least one year and one day’s imprisonment.”

Continue reading

Contact Information

1415 Marlton Pike East #400
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

TOLL FREE: (877) 593-1717

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Levow DWI Law, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design