by

Defendants charged with criminal offenses in New Jersey can raise a variety of defenses. These are specific claims or arguments asserting that, even if the allegations against the defendant are correct, the defendant is not criminally liable. Many defenses are derived from the common law, and the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (CCJ) also defines various defenses. Since driving while intoxicated (DWI) is an offense under the Motor Vehicle Code, rather than the CCJ, courts have addressed whether common-law defenses are available in DWI cases on a case-by-case basis. The insanity defense involves the claim that a defendant was incapable of understanding the wrongful nature of their conduct at the time. A Law Division court considered the question of how this might apply to a DWI case at some length in State v. Inglis in 1997.

Insanity is a common-law affirmative defense in New Jersey. When a defendant raises a defense in a criminal case, the prosecution must rebut the defense as a part of their burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An affirmative defense, however, partially shifts the burden to the defendant, who must prove the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

New Jersey uses the M’Naghten rule to identify what a defendant raising the insanity defense must prove in court. The rule derives from an 1843 English case in which the defendant killed the British Prime Minister’s secretary, falsely believing that the secretary was involved in a conspiracy against him. Under this rule, everyone is presumed to be sane, unless they can prove that, at the time of the offense, they suffered from a “defect of reason” or “disease of the mind,” which kept them from either “know[ing] the nature and quality of” their actions, or from “know[ing] what [they were] doing was wrong.” This is, by design, a difficult standard of proof.

Continue reading

by

Most features of law enforcement in the U.S. operate at the state and local levels. These include traffic laws, like those related to driving while intoxicated (DWI). The legal system in New Jersey, like all states, categorizes alleged offenses based on factors like the type of activity involved and the severity of the harm allegedly caused. Major offenses are classified as felonies, and less serious offenses are considered misdemeanors. Traffic offenses are generally not considered criminal offenses at all, although they can still result in fines and jail time. New Jersey treats DWI as a traffic offense in all cases, but other states, like our neighbor, New York, take a different view. A recent case involving a New Jersey resident driving in New York illustrates the difference. An arrest for DWI, combined with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above a certain level and a prior DWI conviction, resulted in felony criminal charges.

DWI and most related offenses, such as a refusal to submit to breath testing and driving with a suspended license, are considered traffic offenses under New Jersey law. Despite the lack of the “criminal” designation, the penalties for a conviction can still be quite serious. A third or subsequent conviction for DWI, for example, results in a minimum jail sentence of 180 days, with credit for up to 90 days in a rehabilitation program. The only DWI-related offense that is considered “criminal” under New Jersey law occurs when a person drives with a suspended license, and the license suspension is due to a prior DWI conviction. This is a “fourth degree crime” and carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 180 days.

New York, much like New Jersey, codifies its DWI laws in the Vehicle & Traffic Law (VTL), rather than its Penal Law. The statute distinguishes among “driving while ability impaired” by alcohol, driving while intoxicated by alcohol, and “driving while ability impaired by drugs.” It identifies “driving while intoxicated per se” as driving with a BAC of 0.08 or higher, and it defines the offense of “aggravated driving while intoxicated” as either (1) driving with a BAC of 0.18 percent or higher or (2) driving while impaired with a child, age 15 or younger, in the car.

Continue reading

by

The New Jersey traffic offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) is not limited to intoxication due to alcohol. The state can charge a driver with DWI based on the alleged presence of almost any substance that can cause impairment. A case currently pending in California demonstrates an unexpected example of this aspect of DWI law. The driver is facing DWI charges based on alleged impairment by caffeine. This type of DWI charge is probably possible under New Jersey’s DWI statute, although no reported court decisions specifically mention it. A bill currently pending in the New Jersey Legislature could prohibit drinking coffee while driving, although it would do so for reasons that are not directly related to DWI prevention.

New Jersey’s DWI statute establishes two types of DWI offenses. If a person drives with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more, that is considered DWI per se. The other type of DWI offense involves operating a motor vehicle “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug.” It is possible for the state to charge someone with DWI even if their BAC was less than 0.08 percent or in the absence of any BAC evidence, but prosecutors tend to favor the use of BAC in order to prove guilt. In a 2010 decision, State v. Marquez, the New Jersey Supreme Court called BAC “the most concrete and important piece of evidence” in a DWI case.

The term “habit-producing drug” is generally construed to mean illegal drugs or prescription medications. It could hypothetically include caffeine, which is known to create both physical and psychological dependence. New Jersey appellate courts have mentioned caffeine in the context of DWI, but it does not appear that they have ever dealt with it as an alleged intoxicant. The Appellate Division considered a DWI case in 2011, State v. Driscoll, in which the defendant was convicted of DWI despite zero-percent BAC, in part based on poor performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. The defendant had a prescription for Fioricet with codeine, which also contains caffeine. The court reversed her conviction. The court also cited caffeine as a possible complicating factor in HGN tests in a 2000 decision, State v. Doriguzzi.

Continue reading

by

In 2014, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill, A2280, mandating dashboard video cameras for all new police vehicles used in traffic enforcement. The Governor signed the bill into law in September of that year, but as of mid-2016, the widespread use of dashboard cameras is unlikely to become a reality anytime soon. Dashboard camera evidence can be crucial for defendants charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and other traffic offenses. The fate of the new law, however, comes down to money. A2280 provided funding for the mandate by increasing the $100 surcharge imposed in DWI cases by $25. After a New Jersey township complained that the additional surcharge was insufficient to cover the cost of the cameras, a governmental body known as the Council on Local Mandates (CLM) ruled that A2280 is an “unfunded mandate,” and therefore it is in violation of the New Jersey Constitution. The ruling also invalidated the increased surcharge imposed by A2280. The CLM left open the possibility of reviving the bill, most likely through new legislation.

Under New Jersey’s DWI statute, prosecutors can prove that a defendant was intoxicated or impaired in multiple ways. A blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher creates a presumption of intoxication, but even without this kind of evidence, a police officer can testify about their observations of the defendant. They frequently testify about a defendant’s appearance, stating that they looked “glassy-eyed” or “flushed,” their behavior, and their performance on field sobriety tests. This type of evidence essentially asks municipal court judges to decide who is more credible between a police officer and a DWI suspect. Video evidence of a traffic stop, while not always helpful to the defense, can directly contradict an officer’s testimony about a defendant or even challenge the justification for the traffic stop itself.

The original sponsor of A2280 was motivated by his own experience with a traffic stop that led to charges of DWI and refusal to submit to breath testing. Video footage from a dashboard camera in the officer’s patrol car differed significantly from the officer’s description of what occurred during the stop. The charges were dismissed, and the officer eventually faced criminal charges, including perjury. A2280 requires municipal police departments to equip all newly acquired vehicles that are “primarily used for traffic stops” with dashboard cameras. It adds an additional $25 to the DWI surcharge to fund the acquisition of the cameras.

Continue reading

by

The holidays are a time of happiness and celebration for many people, but law enforcement officials are aware of the risks to public safety potentially posed by too much celebration. Police departments throughout New Jersey have announced increased enforcement of state laws regarding driving while intoxicated (DWI) during the holiday season. They have many means of doing this at their disposal, from traffic stops based on a reasonable suspicion that a person might be impaired by alcohol, to roadside checkpoints intended to check drivers for DWI. While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of police to stop and search people, and those limits have just as much force during the holidays as at any other time of the year, courts have allowed police to operate DWI checkpoints subject to certain requirements. We encourage everyone to enjoy the holidays and be safe, and to know their rights under state and federal laws.

New Jersey’s DWI statute makes it a motor vehicle offense to operate a vehicle “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” or with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08 percent. This means that police can arrest someone on suspicion of DWI, and prosecutors can pursue charges, even without evidence of a BAC above the legal limit. To do so, they must present other types of evidence, such as testimony from an officer who observed a defendant at or near the time of their arrest and can describe behavior, appearance, or other conditions indicative of intoxication.

The holiday season often features parties in bars and other public venues and in people’s homes. Police across the state are participating in the two-week “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over 2016 Year End Holiday Crackdown,” a program supported by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety (DHTS). Local law enforcement agencies may obtain grants from the DHTS to assist in implementing the campaign, which includes “saturation patrols” by police and increased use of roadside DWI checkpoints.

Continue reading

by

New Jersey prosecutors often rely on evidence of a defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to prove guilt in driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. Police officers typically determine a person’s BAC by testing a breath sample. All police departments in this state use a device known as the Alcotest for this purpose. The Alcotest is prone to errors, and it requires continual maintenance. We were involved in a New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. Chun, that established specific procedures police must follow to maintain the Alcotest device. Failure to follow these procedures ought to result in suppression of the breath testing results. A pending lawsuit in a New Jersey federal court is calling thousands of Alcotest results into question due to allegedly fraudulent records. The plaintiff in Ortiz v. New Jersey State Police claims that thousands of DWI defendants throughout the state would have challenged the BAC evidence in their cases, had they known about the alleged failure to follow the procedures established by Chun.

Prosecutors can establish the required elements of DWI without BAC evidence, but state law gives them a compelling reason to prefer such evidence. A defendant with BAC of 0.08 percent or higher—commonly known as the “legal limit”—is presumed to be impaired within the meaning of the DWI statute. BAC of 0.10 percent or higher can result in even greater penalties. Anyone driving a vehicle on public roads in New Jersey, according to state law, has given implied consent to provide a breath sample on suspicion of DWI, and refusal to do so is a separate motor vehicle offense.

Devices that purportedly use a breath sample to measure BAC first appeared in the mid-20th century. The Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C became the device for New Jersey law enforcement during the early 2000s. It uses two methods to measure BAC: infrared spectroscopy and electrochemical cell technology. Regular maintenance and careful calibration are what the State says make the process reliable. The purpose of the Chun decision was to attempt to ensure that this happens.
Continue reading

by

In criminal prosecutions, the state has the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an intentionally difficult burden, designed to protect the rights described in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Although driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a motor vehicle offense in New Jersey, rather than a criminal one, most of these protections apply in DWI cases. Defendants can challenge the admissibility or sufficiency of the state’s evidence before or during trial. They can also challenge evidence on appeal or in a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), especially if new information becomes available. Recent allegations of records tampering against an officer of the New Jersey State Police may create ample opportunities for such challenges, since the allegedly fraudulent records potentially affect 20,000 DWI cases statewide.

The New Jersey Rules of Evidence govern the use of evidence in court proceedings. One of the most important rules involves statements made outside the presence of a judge or jury, which are known as “hearsay.” A statement is considered inadmissible hearsay when it is “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” In plain English, a police officer can testify about their own personal observations of the defendant but not about statements made by other people. Public records kept in the ordinary course of government business, such as reports generated by an Alcotest device, are generally excepted from the hearsay rule. This exception, however, is subject to some exceptions of its own.

A 2007 decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division, State v. Kent, addressed the use of documentary evidence in a DWI case. The court held that a chemist report describing the results of a blood test is inadmissible at trial if the defendant does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the individual who prepared the report. The case drew on the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling in Crawford v. Washington, which addressed the admissibility of written statements or reports that are deemed “testimonial” and therefore subject to the hearsay exclusion.

Continue reading

by

A defendant in a New Jersey driving while intoxicated (DWI) case can appeal a negative outcome, but appellate courts are limited in their authority to review some lower court actions. A recent decision by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division illustrates two important issues in a DWI defense. The defendant in State v. Hernandez challenged the evidence that she was intoxicated, arguing that police had her blood drawn without a warrant in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She also, at one point in the appeal, challenged the trial court’s findings regarding the credibility of her testimony as compared to several police officers’ testimony. Limitations on the appellate court’s ability to review factual findings, as well as the timeliness of the defendant’s objections, largely determined the court’s ruling.

The “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows police to conduct a warrantless search if they reasonably believe that there is a substantial risk of the loss or destruction of evidence. Police have used this exception to justify drawing blood from a DWI suspect without a warrant. In 2013, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. McNeely that the human body’s natural process of metabolizing alcohol is not an “exigent circumstance” justifying a warrantless blood draw. Police can still establish legitimate justifications for warrantless blood draws, but McNeely set a much higher standard than before.

Continue reading

by

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) laws allow prosecutors to prove impairment by alcohol in several ways. Evidence of blood alcohol content (BAC), determined by a breath, blood, or urine test, is a well-known method. Prosecutors may also offer witness testimony, particularly testimony by an arresting officer and others who observed the defendant at the time of the arrest. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that no particular expertise is required to form an opinion, which would be admissible in court, that a person is intoxicated based on observation of the person. The New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled in State v. Colabella that a BAC below the legal limit for DWI did not supersede officer testimony regarding a defendant’s intoxication in a DWI case. Even though the person’s BAC was not high enough to create a presumption of impairment, the court accepted other evidence.

A BAC of 0.08 percent creates a presumption of intoxication under New Jersey law. This BAC amount is commonly known as the “legal limit” for DWI, and a DWI offense based on BAC evidence is often known as “per se DWI.” New Jersey law makes it a separate offense to refuse to submit to breath testing. This indicates how important the state considers BAC evidence, but it is not absolutely required for a DWI conviction. The DWI statute defines the offense as driving “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor” or other substances, or with a BAC of 0.08 or higher. Prosecutors can introduce evidence that someone was “under the influence” through officer testimony about how the defendant was driving, their demeanor and appearance, the odor of alcohol, and their performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs).

The defendant in Colabella challenged a DWI conviction when BAC test results showed a BAC below the legal limit. According to the Appellate Division’s opinion, an officer pulled the defendant over for an illegal turn and an expired inspection sticker. The officer testified at trial that he detected a “strong odor of alcohol” coming from the vehicle. He also stated that the defendant had “slow and slurred” speech and “blood shot and watery” eyes, all indicators of alcohol impairment. The defendant reportedly admitted to consuming one beer and some ibuprofen.

Continue reading

by

Defendants in New Jersey criminal cases may be eligible to participate in a Pretrial Intervention program (PTI), which allows them an opportunity to avoid prosecution by focusing on rehabilitation. New Jersey law classifies driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a motor vehicle offense, rather than a criminal offense, although driving while one’s license is suspended (DWLS) due to DWI can lead to a criminal charge in certain circumstances. The New Jersey Appellate Division recently heard an appeal filed by a prosecutor’s office in a criminal DWLS case, State v. Rizzitello. The prosecutor alleged that the trial court wrongfully admitted the defendant into PTI over the prosecutor’s objection. Citing a 2015 New Jersey Supreme Court decision, State v. Roseman, which established guidelines for reviewing a prosecutor’s rejection of a PTI application, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court.

The general standards for PTI programs are established by the New Jersey Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 3:28 of the New Jersey Rules of Court. Rule 3:28 includes a list of guidelines setting forth the purposes of the program, the factors prosecutors should consider in deciding whether to admit an applicant, and various administrative procedures. PTI programs, according to the guidelines, should be available when rehabilitation could “reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior.” Guideline 3(i) provides examples of offenses that are likely to render a defendant ineligible for PTI. Defendants must apply for PTI within 28 days of their indictment, and prosecutors must make a decision within 25 days of receiving an application.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held in Roseman that a trial or appellate court may overrule a prosecutor’s rejection of a defendant’s PTI application if it finds that the rejection was “a patent and gross abuse of discretion” by the prosecutor. The court also noted, based in part on Guideline 3(i), that a presumption against PTI exists for “crimes that are, by their very nature, serious or heinous.” A defendant must show “something extraordinary or unusual” about their background in order to overcome this presumption. The Roseman court cited an earlier decision, 2008’s State v. Watkins, which gave examples of “serious or heinous” crimes, including violent crimes, breaches of the public trust, and “non-drug addicted individuals who sell Schedule I and II narcotics for profit.”

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 © 2025, Levow DWI Law, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design