New Jersey Traffic Ticket Attorney Case Results
State v.Z.E. Resolution date: May 23, 2013.
1st offense DWI (N.J.S. 39:4-50) DISMISSED, Failure to Maintain Lane (N.J.S. 39:4-88b) DISMISSED, Reckless Driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96) AMENDED TO CARELESS DRIVING-2pts, Refusal to Submit (N.J.S. 39:4-50.2) GUILTY, Tinted Windows (N.J.S.A. 39:3-74) DISMISSED.
According to the Officer’s narrative, April 5, 2013 while on patrol in marked unit officer observed a vehicle bearing NJ registration not maintaining its lane of travel. Officer indicates he observed the vehicle drift back and forth in the lane in a serpentine manner touching the lane markings on both the drivers side and passenger side wheels. This vehicle also had tinted windows. The officer stopped vehicle and approached driver. Officer indicated driver later identified as E. B, had trouble pulling the registration and insurance card out of the plastic holder. The driver had blood shot eyes and watery eyes and the odor of alcohol emanated from the interior of the vehicle. At which point, the officer demanding the driver to step out of the vehicle in order to perform various field sobriety tests. Outside the vehicle, the officer indicated the driver failed the HGN test (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus), one leg stand tests and heel-to-toe test. As a result, the driver was arrested for DWI. At the station the driver was read New Jersey Attorney General’s Standard Statement for Motor Vehicle Operations dated July 1, 2012 at which point the driver/defendant replied “No” would not submit to breath testing. Notwithstanding, the DWI charge was dismissed against the driver.
State v.W.S. Resolution date: April 4, 2013.
1st offense DWI (N.J.S. 39:4-50), Trial Verdict of Not Guilty.
According to the Officer’s narrative, on January 1, 2013 police responded to an intersection for a report of an unresponsive male behind the wheel of a smoking vehicle. Upon Officer arrival EMS was on scene and the officers observed defendant’s vehicle running and smoking. In response, police pull defendant out of vehicle. The defendant driver was mumbling and generally out of it. Officers immediately asked the defendant/driver if he had alcohol and the defendant responded that he had 4 to 6 beers at the local bar approximately two blocks away. The police requested the defendant to perform various field sobriety tests. The defendant failed each of the three field sobriety tests resulting in his arrest. At the station, the defendant/motorist submitted to a breath test which resulted in a .16 BAC reading. The case proceeded to a trial and the hearing Judge ruled in defendant/motorists favor by dismissing the DWI charge.
State v. K.S. Resolution date: January 12, 2012.
2nd offense DWI (N.J.S. 39:4-50), Directed Verdict of Not Guilty. Failure to maintain lane (N.J.S. 39:4-88b),Dismissed. Reckless Driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), Guilty and a90 day loss of New Jersey driving privileges was imposed by the Court.
According to the Officer’s narrative, on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 while on patrol and working an “over the limit, under arrest” detail, the officer was traveling the area of Route 1 and Jersey avenue. As the officer proceeded north of Jersey Avenue he observed a Chevy Blazer SUV drift from the center portion of the lane, cross over the double yellow lines with the left tire, straddle the line momentarily and drift back to the center of the northbound lane. The officer further observed the defendant regain directional control, the vehicle then drifted right and the vehicle’s right side tires crossed the white fog line on the right side of the north bound lane. At that time the officer effectuated a motor vehicle stop.
The officer further opined that the defendant/motorist spoke with a slur and upon approaching defendant/motorist’s vehicle the odor of alcohol emanated from the vehicle. At that point, the officer demanded that the motorist exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests, such as the walk and turn, heel to toe and HGN. According to the officer, the defendant/motorist failed all field sobriety tests. At the station, the defendant/motorist submitted to a breath test which resulted in a .08 BAC reading.
State v. R.E. Resolution date: November 22, 2011.
DWI offense (N.J.S. 39:4-50), Dismissed. Failure to maintain lane (N.J.S. 39:4-88b),Dismissed. Reckless Driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), Guilty and a 30 day loss of New Jersey driving privileges was imposed by the Court.
On September 4, 2011, defendant/motorist was involved in a multiple vehicle accident whereby, defendant/motorist slammed into the rear of the vehicle directly in-front of him sending that vehicle into a spin. The defendant’s vehicle sustained heavy front end damage and was rendered disable at the scene of the accident. New Jersey State Police arrived at the scene of the accident to provide assistance. According to the arriving New Jersey State trooper, defendant eyes appeared bloodshot and watery, plus the odor of alcoholic beverage emanated from the defendant. At that point the trooper requested the defendant carry-out various field sobriety tests such as HGN, heel-to-toe and one-leg stand. Apparantly, defedenant failed.
At the New Jersey State Police Newark Station defendant submitted to a breath test which rendered a result of .08. Defendant was charged with DWI, reckless driving and failure to maintain lane.
State v. R.W. Resolution date: August 9, 2007.
4th offense DWI (39:4-50), Dismissed.
On June 19, 2011 police were dispatched near motorist/defendant’s home on the report of a possibly intoxicated driver operating a vehicle with two children inside. The police officers were told by dispatch that they received a call from the defendant’s ex-wife indicating that he left a barbecue after drinking all afternoon. The ex-wife further indicated she spoke to her ex on the phone advising him not to drive, but he refused her plea and said he was driving the kids home. The officers stopped the defendant’s vehicle and observed him drinking a Heineken beer in the car along with his two children. The officers claimed the defendant failed both field sobriety tests given at the scene. They further claimed the defendant urinated on himself at the precinct.
State v. C.F. Resolution date: September 21, 2011.
DWI (39:4-50), Dismissed.
On June 13, 2010 campus police observed a Toyota SUV making a u-turn without its headlights on and was traveling 5-10 miles under the posted speed limit. The investigating officer executed a motor vehicle stop. According to the officer, when he approached the vehicle he observed a female driver who was having trouble opening the window and kept “fumbling” around. The officer noted that he smelled alcohol coming from the vehicle and the motorist/defendant was disoriented and spoke with slurred speech. The officer then requested the defendant to perform various field sobriety tests. She refused and became combative and was taken to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation based on her continued screams of wanting to die. At the hospital, the officer had blood drawn from the defendant to determine if she had ingested any alcohol or illegal substances. The lab report returned with positive findings for cocaine and ethyl alcohol.
State v. P.S. Resolution date: April 26, 2010.
DWI (39:4-50), charged with a .13% reading suppressed.
Speeding (39:4-98), Dismissed.
Improper passing (39:4-85), Dismissed .
According to the police officer, I was on patrol when i observed a vehicle stopped in traffic and honking its horn. When the traffic light changed to green, the car sped north on 1&9 passing several vehicles on the right side. I eventually caught up to the vehicle that was traveling in excess of 60 mph. I approached the car and asked the driver for his license, registration and insurance card. I observed his eyes were red and watery. While the driver attempted to get his credentials the officer noticed that the driver’s hands where fumbling and scent of alcohol emanated from the vehicle. The driver then admitted to having a few beers. Thereafter, the officer requested the driver to perform various field sobriety tests including one leg stand and walk and turn test-which the officer related that the driver failed. The officer indicated the driver acknowledged that he was not suffering from any type of injuries that would have impeded his ability to perform the FSTs. At the station, the driver submitted to breath testing which resulted in a reading of .13%. After a 104 hearing the driver/defendant’s breath test result indicating a BAC level of .13% where suppressed.
State v. A.G. Resolution date: September 21, 2010.
DWI (39:4-50), Dismissed.
Refusal to Submit to Breathalyzer (39:4-50.2), Dismissed.
Open Alcohol Container (39:4-51b), Dismissed .
Refusing to Cooperate with Police Direction, Amended to City Ordinance. (2C:29-1A amended to 14-3)
Motorist/defendant lost control of his vehicle and struck a telephone pole. According to police report, the accident took place in front of a stationed police officer patrolling the area. According to the officer, he observed the defendant exit his vehicle and attempt to flee the scene of the accident on foot. The officer immediately intercepted him and observed: inability to stand properly, staggering, fumbling, slurred speech, and smell of alcohol coming from the defendant. The officer requested the defendant to carry out field sobriety tests, and the officer’s opinion was he failed. BAC level .11%
State v. T. L. Resolution date: October 13, 2009.
Second DWI Offense (39:4-50), Dismissed.
Leaving Scene of Accident, Amended to failure to report. (39:4-129 amended to 39:4-130)
State v. M.S. Resolution date: March 31, 2011.
No Insurance, Amended to failure to exhibit. (39:6b-2 to 39:3-29).
Case Details:Officer charged defendant for no insurance and failure to register vehicle. Defendant had no insurance on his vehicle (titled in his name). Defendant permitted insurance coverage to lapse. No loss of driving privileges.
Speeding 120/55 (39:4-98), Dismissed.
Reckless Driving (39:4-96), Dismissed.
Improper Lane Change (39:4-88), Dismissed.
State. A.G. Resolution date: March 20, 2011.
Motorist/defendant was involved in a single vehicle auto accident where he struck a light post. The officer dispatched to the scene observed the defendant unable to stand for any period of time, slurring his speech, disoriented, and unable to speak coherently. The officer demanded the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, such as: heel/toe and one-leg stand. According to the investigating officer the defendant failed all tests.
Third DWI Offense (39:4-50), Dismissed.
State v. R.W. Resolution date: August 9, 2007.
Same defendant as above. Charged with fourth DWI offense which occurred in the same week as the third DWI offense. Motorist/defendant left his home and drove to Blockbuster Video. Leaving Blockbuster the defendant drove over a curb and a concerned citizen telephoned police about a possibly intoxicated driver. The citizen described defendant’s vehicle to police and provided his license plate number. Police stopped defendant outside his house and commenced investigation for DWI.
Fourth DWI Offense (39:4-50), Dismissed.
State v. R.W. Resolution date: August 9, 2007.
State v. A. J. (resolution date 03/08/2013)
Defendant charged with DWI (N.J.S.A 39:4-50), careless driving (N.J.S.A 39:4-97). On May 28, 2013 the Court dismissed the DWI charge without court costs and the defendant/motorist plead guilty to unsafe driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2). As a result, the Court imposed fines and court costs in the total amount of $489.00.
State v. D.F. (06/05/2013)
Defendant charged with DWI (N.J.S.A 39:4-50) and unsafe lane change (N.J.S.A 39:4-88B), failure to keep right (N.J.S.A 39:4-82) and maintenance of lamps (N.J.S.A 39:3-66). The defendant submitted to the Alcotest breathalyzer that resulted in a BAC level of .15% The defendant hired an expert to refute the reading but the expert indicated he was unable to find any errors in defendants processing and/or in the administration of the Alcotest and/or in the substantiating documents on the particular Alcotest device. Notwithstanding, I was able to have the breath test result of .15% suppressed saving the defendant from additional license suspension, added fines, and preventing the mandatory installation of the interlock device.