By Joe B. Truland Jr., Esq.
Summer, 2009 has been busy for DWI case law in the State of New Jersey. The following cases have been recently decided:
State v. Bertrand, Appellate Division-This case ruled that a private parking garage with sufficient room for 300 spaces constituted a quasi-public area sufficient to trigger the requirement that the intoxicated defendant submit to providing samples of his breath. The provisions of NJSA 39:4-50.2 (refusal statute) require that a person who operates a motor vehicle on a public road, street, highway or quasi-public area of the State shall be deemed to have given his consent to providing breath samples to the police when there is probable cause to believe he has operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
State v. Barrow, Appellate Division-The Court ruled that a pair of tiny boxing gloves, measuring 3 ½ inches by 3 ½ inches that were hanging from the defendant's rear-view mirror provided a police officer with sufficient reasonable suspicion to effect a motor vehicle stop of the defendant's car. Although the tiny gloves in question may not have been sufficient to support a conviction at trial for a violation of NJSA 39:3-74, they did provide sufficient reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop.
The provisions of NJSA 39:3-74 provide in pertinent part that “[N]o person shall drive any vehicle so constructed, equipped or loaded as to unduly interfere with the driver's vision to the front and to the sides.” His stop of the defendant's motor vehicle ultimately resulted in the discovery of controlled dangerous substances in the defendant's possession.
This is a very important case in that many people charged with DWI are stopped not for weaving or other suspicious driving, but for technical violations such as a view obstruction hanging from the rearview mirror. This case allows police a broad ability to stop vehicles when fishing for a reason to interact with the occupants of a vehicle.
State v. Coppola, Appellate Division-The Court ruled that the Supreme Court has concluded that the Alcotest is scientifically reliable, subject to certain safeguards. A BAC (blood alcohol content) of .08% constitutes sufficient evidence by itself to prove a “per se” violation of NJSA 39:4-50(a) without regard to any clinical evidence.
State v. Marquez, Appellate Division-The court ruled that New Jersey law authorizes that people who have been arrested for drunk driving can be informed of their obligation to submit to breath-testing solely in English. Further, proof that a defendant understands the warnings (in paragraph 36) is not an element of the refusal offense. The administrative burden placed upon law enforcement to translate paragraph 36 into a wide array of foreign languages would be unreasonable, especially given the time-sensitive nature of obtaining drunk driving blood-alcohol evidence.
State v. Wilkins, Appellate Division-The court concluded that the arresting trooper had read the wrong version of paragraph 36, the special advisement that must be read to all suspects who are required to submit to breath testing following a DWI arrest. The Court held that the misstatements in the incorrect paragraph 36 were not of sufficient significance to have prejudiced the defendant in any way. Note as well in the case the Court's treatment of the so-called 20-minute issue in the context of a breathalyzer case, relying upon the procedure established by the Supreme Court in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008).
