The Ticket Crusade In New Jersey For DWIs Has Begun – 114 Police Departments Received Grants To Help With The Effort

As the holiday season approaches, police all over New Jersey have begun their crusade on taking down individuals who are driving while intoxicated and impaired. The campaign with the attached slogan “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” will be in effect until January 1st, 2021. According to the Division of Highway Traffic Safety, drivers who plan on celebrating should be aware of reinforced patrols and more checkpoints.

Last year, police officers in New Jersey made 1,380 DWI arrests involving drugs and/or alcohol during the “Driver Sober or Get Pulled Over” campaign. Law enforcement has stated that 129 people were killed in drunk driving accidents the previous year in New Jersey. Furthermore, out of the 10,000 people who were killed throughout the US, 559 of those fatal incidents occurred in New Jersey.

As a result, the Division of Highway Traffic Safety has allocated $656,340 in grants to help 114 law enforcement agencies in the state. Eric Heitmann, the director of the Division of Highway Traffic Safety, said, “Our mission is to ensure that travelers on New Jersey roadways reach their destinations safely — especially during the holiday season when crash risks increase. We pursue this mission through programs like ‘Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over’ that raise public awareness of the dangers of impaired driving and provide law enforcement with funding for enhanced enforcement.”

The following is the list of 144 law enforcement agencies that will obtain grants for the “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” campaign:

Atlantic County

  • Absecon $6,000
  • Atlantic City $9,000
  • Brigantine $2,400
  • Egg Harbor City $3,000
  • Galloway $8,400
  • Hamilton Township $7,200
  • Hammonton $2,400
  • Mullica $6,000
  • Northfield $6,000
  • Pleasantville $6,000

Bergen County

  • Elmwood Park $6,000
  • Fairview $6,000
  • Fort Lee $6,000
  • Garfield $6,000
  • Hackensack $6,000
  • Leonia $6,000
  • Lodi $6,000
  • Maywood $6,000
  • New Milford $6,000
  • Oradell $1,800
  • Palisades Park $6,000
  • Paramus $6,000
  • Teaneck $6,000

Burlington County

  • Cinnaminson $6,000
  • Evesham $7,200
  • Mount Laurel $6,000
  • Pemberton $6,000
  • Riverside $6,000

Camden County

  • Barrington $6,000
  • Camden County Metro $9,000
  • Gloucester Township $6,000
  • Pennsauken $9,000
  • Pine Hill $6,000
  • Stratford $6,000
  • Winslow $6,000

Cape May County

  • Lower $6,000

Cumberland County

  • Millville $7,200
  • Vineland $9,000

Essex County

  • Belleville $6,000
  • Bloomfield $7,200
  • East Orange $7,200
  • Newark $12,000
  • Nutley $6,000

Gloucester County

  • Monroe $6,000
  • Mantua $3,840
  • Paulsboro $2,400
  • Pitman $2,400
  • Rowan University $3,600
  • Washington Township $8,400
  • Westville $3,600
  • Woodbury $3,600

Hudson County

  • Bayonne $6,000
  • Hoboken $6,000
  • North Bergen $7,200
  • Union City $7,200

Hunterdon County

  • Clinton Township $6,000
  • Franklin Township $1,920
  • Frenchtown $1,920
  • Lebanon $2,400
  • Raritan Township $1,500
  • Tewksbury $1,920

Mercer County

  • East Windsor $6,000
  • Ewing $6,000
  • Hamilton Township $8,400

Middlesex County

  • Dunellen $6,000
  • East Brunswick $7,200
  • Edison $7,200
  • Metuchen $6,000
  • Monroe $6,000
  • North Brunswick $6,000
  • Old Bridge $8,400
  • Sayreville $7,200
  • South Brunswick $6,000

Monmouth County

  • Allentown $6,000
  • Brielle $6,000
  • Englishtown $6,000
  • Red Bank $6,000

Morris County

  • Chester Township $6,000
  • Hanover $6,000
  • Jefferson $6,000
  • Morristown $6,000
  • Parsippany-Troy Hills $6,000
  • Rockaway Township $6,000

Ocean County

  • Barnegat $6,000
  • Berkeley $6,000
  • Brick $9,000
  • Jackson $7,200
  • Lacey $6,000
  • Mantoloking $6,000
  • Ocean Gate $6,000
  • Ocean Township $6,000
  • Point Pleasant Borough $6,000
  • Seaside Heights $6,000
  • Stafford $6,000

Passaic County

  • Hawthorne $6,000
  • Little Falls $6,000
  • Passaic $9,000
  • Paterson $9,000
  • Pompton Lakes $6,000
  • Woodland Park $6,000

Somerset County

  • Bernardsville $1,800
  • Branchburg $1,920
  • Far Hills $1,920
  • Franklin Township $3,000
  • Hillsborough $1,920
  • Manville $2,880
  • South Bound Brook $1,920
  • Warren $2,880

Union County

  • Linden $8,400
  • Plainfield $7,200
  • Roselle $6,000
  • Summit $6,000
  • Sussex County
  • Franklin $6,000

Sussex County

  • Hopatcong $6,000

News Source: www.NJ.com

Bicycle vs. Scooter DWI

Two questions are often asked of me concerning whether someone can be convicted for a DWI when riding a bicycle or scooter while intoxicated. To be precise, the questions that I get are, “Can I get a DWI for being drunk on a bike?” or “What happens if I get stopped for being drunk on a scooter?” In New Jersey, the laws governing DWIs are applied differently to operating a motorized scooter while intoxicated and to riding a bicycle while intoxicated.

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (DWI law) specifies that it is illegal for a person to operate a “motor vehicle” while intoxicated. Under N.J.S.A. 39:1-1, a “motor vehicle” is defined as “all vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power, excepting such vehicles as run only upon rails or tracks and motorized bicycles.” The same statute defines “motorized scooters” as “a miniature motor vehicle and includes, but is not limited to, pocket bikes, super pocket bikes, scooters, mini-scooters, sport scooters, mini choppers, mini motorcycles, [and] motorized skateboard… This term shall not include: motorized bicycles.” A bicycle is defined under N.J.S.A. 39:4-10.1 as “a vehicle with two wheels propelled solely by human power and having pedals, handle bars and a saddle-like seat.”

As anyone can see, a bicycle is defined differently than a motorized scooter under New Jersey law. And a motorized scooter is defined differently than a motorized bicycle. Unlike a bicycle, a motorized scooter is not allowed on public streets, sidewalks or highways. N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.12. Therefore, it is illegal to operate a motorized scooter in almost any public area (unless authorized by municipal ordinance). However, N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.12 does not reference the use of the scooter while intoxicated or reference the DWI laws in relation to using a scooter.

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.3g addresses the operation of a motorized bicycle while intoxicated and states that the intoxicated driver of a motorized bicycle shall be subject to the penalties under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (DWI law) that apply to drunk drivers of an automobile. Obviously, it is illegal to operate a motorized bike while drunk, but the illegality of drunk motorized scooter driving is not as obvious. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 states that the definition for a “motorized scooter” does not include “motorized bicycles.” And N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.3g mentions motorized bicycles, not motorized scooters. Additionally, the definition for a motor vehicle creates an exception for motorized bicycles and does not mention motorized scooters at all. Therefore, an argument can be made that there is no prohibition against operating a motorized scooter while intoxicated.

Nonetheless, the law division in Somerset County, NJ, decided a case in 1982 that addressed the possibility of intoxicated use of a bicycle as being considered a drunk driving offense. In State v. Tehan, 190 N.J. Super. 348 (Law Div. 1982), the court determined that the statute concerning the rights and duties of a bicyclist, under N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1, requires a person riding a bicycle to obey all of the traffic laws in New Jersey, included the DWI laws. Using this line of reasoning, the court determined that an intoxicated bicycle operator could be found guilty of a DWI. Yet, since there was no licensing requirement for a bicycle, a bike rider found guilty of the DWI charge could not have a license of any kind forfeited.

Later cases concerning drunk bicycle operating contradicted the ruling in State v. Tehan. So, the reasoning in the Tehan case has lost much of its weight. Most legal practitioners agree that a person cannot be convicted under the DWI laws for this behavior, since a bike is clearly not a motor vehicle in any way, shape or form. Moreover, the law division in State v. Johnson, and State v. Machuzak ruled that N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (DWI) does not apply to bicycles and a bike rider cannot be found guilty of drunk driving.

With regard to riding a motorized scooter while intoxicated, there appears to be no legal authority, aside from Tehan, that authorizes a person to be charged with DWI for operating a motorized scooter while intoxicated. However, that does not preclude a police officer from charging someone with the offense. If a person is charged with a DWI for being intoxicated while using a scooter, then a strong legal challenge should be made to fight the charge.

Boating While Intoxicated And Sobriety Testing

In New Jersey, it is an offense under the Commerce and Navigation statutes to operate a water vessel while intoxicated (BWI). N.J.S.A. 12:7-46 establishes the penalties if an operator is found guilty.

A person who violates this section shall be subject to the following:

(1) For a first offense:

(i) if the person’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or the person operates a vessel while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to operate a vessel owned by him or in his custody or control or permits another person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10% to operate a vessel, to a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $400; and to the revocation of the privilege to operate a vessel on the waters of this State for a period of one year from the date of conviction and to the forfeiting of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of three months;

 (ii) if the person’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher, or the person operates a vessel while under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a vessel owned by him or in his custody or control, or permits another person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more to operate a vessel, to a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $500; and to the revocation of the privilege to operate a vessel on the waters of this State for a period of one year from the date of conviction and to the forfeiting of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than seven months nor more than one year.

 (2) For a second offense, to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000; to the performance of community service for a period of 30 days, in the form and on the terms as the court deems appropriate under the circumstances; and to imprisonment for a term of not less than 48 hours nor more than 90 days, which shall not be suspended or served on probation; and to the revocation of the privilege to operate a vessel on the waters of this State for a period of two years after the date of conviction and to the forfeiting of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of two years.

 (3) For a third or subsequent offense, to a fine of $1,000; to imprisonment for a term of not less than 180 days, except that the court may lower this term for each day not exceeding 90 days during which the person performs community service, in the form and on the terms as the court deems appropriate under the circumstances; and to the revocation of the privilege to operate a vessel on the waters of this State for a period of 10 years from the date of conviction and to the forfeiting of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of 10 years.

a. Upon conviction of a violation of this section, the court shall collect forthwith the New Jersey driver’s license or licenses of the person so convicted and forward such license or licenses to the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. In the event that a person convicted under this section is the holder of any out-of-State motor vehicle driver’s or vessel operator’s license, the court shall not collect the license but shall notify forthwith the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission , who shall, in turn, notify appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction. The court shall, however, revoke the nonresident’s driving privilege to operate a motor vehicle and the nonresident’s privilege to operate a vessel in this State.

 b. A person who has been convicted of a previous violation of this section need not be charged as a second or subsequent offender in the complaint made against him in order to render him liable to the punishment imposed by this section against a second or subsequent offender. If a second offense occurs more than 10 years after the first offense, the court shall treat a second conviction as a first offense for sentencing purposes and, if a third offense occurs more than 10 years after the second offense, the court shall treat a third conviction as a second offense for sentencing purposes.

Many questions exist concerning the prosecution of a boating while intoxicated charge. Aside from a breath test, how can a prosecutor prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Unlike a motor vehicle on the road, operators of water vessels are not expected to keep the vessel moving in a lane or even in a straight line. Often, operators navigate their boats with long arcing motion or zig-zags. Unless there is a near collision, the State would have difficulty showing that the typical vessel operating behavior is erratic and indicative of intoxication.

If a vessel is stopped by the police or some other law enforcement agency, such as the coast guard, then that stop has to be justified by reasonable suspicion that the operator has violated a commerce and navigation statute or is otherwise engaged in criminal activity. During the investigative stop, the law enforcement officer will most likely administer field sobriety tests while the operator is on the vessel. These tests could involve balance. But how can someone have a fair opportunity to perform balance tests on a vessel floating in the water? The short answer is that it is impossible.

Studies have been conducting concerning the effectiveness of field sobriety testing for suspected boating while intoxicated investigations. These studies involved the administration of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (an eye test) and various seated tests. None of the tests administered involved balance. In fact, one of the studies mentioned that balance tests on a boat were not feasible.

I have encountered a number of BWI cases where the investigating officers laughably based their decisions on the performances of balance tests, such as the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests, while the operator was still on the water vessel. As one could imagine, those cases did not last too long and were eventually dismissed. So, if you are arrested for boating while intoxicated (BWI), remember that there are numerous defenses concerning these cases, which could call into question the legitimacy of the investigation and arrest.

The Hidden Downside To Mandated Vehicle Breathalyzers

Drivers in New Jersey convicted of drunk driving are required to install small breathalyzers in their personal vehicles. The breathalyzers are devices called ignition interlock. These devices are directly wired into a car’s ignition system, most notably the steering column, and serves as a precaution against driving drunk. The ignition interlock device will not allow a driver to start or operate their car until he or she blows into its mouthpiece.

While on the road, the interlock will request additional breath samples to ensure that the driver is sober. The tests are known as rolling retests and are checked at random. The driver won’t know when to breathe into the cellphone sized device until it indicates the retest. If the driver does not provide a breath sample when the interlock device demands one, the vehicle goes into panic mode. Contrary to a popular misconception, the car will not shut off its engine if a breath sample is not provided or if the driver produces a high alcohol level during the rolling retest. Instead, the interlock device will log the event, warn the driver, and the car will start honking and flashing its lights until the vehicle is turned off or provided an acceptable sobriety sample.

Ignition interlock devices have prevented thousands of accidents and states that mandate these devices for drivers convicted of drunk driving have seen 15% fewer fatal car accidents. However, the device may not be entirely risk-free, and though created to hinder accidents, ignition interlock devices in some cases have also caused them.

Drivers who were once convicted of drunken driving, but who have since complied with the law find themselves at a higher risk of causing accidents due to rolling retests on ignition interlock devices.

In November 2017, Blake Cowan struck Alexis Butler’s car while she was backing out of her driveway. Cowan, at the time, was required to provide a rolling retest to prove his sobriety while driving. Though he passed the retest, Cowan dropped the device on the floor and tried to retrieve it in case he needed to provide more rolling retests. Trying to reach for the device, Cowan became distracted, and subsequently hit Butler’s car.

Tragically, Butler passed away a week later from her injuries. Two months after the accident, Cowan pleaded guilty and was charged with manslaughter. He’s serving 16 years in prison, and according to his lawyer, Charles Smith, Cowan has tried to commit suicide twice.

Unfortunate events, such as Cowan’s case, have raised questions on the safety of ignition interlock devices and rolling retests. For drivers who are trying to rectify their wrongs, they face strict penalties that may become a double-edged sword. At the risk of doing the right thing, Cowan caused an accident that landed him with a higher criminal conviction and a lengthy prison term. For drivers in New Jersey who face a similar situation, it is crucial to seek the counsel of a DUI attorney in Cherry Hill, NJ, as soon as possible. Convictions involving death lead to severe consequences, and a knowledgeable attorney can identify the best solutions for these types of criminal charges.

The number of ignition interlock devices installed in vehicles is currently rising. An annual industry report estimates that there are about 350,000 people in the United States who have the devices in their cars. Though not all states require the installation of interlocks, there are 34 states mandate the device if a person is convicted of drunk driving, even if it’s their first offense.

Similar laws mandating ignition interlock devices throughout more states are underway, and legislation demanding that all new vehicles carry a version of the device is also being considered. If the legislation passes, new vehicles could be carrying a version of the interlock device as early as 2024.

However, the downsides to interlocks that exist are hidden behind the positive attention that the ignition devices receive. The potential for a driver to become distracted while operating their vehicle due to rolling retests is not fully disclosed or made widely public. The companies responsible for manufacturing ignition interlock devices seem more concerned with burying or discrediting any negative implications.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal regulator in charge of vehicle safety equipment standards, drafted a document in 2010 stating that the agency “does not intend” that drivers perform rolling retests. Instead, the agency advises that the driver should be stopped on the side of the road for rolling retests.

However, the industry surrounding interlocks opposed the remarks made by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Interlock industry leaders argued that rolling retests were safe and that expecting drivers to pull over was impractical.

The president of LifeSafer, a vendor for interlock devices, wrote to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, mentioning that the majority of rolling retests occur while a car is moving.

With other vendors and manufacturers conveying the same reaction, the federal regulator relented. In their 2013 guideline, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration demonstrated their concern about distracted driving and left the issue up to the states and local jurisdictions to manage.

The federal regulator, vendors, and manufacturers may have tucked the issue of distracted driving and rolling retests aside, but the fact remains that accidents due to interlocks often occur.

Research by The New York Times of accidents and lawsuits due to ignition interlock devices revealed numerous cases. For instance, in California, a man hit another vehicle on a highway when he crossed the line dividing the lanes while trying to perform a rolling retest. The driver attempting the retest injured a woman and killed her husband.

In Pennsylvania, a man blew so hard into his device that he blacked out and crashed into a tree. The driver almost severed his left hand. Another driver missed a curve in the road while reaching for his interlock device and woke up after someone else was trying to tell him that he was in an accident.

Aside from accidents from distracted driving caused by ignition interlock devices, the breathalyzers can give false positives. When a driver blows into the mouthpiece, a false positive can be triggered by certain foods, snacks, mouthwash, breath mints, toothpaste, and gum. Doughnuts and chocolate can even result in a false positive.

Smart Start, an industry leader in interlocks, advises that drivers stay away from sugary snacks and the like before blowing into the device. False positives can lead to serious legal repercussions. A person can land in court to face the consequences. It is imperative to involve an experienced Cherry Hill DUI attorney who can help argue against false charges.

The legal system is complex and a skilled DUI attorney in Cherry Hill, NJ can fight to protect a driver’s rights against false allegations or even a lapse in judgment that results in harsh consequences and charges.

News Source: www.chicagotribune.com