New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich – Mixing Prescription Drugs and Alcohol—A Dangerous Combination

March 1, 2016 by

When an individual is arrested for driving under the influence, law enforcement may opt to charge them with driving under the influence of alcohol, a drug, or a combination of both. A person can be found guilty even if the amount of alcohol consumed would be less than the legal limit of .08 percent. This is because the combined effect of drugs and alcohol can produce a synergistic effect—such that even if either substance alone might not impair the driver, their combined effect renders a driver profoundly impaired.

In New Jersey, you can be charged with a DWI even if you are under the influence of over-the-counter drugs or prescription medication that has been legally prescribed to you. Many recent studies demonstrate that common medications, particularly allergy medications, may impair a person’s driving even more than alcohol.

Common medications that can result in a drug-impaired driving charge include:

  • Sleeping pills, such as Ambien
  • Allergy medication, such as Benadryl
  • Cough syrup, such as Nyquil or Codeine-based syrups
  • Prescription painkillers, including Tylenol 3, Vicodin and OxyContin
  • Anti-anxiety medications, such as Ativan, Xanax and other benzodiazepines
  • Antidepressants
  • Muscle relaxers

In the typical scenario where both drugs and alcohol are involved, police will first arrest a motorist for driving under the influence of alcohol. Then, after administering field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer test, if the breathalyzer results and field sobriety test results do not correlate (because the driver appears to be more impaired than the breathalyzer results indicate), police may seek blood or urine samples to determine whether the driver is under the influence of drugs.

Many drugs stay in a person’s system for long periods of time, and can be detected in a person’s blood or urine long after the impairing effects have worn off. Therefore, to be convicted of a DWI in New Jersey for drug use, a driver will most likely be subject to a series of tests conducted by a drug recognition expert. If such an expert is not available at the police station when the driver is tested, the test results may become inadmissible in court.

New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Defends Motorists Accused of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol

Respected New Jersey DUI lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich has a vast knowledge of the technicalities of DWI law and has successfully defended countless clients against DWI charges. If you have been charged with driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, you have rights. To discuss your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients in Ocean County, Monmouth County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Union County and Somerset County, including Union, Dover, Brick, Jackson, Wall, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Evesham, Howell, Robbinsville, Bound Brook, Neptune, Hamilton, Linden City, Bridgewater and Tinton Falls.

 

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, DWI - DUI, Mixing Prescription Drugs and Alcohol, New Jersey Attorney Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Field Sobriety Tests in New Jersey

February 16, 2016 by

New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich

Field Sobriety Test Attorney in New Jersey

When you think of getting pulled over for suspected drunk driving, you might think of police administering a breathalyzer test to determine whether you are intoxicated. Or you might think of the more “old school” field sobriety tests depicted in so many movies, where police ask a driver to walk in a straight line, follow a flashlight with their eyes, or count while standing on one foot.

In New Jersey, law enforcement officers are supposed to conduct both types of testing. A field sobriety test is often given first at the side of the road, so police can build probable cause to conduct a breathalyzer test later at the police station or take you to the hospital for a blood test. Another reason police have you perform field sobriety tests is because it is used to serve as “backup” evidence in case the breathalyzer results are later found to be inadmissible. However, the results of field sobriety tests are also often inadmissible, because so many factors can invalidate results.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed three specific tests that, if performed properly, are considered reliable evidence of intoxication, but only two of them can be admitted as proof of intoxication in New Jersey:

The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test

In performing this test, officers will ask the driver to follow a small object, usually a flashlight or pen, with their eyes. In order for results to be accurate, the object must be held 12-15 inches away from the face and just above the eyes. Not all individuals are appropriate candidates for this test. An officer should check for equal pupil size and other indications that the driver may have a medical disorder, head injury or visual impairment, in which case the test should not be administered. In New Jersey, this test is not considered scientifically reliable and it cannot be admitted as proof of intoxication at trial.

The Walk and Turn

This test involves walking a straight line, heel to toe. Signs of impairment include not keeping balance while instructions are being given, starting before the officer instructs you to, stopping while walking, missing the heel to toe step, stepping off the line, using arms to balance, turning improperly or taking the wrong number of steps. Certain factors create good reasons for challenging the results of this test—for example if a person has balancing problems, is overweight, elderly, wearing high heels, has a knee injury, or if the test is conducted in a bad area such as poor lighting, garbage in the road, or an uneven road surface.

The One-Leg Stand

Officers will require a driver to stand with his or her arms down, and lift one foot six inches off the ground with pointed toes, looking down at the raised foot while counting out loud (one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, etc.) for thirty seconds. Signs of impairment include swaying, use of arms to balance, hopping or putting down a foot. Again, many people are not good candidates for this test. Advanced age, health conditions, inappropriate footwear or terrain all call the reliability of this test into question.

There is no statutory penalty for refusing to perform a field sobriety test, however if you do refuse, a judge is allowed to treat your refusal to do them as if you were too drunk to do them, so make sure you do the tests if asked.

On paper, these field sobriety tests seem simple enough. But are they? It’s late at night, you are tired, police cars are flashing lights, you are surrounded by police with flashlights pointed at you. It quickly becomes a very intimidating experience as you are wondering to yourself if you are going to lose your license and go to jail. This is exactly why if you find yourself in this situation, you need to contact us immediately.

Top New Jersey DWI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Defends Against Invalid Field Sobriety Test Results

Hiring the right New Jersey drunk driving lawyer can mean the difference between a life altering conviction, or a mere bump in the road of your life. To discuss your case, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients in Ocean County, Monmouth County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Union County and Somerset County.

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI, Field Sobriety Tests, New Jersey Attorney Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects DWI – DUI Refusal Challenge

January 29, 2016 by

On January 28, 2016 a New Jersey Appellate Court rejects a DWI / DUI refusal challenge that the Standard Statement police are required to read is defective. The argument is that the Statement does not fully advise a person in custody for suspected DWI / DUI of the exact potential penalties they will be charged with if they refuse to provide a breath sample for testing to determine if they are drunk driving in New Jersey.

The defendant argued that “she should have been told that the mandatory minimum license revocation would be seven months,” and that “up to 20 years can mean anywhere between 0 days to 20 years.” She also challenged that she should have been told the mandatory minimum fine would be between $300 and $500, and that it would result in her having to install an ignition interlock device in her vehicle for a certain period of time.

In reality, the situation does potentially get even more confusing because in New Jersey – when a person is arrested for suspected DWI / DUI – most times, just prior to being read this Statement, they are also advised of their Miranda Rights, and the police then have them sign a rights card. Miranda says you have a right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney. Then one minute later, you are read the Statement, which says you have no legal right to have an attorney, that you cannot remain silent, and that you must answer the question.

The take away from this, do not drink and drive, but if you are asked to provide a breath sample by a law enforcement officer, provide it, then hire a New Jersey DWI / DUI lawyer / attorney to help you. (you must supply at a minimum 2 good breath samples for the Alcotest to generate a test result and avoid a refusal charge.)

janz

Click the below link for the sourced article from the New Jersey Law Journal – January 28, 2016 by Michael Booth

NJ Court Rejects Challenge to Breath-Test Refusal Warnings

 

Contact DUI – DWI Defense Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich

To schedule a free initial consultation, contact my office online or call us at 732-257-1137. Evening and weekend consultations are available by appointment. I accept all major credit cards.

The Office of Edward M. Janzekovich can help if you have been arrested and charged with DWI / DUI in Union County, Ocean County, Monmouth County, Middlesex County, Burlington County, Mercer County & Somerset County.

We also serve the New Jersey cities of Union, Dover, Brick, Jackson, Wall, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Evesham, Howell, Robbinsville, Bound Brook, Neptune, Hamilton, Linden City, Bridgewater & Tinton Falls.

 

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Current Events, Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI, New Jersey Appellate Court Decisions, New Jersey Attorney, Refusal to Submit a Breath Sample Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Drunk Driving Discovery

October 26, 2012 by

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — DISCOVERY — DRUNK DRIVING

14-2-8052 State v. Carrero, App. Div. (Sabatino, J.A.D.) (28 pp.) We review discovery orders separately issued in these two DWI cases authorizing defense counsel and/or defense experts to inspect and photograph rooms within the police stations where their respective clients provided breath samples on the Alcotest device in order to verify that the tests were properly administered. In Carrero, such access was granted to help ascertain whether devices emitting radio frequency interference (RFI) had been located in the station within 100 feet of the testing area. In Baluski, such access was granted to help ascertain whether the interior layout of the station physically prevented defendant from being observed for the required 20 minutes before testing. We reverse the discovery orders because neither defendant has shown a reasonable justification to conduct the requested inspection. We conclude that Carrero’s request is insufficient in light of the Supreme Court’s binding legal and evidentiary determination in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825, 129 S.Ct. 158, 172 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), that the Alcotest is designed in a manner that is “well shielded from the impact of any potential RFI,” and also in light of the state’s countervailing security interests disfavoring routine civilian access to the interior of a police station.

We conclude that Baluski’s request is likewise insufficient because he has presented no affirmative basis to believe that an officer failed to observe him for the 20 pretesting minutes required by Chun, 194 N.J. at 79, and also in light of the state’s countervailing security interests.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI Tagged With: , , ,

AUTOMOBILES — DRUNK DRIVING — LICENSE SUSPENSION

October 25, 2012 by

05-2-8058 Foehner v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Appellant Robert Foehner appeals from the Motor Vehicle Commission’s (MVC) denial of an administrative hearing before imposing a 3,650-day suspension of his driver’s license due to a fourth conviction for an alcohol-related offense. The MVC asserts that appellant was convicted of his first DUI on May 28, 1986, his second on November 2, 1990, his third on December 19, 1992, and the fourth on September 21, 2011. The first three offenses occurred in New Jersey; the fourth occurred in Arizona.

On appeal, appellant notes that the driving history provided with the notice of suspension contained only one prior alcohol-related motor vehicle offense dating back to December 19, 1992. He argues that, as a matter of procedural due process, he is entitled to an agency hearing to evaluate the legal and factual bases for the imposition of a 3,650-day suspension. The appellate panel disagrees and affirms the suspension. Appellant does not contest that he has been convicted of DUI on four occasions, nor does he raise any legal issues to be addressed by the MVC. Rather, appellant merely contends that the MVC did not provide him with proof of all four of his DUI convictions when it initially issued the suspension notice. Since no disputed issues of material fact existed, and no legal issues were raised, no evidentiary hearing was required before the mandatory suspension was imposed.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Driver's License Suspension, Drunk Driving Tagged With: , , , , , ,

POST – CONVICTION RELIEF

September 21, 2012 by

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

14-2-7407 State v. Hall, App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief . On September 25, 2000, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant, a Jamaican national, pled guilty to two counts of first-degree armed robbery. On June 8, 2010, defendant filed a PCR petition, alleging counsel was ineffective because he failed to warn defendant about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The PCR judge denied the PCR request without a hearing, concluding defendant’s petition was time-barred.The PCR judge did not consider the merits of defendant’s request. On appeal, defendant argues his PCR request was not time-barred because the immigration consequences of his plea were not revealed until his 2009 release from prison, followed by the effectuation of the immigration detainer. He then consulted with counsel who advised he was subject to deportation based upon his prior guilty plea.

The record demonstrates that when the five-year filing deadline elapsed, defendant had no reason to suspect his attorney had potentially rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. Not until defendant was taken into custody by ICE in 2009, upon release from state custody, did he realize the consequences of his guilty plea and the possible deficiencies of his attorney’s performance. Concluding these are exceptional circumstances warranting a delay in the filing of the PCR petition, the appellate panel reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing. \

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Court Case Verdicts, Criminal Law Tagged With: , ,

DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL

September 21, 2012 by

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL

14-2-7618 State v. Vanderkooy, App. Div. (18 pp.) Defendant challenges his convictions for driving while intoxicated, refusal to take a breathalyzer test, and speeding in the Law Division at a trial de novo based on the record developed in the municipal court.

The panel affirms, finding that:

  1. defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial where both parties are responsible for various delays, whether due to scheduling conflicts, discovery delays, or requesting a Frye hearing, the amount of time elapsed is mostly due to the Frye hearing, and defendant did not prove prejudice sufficient to warrant a speedy trial violation;
  2. defendant was not denied the requested discovery regarding the radar gun or the State’s radar gun expert;
  3. the State presented sufficient evidence of the scientific reliability of the Stalker Dual SL radar device used by police;
  4. there was sufficient evidence in the record of the operator’s training and testing of the radar device to admit the radar reading into evidence;
  5. defendant cannot establish that the municipal court judge or trial judge erred in finding the police officer’s testimony credible; and
  6. based on the officer’s observations and defendant’s conduct, it is clear that probable cause to arrest existed and the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of DWI.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, DWI - DUI Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

CRIME VICTIMS GET GREATER ROLE IN PROSECUTION OF THEIR CASES

August 12, 2012 by

New Jersey has enacted a law giving victims greater involvement in the prosecution of criminal cases, especially in the plea-bargaining process. The law, signed Tuesday, supplements an existing bill of rights by allowing victims to attend judicial or juvenile proceedings concerning the crime and to appear in any proceedings that implicate their rights. It also gives them standing to file a motion or to present argument on a motion filed by someone else in order to enforce their rights.

They will have a right to consult with the prosecution before any plea agreement can be reached, and the prosecutor must inform the court about the conversation and say whether the victim approves of the plea deal.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, New Jersey Attorney Tagged With:

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – EXPUNGEMENTS

July 30, 2012 by

14-1-6924 In re Kollman, Petition for Expungement, Sup. Ct. (Rabner, C.J.) (32 pp.) Defendants seeking relief under the statute’s new five-year pathway to expungement have the burden of proving why expungement of a criminal record is in the public interest. Because petitioner appears to have met that burden, the court reverses the denial of his expungement application and remands to the trial court to assess the petitioner’s character and conduct as of the date of its new ruling.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Court Case Verdicts, Criminal Law, Expungement Tagged With: , , , ,

Disclaimer : The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

Law Office of Edward M. Janzekovich
540 Old Bridge Turnpike
South River, NJ 08882
Phone: 732-257-1137 Fax: 732-791-1437
E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 Law Office of Edward M. Janzekovich.
All Rights Reserved.