DWI – DUI

New Jersey DUI/DWI Lawyer Discusses How a Charge Might Affect Your Immigration Status in the Context of DACA and DREAMers

October 6, 2020 by Edward Janzekovich

When anyone is charged with a DUI/DWI offense, the potential consequences can be both terrifying and overwhelming. This is especially true for those who are not US citizens. In considering the current political climate, issues that affect legal and illegal immigrants have been consistently highlighted in the media – it’s hard to go a day without seeing issues like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and DREAMers appear in the news. Recent events have even shown that drunk driving could result in additional consequences for certain non-citizens, because convictions can sometimes lead to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) starting a deportation proceeding.

As always, it is important to understand that this is not a surefire thing. Indeed, every case is different depending on the circumstances surrounding the DUI/DWI charge. That is why it is imperative to contact a skilled New Jersey DUI/DWI attorney immediately after you have been charged, especially if you are not a US citizen and are in the country illegally or on a special visa.

Can a DUI/DWI Impact My Immigration Status?

Under New Jersey law, a DWI charge is considered a motor vehicle offense, rather than a criminal offense. Nonetheless, such a conviction could prevent you from receiving your U.S. citizenship because it is considered to show bad moral character. This is especially true if you have multiple DWI convictions on your record. Additionally, if you are a green card holder, you may have a more difficult time proving good moral character (a requirement on an application for citizenship), with a driving while intoxicated on your record.

New Jersey Municipal Court judges will generally advise individuals who are non-US citizens of the potential immigration consequences associated with guilty pleas or a guilty verdict for a DWI. However, it is best to first consult with a knowledgeable DUI attorney before going to court to make sure you fully understand your rights and options.

Recent Examples of Immigration Enforcement Outside of Courthouses

A New Jersey attorney was recently walking with his client, a young DACA recipient who had just resolved a DUI complaint, outside of a municipal courthouse. Officers from ICE actually showed up and the young man was arrested. Although he was protected as a "DREAMer" under the DACA program, a DUI charge disqualified him for renewal, leaving him vulnerable to deportation.

Apparently, it seems there is an increasing trend of courthouses becoming a focus of ICE. Last month, ICE issued new policy guidelines regarding targeting people while at courthouses. Specifically, ICE indicated it will enter courthouses only for specific targets, such as convicted criminals, gang members, and immigrants who have been previously deported or ordered to leave. ICE indicated it would generally avoid enforcement actions in areas within courthouses dedicated to non-criminal matters, such as family court or small claims court. They also indicated that family members and friends accompanying the targets to court appearances generally wouldn't be subject to civil immigration enforcement action, absent special circumstances.

However, because DUI and DWI enforcement inhabits a quasi-criminal place in the law, it is likely that drunk drivers could become targets for additional immigration enforcement.

New Jersey DUI/DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Can Defend You if You Are Charged with Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated

A conviction on DWI/DUI charges can mean serious penalties – jail time, heavy fines, and loss of license at a minimum. Certain drivers face additional consequences depending on the circumstances of the arrest and the status of the individual – including issues that can result in job loss or that affect immigration status. If you or someone you know is charged with driving under the influence, it is important to have a lawyer who knows what penalties can occur and how to help. A good attorney can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 1-732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: DWI - DUI Tagged With: Immigration Status

NJ DUI Attorney Discusses: New Jersey Man Found Not Guilty of Driving While High Although Found with Marijuana/ THC in His Blood

June 23, 2020 by Edward Janzekovich

A New Jersey case demonstrated why it is so important to get a good DUI/DWI defense attorney if you or someone you know is ever charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. A South Jersey man, Patrick Miller, was charged with driving while intoxicated in addition to two counts of vehicular homicide in a 2015 accident that took two lives. Miller was subsequently tested and found to have THC in his blood. THC is the active ingredient in marijuana.

Based on the results of the blood test, multiple charges were brought and Miller faced up to 20 years in state prison. Prosecutors recommended a sentence of 12 years if he agreed to plead guilty. Instead, Miller plead not guilty, sought legal counsel, and went to trial to fight the charges against him. This past week, he was acquitted, meaning a jury of twelve of his peers agreed that he was not guilty.

The Accident

Patrick Miller’s accident was highlighted in the news after the 28-year-old handyman lost control of his pickup truck and struck a jogger and local teacher, Allison McGinnis. Miller’s truck then struck a tree, flipped over, and killed his passenger, David Eldridge.

The Blood Test

Miller was airlifted from the crash. Accordingly, he was given a blood test while receiving medical treatment – blood tests are very common when a driver who is suspected of DUI or DWI is injured. Because a breathalyzer or breath test cannot be given to a seriously injured driver, police officers will often request a warrant and get a court-ordered blood test to determine if a driver is under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants.

In this case, police officers administered a blood test to see if Miller was under the influence of any substances. 4 nanograms per milliliter of THC were found in Miller’s blood sample. Accordingly, prosecutors blamed the accident on intoxication and decided to bring charges including Driving While Intoxicated and vehicular manslaughter, based on the theory that Miller drove his truck recklessly while intoxicated causing two deaths.

The Defense in the Case

Instead of accepting the plea deal, Miller chose to fight the charges against him. The law requires the state to prove that a driver is actually intoxicated or impaired while operating a motor vehicle. Experts were presented by both the prosecution and the defense to argue that the blood test results were unreliable in establishing intoxication. In fact, Miller’s results – the THC reading of 4 nanograms per milliliter of blood – was below the level set as a standard in many of the states that have legal marijuana — 5 nanograms of THC concentration.

Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has cautioned against using blood tests to determine cannabis impairment, and many lawyers and politicians are concerned that this arbitrary standard could lead to false accusations and flawed charges being brought against marijuana users. One of the major problems in prosecuting driving while high cases is that marijuana can remain in the blood stream long after a person is no longer impaired or under the influence.

In Miller’s case, other defenses included witness testimony that helped show that he was not driving erratically shortly before the accident, nor was he impaired while performing handyman work 20 minutes before the accident occurred. Ultimately, a jury agreed with Miller and his attorney that there was not enough evidence to show that Miller was actually intoxicated or impaired while operating his vehicle.

New Jersey Marijuana Driving Defense Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Can Defend You if You’re Charged

The consequences for driving while high are serious. If you or someone you know is arrested, charged or convicted, an experienced attorney will know how to defend you in a court of law before a judge and jury. Hiring the right attorney matters. A good lawyer can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: DWI - DUI Tagged With: Blood Test

Attention: Nj Municipal And Superior Court Immediate Update; Coronavirus And Covid-19 Closings And Adjournments

March 17, 2020 by Edward Janzekovich

In light of the Coronavirus / COVID-19 National Emergency situation, many non-essential public and private businesses have suspended or restricted operations, including the New Jersey Judiciary, which will affect local, municipal, state, and superior courts.

If you have a current or upcoming court date or hearing scheduled in any court – including traffic court, municipal court, DUI and DWI court, Superior Court, or other judicial proceeding – it may be canceled and postponed to a later date. To find out for sure, you can reach out to the Law Offices of Edward M. Janzekovich for help and guidance.

If you have a DUI/DWI or other hearing scheduled during this time, it will be important to reach out to an attorney and confirm the status of your case. If you are arrested, charged, or convicted during this time, there can also be situations where you will still need to appear, and it is important to reach out to a lawyer for verification.

Municipal Court Closings

On Saturday, March 14, 2020, a notice was issued by the NJ Judiciary, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Acting Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts, Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., directing all Municipal Court sessions be suspended for two weeks. The suspension will begin Monday, March 16 and continue through Friday, March 27, 2020.

Persons who are scheduled to appear before a Municipal Court to contest a traffic or parking ticket, or minor local ordinance violation should not appear and should await notice of a new court date. However, the Municipal Courts will continue to handle certain matters, including detainments, probable cause determinations, applications for temporary restraining orders, Extreme Risk Protective Orders, and search warrants; as well as other matters that implicate public safety.

If you have a DUI/DWI or other hearing scheduled during this time, it may or may not be affected, or it may be switched from an in-person hearing to a telephonic or telecommunication hearing. An attorney can confirm.

The official notice, posted below, can also be found here: https://njcourts.gov/notices/2020/n200314a.pdf?c=ewi

State and Superior Court Closings

Similarly, several notices from the Chief Justice and Administrative Office of the Courts have been issued with direction and guidance regarding closings and postponements. Some, but not all, matters, cases, and hearings before the State Superior Courts have been postponed and will be rescheduled. However, many proceedings will continue through the use of remote communication, and many deadlines and electronic filing requirements remain in place.

If you or someone you know has a matter currently scheduled in front of the County Court, State Court, or Superior Court, it is important to contact an attorney as soon as possible to determine if the matter has been postponed until a later date or if the matter will be proceeding through the use of internet or remote technology.

Moreover, the Administrative Office of the Court is constantly monitoring this situation, and additional meetings are scheduled this week to determine how other cases will be affected moving forward. Therefore, it may be necessary to continue to check on the status of your proceedings on a daily basis to determine if anything has changed.

The March 12, 2020 Notice to the Court can be found here: https://njcourts.gov/notices/2020/n200312d.pdf?c=spB

The March 15, 2020 Notice to the Court can be found here: https://njcourts.gov/notices/2020/n200315a.pdf?c=9yu

Other Court and Judicial Proceedings

An updated schedule of County Superior Court and State Court Closings can be found here: https://njcourts.gov/courts/closings.html

Unfortunately, it will be impossible to cover all the various types of court proceedings in this blog. During this time, if you have a legal matter that requires urgent attention, or if you are unsure if your case is affected by the Coronavirus and COVID-19 closings, you should ask a lawyer immediately.

New Jersey DUI and DWI Attorney, Edward M. Janzekovich, Can Answer Your Questions About Coronavirus and COVID-19 Court Closings

Until further notice, local, municipal, and state court proceedings will be affected throughout the state. An attorney will be able to answer your questions about Court proceedings and check on the status of your matter. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: DWI - DUI, Municipal Court Tagged With: Coronavirus, Covid-19 Closings

NJ DUI and DWI Defense Blog: You Don’t Need to Be Driving to Get a Ticket for Drunk Driving

February 25, 2020 by Edward Janzekovich

Last week, the New Jersey Appellate Division – the second highest Court in the state – issued an opinion reaffirming the fact that you can get a ticket for DUI or DWI even when you are not actually driving a car, truck or automobile. Although drunk driving is often referred to as a DWI (“driving while intoxicated”) or DUI (“Driving Under the Influence”), the law doesn’t actually use the word “driving” at all. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 actually makes it illegal to:

. . . operate[] a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or operate[] a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood . . .

In State v. Thompson, No. A-2011-18T4, decided on February 10, 2020, the Appellate division upheld the long-held rule in New Jersey that “operate” does not only mean “drive,” and you can get a DUI or DWI in other circumstances, such as if you are found asleep behind the wheel of a parked, non-moving vehicle.

The Case of John Thompson

In State v. Thompson, Mr. Thompson was charged with violations of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a), for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2, for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test as required by the law.

These are the important facts according to the opinion:

Mr. Thompson was found asleep at 10:30 p.m. in the parking lot of 7-Eleven in Wanaque, NJ.
He was in the driver’s seat.
The car’s engine was running.
There was a half-eaten sandwich and prescription bottles on the front passenger seat.
The officers stated that they smelled a strong odor of alcohol.
The officers woke him up and he told them he had been asleep for 30-40 minutes.
Mr. Thompson failed a field sobriety test and was arrested.
Subsequently, he told police officers at the station that he was under the care of a physician and was prescribed Methadone, Hydrocodone, Xanax, and Cymbalta.
He also volunteered that he had two drinks within a three-hour period.

Altogether, the state could use this evidence to show not only that Mr. Thompson had the ability to operate the vehicle while intoxicated, but that he likely drove to the 7-eleven while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Mr. Thompson voluntarily told the police officers many of the important details the state would need to convict him.

The Court noted that there is no question this was sufficient evidence to convict him of drunk operation of a motor vehicle, and he was also convicted of refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test.

Why Operation Does NOT Require Actual Driving

Although a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 is known by everyone as DWI, DUI, “driving while intoxicated,” “driving under the influence,” and “drunk driving,” the term “driving” is not found in the body of the law. Instead, “operation” has been interpreted by famous past cases including State v. Tischio, State v. Wright, and State v. Sweeney.

A person sleeping in the driver’s seat of a vehicle while intoxicated, with the keys in the ignition, and the engine running will likely be found to have been operating the vehicle, even if the vehicle never moves. This is known as “the possibility of motion.”

New Jersey Drunk Driving Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Believes You Deserve a Good Defense

The state is not automatically entitled to a guilty verdict or conviction for DUI/DWI if a person is found asleep in a parked car. There are several important factors that the state will need to prove, and which an experienced attorney can use to have the charges dismissed. If you or someone you know is arrested, charged for, or convicted of DUI or DWI, it is important to contact a good attorney as soon as possible. A good attorney can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: DWI - DUI Tagged With: drunk driving

New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney – Are Women More Likely to Get a DUI than Men if Arrested? Why?

February 4, 2020 by Edward Janzekovich

There’s no question that there are more men who are arrested for drunk driving than women. However, the gap in the number of DUI and DWI arrests between men and women is getting smaller every year. And, studies suggest that, if a woman is pulled over, she will be more likely to be convicted of DUI than a man under the same circumstances. Today, on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog, we’ll look at some of the statistics and some of the reasons why.

National and New Jersey Drunk Driving Statistics by Gender

In 1980, only about 10% of drunk driving arrests were women – and 90% were men. In 2016, that number had risen to nearly 25% for women and 75% for men.

In 2008, women were behind the wheel in 15% of all drunk driving fatalities in the United States, compared to 85% for men, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In 2017, the percentage for women had increased to 20% for drunk driving incidents involving at least the loss of one life.

Clearly, the number of women who are being arrested is increasing steadily over time, although men are still nearly 4 times more likely to be convicted of drunk driving. The simplest explanation for the increase is that women are now driving more than ever before: social and cultural changes have led to more women driving. These changes have also led to more women drinking outside the home. Nonetheless, if a woman does get behind the wheel, and is then pulled over, she will also be more likely to be arrested and convicted. Why?

Women May be More Likely to Be Convicted of DUI or DWI Once Arrested

Although women may be less likely to get behind the wheel than men while drunk, the studies suggest that once pulled over, a woman will be more likely to be arrested or convicted than a man under the same circumstances. One well-known reason is that women are generally lighter than men. Therefore, a woman who consumes the same amount of alcohol as a man will likely have a higher blood alcohol concentration.

However, weight is not the only factor at play. Multiple research studies have concluded that women will have higher blood ethanol concentrations (BAC) than men after consuming the same amount of alcohol, even after the study is controlled for weight. One of the ways the body breaks down alcohol is through an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase. Studies have concluded that men may have 2 to 4 times as much alcohol dehydrogenase in the stomach as women, meaning women may reach the same BAC after consuming half as much alcohol as a man who weighs the same.

In summary, women may not process alcohol as efficiently as men AND women tend to be lighter. Therefore, a woman can become legally intoxicated faster than a man under the same circumstances, having the same number of drinks: it just takes less alcohol for women to reach the legal limit of .08% BAC than for men.

New Jersey DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Knows that Anybody Can be Charged with DUI

If you have been charged with DUI or DWI, you deserve a good lawyer, no matter who you are. Everyone is entitled to a lawyer, and a good attorney can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: DWI - DUI Tagged With: Drunk Driving Statistics

NJ Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer – Politician? Police Officer? Celebrity? No one is Above the DUI Law

January 7, 2020 by Edward Janzekovich

Every week, local and national newspapers are full of headlines about people getting arrested for drunk driving, drugged driving, and driving while high. And if there is one common theme about who lands in the news, it’s that anybody can be arrested and land in the news for DUI and DWI – from politicians to police officers to celebrities and professional athletes – no one is too important to be arrested for intoxicated driving. No one is above the law.

Police Officers Are Under Strict Observation

Years ago, police officers may have been more willing to let a driver off with a warning if he or she were pulled over for drunk driving – especially if nobody got hurt. Now, as a result of the modern requirement that police officers and law enforcement film all encounters with civilians, police officers are under strict observation. Anyone who is pulled over that shows any sign of intoxication will likely be arrested.

Even if a police officer does not know for certain if you are drunk, he or she will most likely err on the side of caution and bring you into the station for a breathalyzer test. In order to arrest a driver, a police officer does not need to know that you are drunk with 100% certainty. Rather, he or she need only have probable cause to believe that you were driving drunk.

Once you are brought into the station, the breath test will be the best evidence to confirm whether or not you are guilty of drunk driving. As we often remind our readers here on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog, it is illegal to refuse to take a breath test in New Jersey. Refusing to submit to a breath test is a quasi-crime just like DUI and DWI, and carries the same or harsher penalties.

Recent NY Politician Arrested for DUI

The recent arrest of New York State Assembly minority leader, Brian Kolb (R), on New Year’s Eve is the perfect example of how nobody is above the law.

Ironically, Senator Kolb had recently written an article warning readers not to drink and drive during the holiday season, specifically recognizing the National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month, which we previously highlighted on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog.

Senator Kolb was subsequently involved in a one-vehicle accident with no injuries, and he was subsequently arrested by Ontario County Sheriff’s Office. A breathalyzer test revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above the legal limit of .08% – the same legal level as in New Jersey. Senator Kolb then issued an official policy to his friends, family and constituents.

New Jersey Police Officers Arrested for DUI and DWI

Recent headlines have also demonstrated that New Jersey sheriff’s officers, police officers, and other law enforcement officers are in the same boat. Even if you work in an official capacity for the government, it is unlikely that you will be given any special treatment or leeway when pulled over. Many times, an arresting officer will be even more strict in enforcing the rules against a fellow officer, so that there will be no appearance of impropriety, unfair treatment, or official misconduct.

Unfortunately, when you work in an official capacity, the statutory penalties for DUI or DWI may be the least of your worries. Your career may also be severely affected by a loss of license or by rules that prohibit employees from receiving any such convictions.

Here, at the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog, we understand how devastating a DUI or DWI can be for anybody. That’s why we believe everybody is entitled to effective representation from an experienced drunk driving defense lawyer.

New Jersey DUI and DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Can Help If You’ve Been Charged

If you work in the kind of job where getting a DUI or DWI could get you fired, you know how important getting the right lawyer can be. It’s important to get an attorney who is willing to fight for you. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: DWI - DUI Tagged With: dui, dwi

ATTENTION! New Jersey Drivers and Drunk Driving Defense Lawyers –Directive #25-19 Discussion: Part 2

December 18, 2019 by Edward Janzekovich

Last week, here on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog, we discussed the first part of the official court notice was sent out to all New Jersey judges and court administrators on December 4, 2019. The Directive comes straight from the desk of the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts – the Honorable Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D – and it addresses the new law drunk driving law that went into effect on December 1, 2019. Today, we continue to break down the directive and what it means for those facing charges of DWI after December 1, 2019.

Directive #25-19 (“Implementation of New DWI Law (L. 2019, c. 248) – Includes Expanded Use of Ignition Interlock Devices for First-Time Offenders”) can be found on the NJCourts.gov website at https://njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n191205b.pdf?c=Uc5

One of the most important and useful parts of the new Directive was the inclusion of new standard forms and notices that the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts is circulating to assist local municipalities and courts to advise defendants of their new rights and responsibilities.

Important Changes to Forms and Notices to Offenders

Ignition Interlock Information and Notification Form – this form must be completed at sentencing by every defendant convicted with DWI or refusal AFTER December 1, 2019. Importantly, this form also has a section where a defendant can attest that they do not own, lease or have the ability to drive a motor vehicle. Found on Page 18 of the Directive.
Order and Certification – Intoxicated Driving and Related Offenses Form – this is a form the court completes at sentencing that has now been modified. The modifications include removal of any reference to the “school zone” violation, providing a new check box for license forfeiture for an indeterminate time period for certain first-time offenders. All convicted defendants are required to provide a copy of this form to the ignition interlock installer they hire. Found on Page 19 of the Directive.
Notification of Enhanced Penalties for Subsequent DWI or Driving on the Revoked List Convictions Form – this form advises defendants convicted after December 1, 2019 of potential future penalties if they are convicted of a subsequent DWI or found driving during a period of license forfeiture. Notably, this new form supersedes all the past versions of the form and under the directive is now required to be provided to all defendants found guilty of DWI or refusal, including those charged prior to December 1, 2019. Found on Page 20 of the Directive.

Important Procedural Change Regarding Removal of the Ignition Interlock Device

The AG Directive also provides clarification regarding the procedure for removing a court-ordered ignition interlock device. Specifically, it explains that once an offender completes the required installation period, the offender is eligible to have the interlock device removed from his or her vehicle IF they have complied with the necessary conditions during the installation period, as discussed previously on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog. If they have successfully complied with the conditions, the ignition interlock installer is required to provide the offender with a certification that they can take to the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) indicating their successful completion.

Alternatively, if the installer determines that an offender has failed to comply with one or both conditions specified by law, the vendor is then required to send notice of the non-compliance to BOTH the Motor Vehicle Commission and the relevant municipal court. The installer is expected to provide specific reasons why the offender did not comply, such as what requirement was violated. If a municipal court receives such a notification, by law they then must determine whether to extend the ignition interlock period (potentially up to another 90 days) or else advise the MVC that the offender has satisfied their ignition interlock requirements. This is all determined at a court hearing, where the offender gets the opportunity to refute a claim that he or she was non-compliant. As always, if you or someone you know has been arrested, charged, or convicted of DUI/DWI and is undergoing this difficult process, it is important to get good legal advice from an experienced attorney as soon as possible.

NJ DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Discusses Information You Need to Know

The law is constantly changing. If you or someone you know has been arrested, charged, or convicted of DUI or DWI, it is important to speak with an experienced attorney who is always up to date on the newest changes. Hiring the right lawyer can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI Tagged With: drunk driving, Penalties

New Jersey DUI/DWI Defense Law Blog Important Update – New Penalties for Driving Drunk in New Jersey are Now in Effect

December 3, 2019 by Edward Janzekovich

As previously reported on the Edward M Janzekovich law blog, a new drunk driving law was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Murphy earlier this year. On December 1, 2019, the law officially went into effect.

In passing this law, New Jersey became the 34th state to pass an all-offender law – meaning it would apply to all drunk driving offenders – and joined Kentucky in passing an all-offender vehicle breathalyzer legislation. This brings significant changes in consequences for those convicted of DUI in New Jersey. The new law brings about several changes to the penalties associated with being convicted of driving under the influence.

Please note that this law will not be applied retroactively. This means that if you were arrested in November 2019 or earlier, and were charged with DUI/DWI, then the old sentencing laws and penalties will apply.

A Summary of the New Law

There has been a lot of confusion of what the new law actually says, because the legislature released several different versions of the bill as it was passed by the Senate and the Assembly.

In short, the new law essentially eliminates license suspensions for most first offenders, while requiring all motorists convicted of DWI to install ignition interlock devices (IIDs) in their vehicles.

Specifically, the statute drastically changes the penalties for first time offenders convicted with a blood alcohol content (BAC) reading below .10%. Once convicted, these drivers will be required to keep an IID on their cars for 3 months. After that, he or she will need to blow into it every time they want to start the engine. If the driver has a BAC of 0.05% or above, the car won’t start.

First offenders with a BAC from .10% to under .15%, the IID maintenance period is seven months to one year (7-to-12 months).

Finally, first offenders with a BAC over 0.15% can still receive a license suspension of 4-6 months and must install an interlock for an additional 9-to-15 months under the new law.

A second offense exposes the driver to a license suspension of up to two years and requires interlocks for 2-4 years.

For all convicted drivers, his or her license is suspended until he or she can prove an IID has been installed.

The Actual Text of the New Law

The two sections of the law that have received the most important changes are N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (“Driving While Intoxicated”) and N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.17 (“Ignition Interlock Device as an Additional Penalty”). For your benefit, the relevant sections of the law, effective December 1, 2019, are as follows:

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50
Driving while intoxicated

(a) A person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood or permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle the person owns or which is in the person’s custody or control or permits another to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood shall be subject:

For the first offense:
- if the person’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to operate a motor vehicle 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 motor vehicle, to a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $400 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days . In addition, the court shall order the person to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State until the person installs an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle the person owns, leases, or principally operates, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);
- if the person’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher, or the person operates a motor vehicle 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 motor vehicle 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 motor vehicle, to a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $500 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days ;
  in the case of a person who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug or permitting another person who is under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by the person or under the person’s custody or control, the person shall forfeit the right 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;
  in the case of a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, the person shall forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State until the person installs an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle the person owns, leases, or principally operates, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);
  in the case of a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.15% or higher, the person shall forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than four months or more than six months following installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle the person owns, leases, or principally operates, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);
- (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2019, c. 248)
For a second violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 30 days, which shall be of such form and on terms the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 48 consecutive hours, which shall not be suspended or served on probation, or more than 90 days, and shall forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than one year or more than two years upon conviction.
After the expiration of the license forfeiture period, the person may make application to the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a license to operate a motor vehicle, which application may be granted at the discretion of the chief administrator, consistent with subsection (b) of this section. For a second violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).
For a third or subsequent violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of $1,000, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 180 days in a county jail or workhouse, except that the court may lower such term for each day, not exceeding 90 days, served participating in a drug or alcohol inpatient rehabilitation program approved by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and shall thereafter forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for eight years.

For a third or subsequent violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.17
Ignition interlock device as an additional penalty

- Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection,
  - in sentencing a first offender under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of R.S.39:4-50, whose blood alcohol concentration was at least 0.08% but less than 0.10%, or who was otherwise under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court shall order, in addition to any other penalty imposed by that section, the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the offender , whichever the offender most often operates, which shall remain installed for three months.
  - In sentencing a first offender under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of R.S.39:4-50 whose blood alcohol concentration was 0.10% or higher, but less than 0.15%, the court shall order, in addition to any other penalty imposed, the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the offender, whichever the offender most often operates, which shall remain installed for not less than seven months or more than one year.
- If the first offender’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.15% or higher, or the offender violated section 2 of P.L.1981, c. 512 (C.39:4-50.4a), the court shall order, in addition to any other penalty imposed under R.S.39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L.1981, c. 512 (C.39:4-50.4a), the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the offender, whichever the offender most often operates, during and following the expiration of the period of license forfeiture imposed under those sections. In addition to installation during the period of license suspension, the device shall remain installed for not less than nine months or more than 15 months, commencing immediately upon installation of the device and the return of the offender’s driver’s license pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.18) after the required period of forfeiture has been served.
In sentencing a second or subsequent offender under R.S.39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L.1981, c. 512 (C.39:4-50.4a), the court shall order, in addition to any other penalty imposed by that section, the installation of an ignition interlock device in the motor vehicle principally operated by the offender during and following the expiration of the period of license forfeiture imposed under R.S.39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L.1981, c. 512 (C.39:4-50.4a). In addition to installation during the period of license forfeiture, the device shall remain installed for not less than two years or more than four years, commencing immediately upon installation of the device and the return of the offender’s driver’s license pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1999, c. 417 (C.39:4-50.18) after the required period of forfeiture has been served.
The court shall require that, for the duration of its order, an offender shall not drive any vehicle other than one in which an ignition interlock device has been installed pursuant to the order.
The offender shall provide to the court information identifying the motor vehicle on which the ignition interlock is to be installed, and any other information deemed relevant by the court, including, but not limited to, the offender’s complete name, address, date of birth, eye color, and gender. An offender who does not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle shall attest to this to the court. A violation of this provision shall constitute perjury pursuant to N.J.S.2C:28-1. An offender immediately shall notify the court of the purchase, lease, or access to operation of a motor vehicle and install an ignition interlock device in the vehicle.
The driver’s license of an offender who attests to not owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle shall be forfeited for the ignition interlock installation period required pursuant to subsections a. and b. of this section.

Please note that many websites continue to display the old or incorrect text for the law with regard to these sections.

No Matter How the Law Changes, NJ DUI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Is Ready to Fight for You

If you or someone you know has been arrested, charged, or convicted of DUI or DWI, or if you have any questions about changes to the law, you can call our offices today to speak with an experienced attorney. A good lawyer can make all the difference in your situation. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Driving Under the Influence, DWI - DUI Tagged With: DUI/DWI Defense Law

New Jersey DWI Defense Blog – New Report Discusses the Rare Medical Condition Known as Auto Brewery Syndrome

November 26, 2019 by Edward Janzekovich

Here, on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog, we understand that you can be falsely accused of intoxicated driving – in fact, innocent people are arrested for DUI or DWI every day. There are many reasons why a police officer may suspect you have been operating a vehicle under the influence, although you are not actually drunk, high, or drugged. However, even if you have alegitimate defense for the charges against you, there is a good chance that the police, prosecutor, or court will not believe you unless you can present that defense properly.

Often, defenses involve medical conditions that cause you to exhibit intoxication-like symptoms -making it appear as if you have been drinking and driving, even when you haven’t. One such rare condition is called Auto Brewery Syndrome. Recently, the BMJ Open Gastroenterology medical journal published a new article discussing the case of a man who was arrested for DWI in North Carolina and tested on a breathalyzer at 2.5 times the legal limit, even though he had nothing to drink that day.

Regardless of the circumstances, if you or anyone you know has been charged with drunk driving, drugged driving, or driving while high, it is important to consult with an experienced defense lawyer as soon as possible. Only a good lawyer will be able to review your case and present the best defenses on your behalf. Depending on your situation, it may be possible to have the charges against you dismissed completely.

The North Carolina Man with Auto Brewery Syndrome

The BMJ Open Gastroenterology medical journal discussed the history of the subject driver: In 2014, the 46-year-old North Carolina man was arrested for DWI. He refused a breathalyzer analysis and was hospitalized. Medical providers tested his blood and found a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) measured at .20%, which is 2.5 times the legal limit of .08%. The hospital personnel and police refused to believe him when he denied having anything to drink.

After hearing about a similar case in Ohio, the man began doing his own investigation and reached out to medical providers. At one point, researchers found that his body naturally generated a BAC as high as .4% or 5 times the legal limit!

After numerous tests, they discovered elevated levels of saccharomyces cerevisiae (also knownas brewer’s yeast) and s. boulardii in his system. To investigate the man’s condition further, doctors collected gastrointestinal secretions and discovered fungal cultures positive for Candida albicans and C. parapsilosis – types of fungus. Ultimately, researchers theorized that the symptoms were triggered by exposure to antibiotics, which allowed his stomach and intestine to over grow certain fungi that allowed for the auto brewery syndrome to develop. Anti-fungal treatments were successful in returning his body back to normal.

So, What is Auto Brewery Syndrome?

Auto Brewery Syndrome also known as gut fermentation syndrome. The medical condition results from an imbalance of gut microorganisms. Symptoms involve turning carbohydrates to alcohol inside your stomach and intestines – causing you to get drunk even though you have not had any alcohol. People who suffer from Auto Brewery Syndrome often become intoxicated as the result of eating too much bread or sugar.

Having a condition like this can be extremely hard to diagnose and treat. For instance, Auto Brewery Syndrome is still not well-understood by the scientific and medical community, and the BMJ Open Gastroenterology researchers believe the condition may be under-diagnosed meaning there may be more people with Auto Brewery Syndrome than currently believed.

If you or someone you know feels like he or she has been falsely accused of DUI or DWI, it will be important to reach out to an experienced defense attorney as soon as possible. Proving a scientific or medical defense in court will be very difficult but not impossible. A good attorney will know how to find the right evidence to support your defense. An experienced drunk driving attorney may be able to have the charges against you dropped completely.

New Jersey DUI/DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Can Help If You Have a Medical Defense

If you have been falsely accused of drunk driving, you need the right lawyer to help present your defense. A good lawyer will know what evidence and experts you need to win. An experienced DWI/DUI attorney can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Driving Under the Influence, DWI - DUI Tagged With: Auto Brewery Syndrome

New Jersey Drugged Driving Defense Lawyer – New Research Finds Field Drug Identification Tests are Unreliable and Can Easily Result in False Positives

November 14, 2019 by Edward Janzekovich

Headlines continue to pour in from all over the country with stories of drivers arrested for drugged driving after police officers find “drugs” in the vehicle – except it later turns out that the “drugs” were not really drugs at all and were misidentified by the drug tests used by officers in the field. Now research has backed up these stories, and it turns out many common items – from powdered sugar to baby formula to spearmint – can confuse the common drug tests used by many police departments in New Jersey and across the country.

While testing eventually proved that many of the people who were falsely accused were actually innocent, almost every person was arrested and spent time in jail and then plead guilty or plead to lesser charges before the test results came back. What this means is that, if you or someone you know is charged with DUI, DWI, drugged driving, or driving while high and the police are relying on drugs or marijuana found in the vehicle, you need to contact an experienced attorney as soon as possible. Only a good lawyer will be able to review the evidence against you and determine how to challenge false test results of drugs or marijuana.

The Problem with the Roadside Tests

Many police departments across the country, including in New Jersey, use unreliable field drug identification tests – sometimes call presumptive field tests – to determine quickly if a substance found by a police officer is a drug or marijuana. Many of these tests rely on chemicals called reagents which change colors in the presence of specific drugs or marijuana – except scientists have known that these tests can often result in false positives.

So, why do police departments continue to use these tests? Because the most common tests cost as little as $2 a test, while reliable tests can cost thousands of dollars.

This is how the tests work: A police officer is given a kit that usually has a variety of different vials or capsules inside. The officer then drops a sample of the suspicious substance into a little pouch and mixes it with the compounds inside the capsule, then waits. The pouch turns a specific color to tell the officer of a positive drug test result.

But depending on the reagent and the substance tested, the test may look like it found drugs, when it really was reacting incorrectly or to something else in the substance. This is known as a false positive, and it could easily lead to an arrest.

Known and Common False Positives with Roadside Tests

Here is a list of some of the more well-known problems with the presumptive field tests:

Cobalt thiocyanate, which is commonly used to test for cocaine, can return a false positive in the presence of methadone, Benadryl, pain relievers, acne medication and 80 other substances including household cleaners.
The Duquenois-Levine test kit, which is used to identify marijuana, can return a false positive in the presence of patchouli, spearmint, and eucalyptus
Extreme cold or extreme heat can cause false positives in some tests
Some tests require multiple steps, and, if performed incorrectly, can result in a false positive.
Most tests require the police officer to see the color of the test substances and if they have changed. In poor or uneven lighting, a police officer can easily misinterpret what he sees.
No agency regulates the manufacture or sale of the tests and no records are kept on their use.

Once a test results in a false positive, the police officer will believe that he or she has found drugs. Then, the driver will be arrested for DUI/DWI, and the driver’s innocence may not be proven for months when the test results are confirmed or rejected by actual scientists in a laboratory. In the meantime, many drivers plead guilty to the charges – especially ones who are not represented by an attorney.

Because it can take as long as 6 months before results come back, many people simply cannot wait or do not know how to prove their innocence. If you or someone you know is in this situation, the first thing you should do is reach out to an experienced lawyer as soon as possible.

New Jersey Drug and Marijuana Driving Defense Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Can Help

Many innocent people are charged every day with DUI and DWI. If you or someone you know needs help fighting false charges against you, it is important to contact an experienced attorney as soon as possible. A good lawyer can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.