Finding an attorney to handle your DUI/DWI case can be a stressful ordeal. You may question whether or not to have an attorney handle the matter at all, but don’t assume that just because you’ve been arrested for a New Jersey DWI that you will be convicted. There are many ways to challenge a New Jersey DWI arrest. My office is committed to take the stress out of your unfortunate situation.
We aggressively examine the evidence in your case to determine if there was proof of intoxication, whether the Standardized Field Sobriety Test was administered properly, and to determine if the blood and/or breath test were accurate. We work regularly with an independent consultant, Dr. Michael Quinn, for review and analysis of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, Chemical Tests and Results, Blood, Urine, and Breath Test Results. If you refused the blood alcohol test we will discuss defenses which might be raised and how this would affect your driving record.
You should give special consideration in your selection of an attorney, as proper representation can make a substantial difference in the outcome of your case. If you have been arrested or received a ticket for DUI/DWI in New Jersey, please do not hesitate to contact my office to arrange for a free consultation. We can be reached at (732) 431-2224 or email me directly. All consultations are confidential.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2009-D.W.I.-MONMOUTH COUNTY MUNICIPAL APPEAL FROM A MUNICIPAL COURT TRIAL CONVICTION
STATE V. T.M.
On or about April 12, 2007, T.M. was charged with: (1) N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 (driving without insurance); (2) N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 (driving while suspended); (3) N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (driving while intoxicated); (4) N.J.S.A. 39:4-129 (a) (leaving the scene of an accident); (5) N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 (failure to report an accident); (6) N.J.S.A. 39:4-96 (reckless driving); and (7) N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 (obstruction of a government function).
On the evening of April 12, 2007, T.M. was driving with his friend B.C. as well as a third individual known as A.G. The three men had been out drinking during the evening at a few gentlemen’s clubs. On their way back to Millstone Township, they were involved in a horrendous one car accident. At the time of the accident, T.M. stated that he was in the back seat with B.C. and that A.G. was the driver of the motor vehicle, (which is owned by T.M.). T.M. the defendant, was angered by this and attempted to beat up A.G., after checking on the medical condition of B.C. T.M. went chasing after A.G. Subsequently, thereafter the motor vehicle had caught on fire, while B.C. was unconscious in the vehicle. A retired State Trooper, who lived close by, as well as an EMS worker was able to remove B.C. from the car. Several hours later, T.M. was found by the State Police walking up to his house; which was located relatively close to the accident site. T.M. had told the police that A.G. was the driver of the vehicle and that B.C. and T.M. were rear seated passengers at the time of the accident. As a result of the State Police being unable to find A.G. via helicopter and via canine units, they doubted the credibility of T.M., and believed that T.M. was the driver. T.M. was asked to come down for questioning, where he was interviewed for several hours by the New Jersey State Police.
While this was going on B.C. was airlifted via helicopter to the Jersey Shore Medical Center. At the hospital, B.C. supposedly gave a statement that T.M. was in fact the driver of the vehicle. This statement was obtained by the State Police interviewing B.C. and asking B.C. to squeeze their finger to indicate yes to the State Police's questioning. At some point, either prior to going to the hospital or after this interview, B.C. was induced into a voluntary coma due to his injuries. Several weeks later, B.C. came out of his coma and was again interviewed by the New Jersey State Police and again indicated that T.M. was the driver of the vehicle.
This matter was tried in the Millstone Township Municipal Court by a different attorney. At trial, the D.W.I. charge was dismissed. However, based upon the prior statements of B.C., T.M. was found guilty of : (1) N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 (driving without insurance); (2) N.J.S.A. 39:4-129 (a) (leaving the scene of an accident); (3) N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 (failure to report an accident); (4) N.J.S.A. 39:4-96 (reckless driving); and (5) N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 (obstruction of government function). T.M. was sentenced to six months in the Monmouth County Correctional Institute, over $7,000 in fines, two years probation, and a two year loss of his driver's license.
After being incarcerated in the Monmouth County Jail for three days, friends of T.M. retained Thomas Martin on T.M.'s behalf. Mr. Martin was able to file a Motion and get T.M. immediately out on bail pending appeal (days prior to the Thanksgiving holiday). Thereafter, Mr. Martin filed a lengthy Brief in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Criminal Law Division, arguing that the trial Judge in the Municipal Court committed a reversible error and that T.M. should be found innocent of all the charges, except for the driving without insurance. In response, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office filed a lengthy Brief, seeking to have the convictions of T.M. upheld by the Superior Court Judge. The Superior Court Judge agreed with Mr. Martin and found T.M. innocent of everything but the driving without insurance charge. The theory being that T.M. was not the driver, but had allowed a person to operate T.M.'s vehicle (while T.M. knew it was uninsured) which would trigger a violation of the driving without insurance statute.
THE RESULT:
At the end of the hearing, T.M was relieved of having to serve the remainder of the six months in jail, relieved of his two years of probation, relieved of one year of the two year loss of license, and was relieved of approximately $6,500 worth of the fines.
=========================================================================================================
State v. B.L.
Ocean County 2008
In this matter B.L. was charged with N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 (driving while suspended); N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(driving while intoxicated); N.J.S.A. 39:4-85 (improper passing-4pt ticket); N.J.S.A.39: 3-29(failure to exhibit license); N.J.S.A. 39:3-29B(failure to exhibit insurance); N.J.S.A. 39:3-29C(failure to exhibit registration); and N.J.S.A. 39:3-33(improper or fictitious plates.
In this township case, on March 20, 2008, B.L. was charged with the following aforementioned charges. The police stopped B.L.'s vehicle for a variety of different reasons. First they observed B.L.'s vehicle did not have a license plate that B.L. was driving half of the posted speed limit, and that B.L.'s vehicle continually crossed over the center lane of the street he was traveling on. After making a motor vehicle stop the police noticed that B.L.'s hand movements were very slow and lethargic when he tried to obtain his documents. It was noted that B.L.'s speech was very slow and slurred and that his eyes were watery and bloodshot. Hereafter, B.L. was given three field sobriety tests, all of which he failed. However, B.L. had indicated that he had suffered from prior back problems. The police having not smelled alcohol arrested B.L. for driving a motor vehicle while being under the influence of drugs.
Hereafter, a trained drug recognition expert from the Police Department did a lengthy twelve part examination of B.L. The Expert was of the opinion that B.L. was under the influence of a narcotic analgesic as a result of his uncoordinated activities and his poor performance on the twelve part investigation, and having a red nostril, consistent with having snorted some kind of illegal substance.
Mr. Martin filed a series of Motions to Suppress the Evidence as a result of an illegal stop, as well as lacking probable cause to arrest B.L. With respect to the drug recognition expert, Mr. Martin made numerous detailed requests for documents, with respect to the drug recognition expert, for purposes of determining whether the expert was qualified to render these tests. In light of Mr. Martin's findings, it was ascertained that the drug recognition expert in B.L.'s case was only in the training stages at the time that he rendered his report, which was March 20, 2008.
In the discovery Mr. Martin learned that the drug recognition expert had not passed the course and had not received his certificate until April 1, 2008 or twelve days after he had already rendered an opinion against B.L. While there is case law that states that a trained officer doesn't necessarily need to be a drug recognition expert to render an opinion that an individual is under the influence, it makes for a stronger case for the prosecution if he or she is qualified. In light of same, the Mr. Martin was able to convince the Prosecutor of their serious evidentry problem they had in their case. Hereafter, a plea bargain was made where the driving while intoxicated, the improper passing, the failure to exhibit insurance, the failure to exhibit registration, and the improper plates tickets were dismissed. The DWI was dismissed because there was no scientific proof of intoxication and because the field sobriety tests were questionable due to B.L.'s health problems. However, B.L. did plead guilty to reckless driving, which resulted in an agreed upon 60 day loss of license and a $189 fine. B.L. also plead guilty to a first offense, driving while suspended, which normally carries a six month loss of a drivers license, however, Mr. Martin was able to convince the Judge at sentencing that in light of the driver's license loss that B.L. had already received on the reckless charge, that B.L. should not receive any additional loss of license for the driving while suspended charge.
THE RESULT:
As a result of the evidentry findings, Mr. Martin was able to save B.L. an additional five month loss of his driver's license as well as close to $6,000 in fines that would have been associated with a D.W.I. conviction and other convictions.
=========================================================================================================
2006-D.W.I.-Municipal-Burlington County, NJ
On or about April 12, 2007, T.M. was charged with: (1) . 39:6B-2 (driving without insurance); (2) . 39:3-40 (driving while suspended); (3) . 39:4-50 (driving while intoxicated); (4) . 39:4-129 (a) (leaving the scene of an accident); (5) . 39:4-130 (failure to report an accident); (6) . 39:4-96 (reckless driving); and (7) . 2C:29-1 (obstruction of a government function).On the evening of April 12, 2007, T.M. was driving with his friend B.C. as well as a third individual known as A.G. The three men had been out drinking during the evening at a few gentleman's clubs. On their way back to Millstone Township, they were involved in a horrendous one car accident. At the time of the accident, T.M. stated that he was in the back seat with B.C. and that A.G. was the driver of the motor vehicle, (which is owned by T.M.). T.M. the defendant, was angered by this and attempted to beat up A.G., after checking on the medical condition of B.C. T.M. went chasing after A.G. Subsequently, thereafter the motor vehicle had caught on fire, while B.C. was unconscious in the vehicle. A retired State Trooper, who lived close by, as well as an EMS worker were able to remove B.C. from the car. Several hours later, T.M. was found by the State Police walking up to his house; which was located relatively close to the accident site. T.M. had told the police that A.G. was the driver of the vehicle and that B.C. and T.M. were rear seated passengers at the time of the accident. As a result of the State Police being unable to find A.G. via helicopter and via canine units, they doubted the credibility of T.M., and believed that T.M. was the driver. T.M. was asked to come down for questioning, where he was interviewed for several hours by the New Jersey State Police. While this was going on B.C. was airlifted via helicopter to the Jersey Shore Medical Center. At the hospital, B.C. supposedly gave a statement that T.M. was in fact the driver of the vehicle. This statement was obtained by the State Police interviewing B.C. and asking B.C. to squeeze their finger to indicate yes to the State Police's questioning. At some point, either prior to going to the hospital or after this interview, B.C. was induced into a voluntary coma due to his injuries. Several weeks later, B.C. came out of his coma and was again interviewed by the New Jersey State Police and again indicated that T.M. was the driver of the vehicle. This matter was tried in the Millstone Township Municipal Court by a different attorney. At trial, the D.W.I. charge was dismissed. However, based upon the prior statements of B.C., T.M. was found guilty of : (1) . 39:6B-2 (driving without insurance); (2) . 39:4-129 (a) (leaving the scene of an accident); (3) . 39:4-130 (failure to report an accident); (4) . 39:4-96 (reckless driving); and (5) . 2C:29-1 (obstruction of government function). T.M. was sentenced to six months in the Monmouth County Correctional Institute, over $7,000 in fines, two years probation, and a two year loss of his driver's license. After being incarcerated in the Monmouth County Jail for three days, friends of T.M. retained Thomas Martin on T.M.'s behalf. Mr. Martin was able to file a Motion and get T.M. immediately out on bail pending appeal (days prior to the Thanksgiving holiday). Thereafter, Mr. Martin filed a lengthy Brief in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Criminal Law Division, arguing that the trial Judge in the Municipal Court committed a reversible error and that T.M. should be found innocent of all the charges, except for the driving without insurance. In response, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office filed a lengthy Brief, seeking to have the convictions of T.M. upheld by the Superior Court Judge. The Superior Court Judge agreed with Mr. Martin and found T.M. innocent of everything but the driving without insurance charge. The theory being that T.M. was not the driver, but had allowed a person to operate T.M.'s vehicle (while T.M. knew it was uninsured) which would trigger a violation of the driving without insurance statute. At the end of the hearing, T.M was relieved of having to serve the remainder of the six months in jail, relieved of his two years of probation, relieved of one year of the two year loss of license, and was relieved of approximately $6,500 worth of the fines.
===========================================================================================================
In this matter B.L. was charged with 39:3-40 (driving while suspended); 39:4-50(driving while intoxicated); 39:4-85 (improper passing-4pt ticket); 39: 3-29(failure to exhibit license); 39:3-29B(failure to exhibit insurance); 39:3-29C(failure to exhibit registration); and 39:3-33(improper or fictitious plates. In this township case, on March 20, 2008, B.L. was charged with the following aforementioned charges. The police stopped B.L.'s vehicle for a variety of different reasons. First they observed B.L.'s vehicle did not have a license plate, that B.L. was driving half of the posted speed limit, and that B.L.'s vehicle continually crossed over the center lane of the street he was traveling on. After making a motor vehicle stop the police noticed that B.L.'s hand movements were very slow and lethargic when he tried to obtain his documents. It was noted that B.L.'s speech was very slow and slurred and that his eyes were watery and bloodshot. Hereafter, B.L. was given three field sobriety tests, all of which he failed. However, B.L. had indicated that he had suffered from prior back problems.The police having not smelled alcohol, arrested B.L. for driving a motor vehicle while being under the influence of drugs. Hereafter, a trained drug recognition expert from the Police Department did a lengthy twelve part examination of B.L. The Expert was of the opinion that B.L. was under the influence of a narcotic analgesic as a result of his uncoordinated activities and his poor performance on the twelve part investigation, and having a red nostril, consistent with having snorted some kind of illegal substance. Mr. Martin filed a series of Motions to Suppress the Evidence as a result of an illegal stop, as well as lacking probable cause to arrest B.L. With respect to the drug recognition expert, Mr. Martin made numerous detailed requests for documents, with respect to the drug recognition expert, for purposes of determining whether the expert was qualified to render these tests. In light of Mr. Martin's findings, it was ascertained that the drug recognition expert in B.L.'s case was only in the training stages at the time that he rendered his report, which was March 20, 2008. In the discovery Mr. Martin learned that the drug recognition expert had not passed the course and had not received his certificate until April 1, 2008 or twelve days after he had already rendered an opinion against B.L. While there is case law that states that a trained officer doesn't necessarily need to be a drug recognition expert to render an opinion that an individual is under the influence, it makes for a stronger case for the prosecution if he or she is qualified. In light of same, the Mr. Martin was able to convince the Prosecutor of their serious evidentry problem they had in their case. Hereafter, a plea bargain was made where the driving while intoxicated, the improper passing, the failure to exhibit insurance, the failure to exhibit registration, and the improper plates tickets were dismissed. The DWI was dismissed because there was no scientifc proof of intoxication and because the field sobriety tests were questionable due to B.L.'s health problems. However, B.L. did plead guilty to reckless driving, which resulted in an agreed upon 60 day loss of license and a $189 fine. B.L. also plead guilty to a first offense, driving while suspended, which normally carries a six month loss of a drivers license, however, Mr. Martin was able to convince the Judge at sentencing that in light of the driver's license loss that B.L. had already received on the reckless charge, that B.L. should not receive any additional loss of license for the driving while suspended charge. As a result of the evidentry findings, Mr. Martin was able to save B.L. an additional five month loss of his driver's license as well as close to $6,000 in fines that would have been associated with a D.W.I. conviction and other convictions.
===========================================================================================================
Defendant, F.M., was charged with D.W.I. under statute N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and reckless driving under N.J.S.A. 39:4-96, after having been in a one-car accident and after having been discovered by the New Jersey State Police in the median area of the Garden State Parkway. The arresting officer noted that F.M. appeared to be under the influence of narcotics. A series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFTS's are a.k.a. road side sobriety tests or balance and coordination tests) were performed and the officer opined that F.M. failed all of these tests. F.M. could not talk clearly, was slurring and found to be in possession of xanax.
At the State Police barracks, F.M. was subject to a urine test and/or urinalysis; which resulted in a positive finding for drugs. F.M. was also analyzed by a Drug Recognition Expert (D.R.E.). A D.R.E. is an officer who has undergone extensive training and testing which permit him or her to offer an expert opinion that a defendant is under the influence of drugs for purposes of charging the defendant with D.W.I. or N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. A D.R.E. must continually be recertified when his or her current certification expires to ensure the integrity of his or her opinion.
THE RESULT:
After a detailed review of the discovery (evidence) and an investigation of the D.R.E.'s background and training, Mr. Martin discovered the officer was not current in his certification at the time of the D.R.E.'s analysis of F.M. As such, the D.R.E. would have not been permitted to testify at trial. Mr. Martin was able to get the D.W.I (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) ticket dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to the reckless driving ticket (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96). As part of the dismissal of the D.W.I. ticket, which would have resulted in a seven to twelve month license suspension, the plea bargain called for a sixty day license suspension under the charge of N.J.S.A. 39:4-96.
THESE AREJUST SOME OF THE FAVORABLE RESULTS WE HAVE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS. AS YOU CAN SEE, ARE RESULTS HAVE OCCURRED IN MULTIPLE AND DIFFERENT COUNTIES IN NEW JERSEY.
HOWEVER, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT RESULTS VARY FROM CASE TO CASE BASED UPON MULTIPLE VARIABLES AND FACT SCENARIOS. THE ABOVE EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS MUST NOT BE USED TO CREATE AN UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS
BY ANY POTENTIAL CLIENTS THAT THE SAME RESULTS CAN BE ACHEIVED FOR THEM.