Newark Traffic Ticket Lawyer Blog

First, you may hear attorneys talk about discovery. Discovery is what any experienced attorney will request from the State during the trial preparation phase of a DWI matter. Discovery consist of many different items. My discovery demand consists of about thirty different items, including police reports, videos recordings, Alcotest instrument certification documents, digital data, CAD reports, just to name a few.

Second, what is the significance of this process. Well, many of the items that I request in my discovery demand are directly related to the admissibility of the Alcotest readings. Others will help us make important probable cause determinations, like video recordings and audio recordings. Some relate to the timing of the arrest and subsequent testing which will determine if certain timing related procedural requirements were violated.

Most importantly, in many instances, if you don't demand it, and you don't know what to ask for, you will lose you case. It is that simple.

The discovery process may be the single most important pre-trial aspect of DWI representation. Consider this. I have had many DWI cases dismissed for the state's failure to provide the necessary discovery documents.

In my opinion, this is why it is important to hire a lawyer who specializes in this area, such as I do. As stated, I believe that only an experienced DWI attorney really understands how to strategically position his client for the best possible pre-trial result. And remember, in many instances, I have won pre-trial discovery motions, suppressed the Alcotest readings as a result, limiting my client's exposure, then took the case to trial, knowing that the downside to losing was the absolute minimum penalties, then won at trial anyway.

The bottom line is that if you have been charged and arrested for a DWI related offense, I implore you to contact my firm and get a free consultation. I will not pressure you. I will simply assess your case and give you an honest opinion. But know this, I am tenacious and patient. Your case will be handled as if I was the won who was facing the charges.

On an ongoing basis, I am going to start posting examples of outcomes of cases I handle in the Newark Municipal Court. I am a Newark Attorney who represents many clients each year in the Newark Municipal and I get results.

Getting great results for my clients is not just a matter of showing up to court and being smooth. Great results are the product of pre-trial preparation, even with simple traffic matters. You must remember, the State must prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to do that, in most circumstances they will have to rely upon documents, photographs, witnesses, lab results, etc. As an experienced municipal court lawyer and criminal defense attorney, I fully make use of all the procedural rules available to me to put my client in the best possible position prior to trial.

On many occasions, I have used these procedural tools to my client's advantage to get cases dismissed. Last week, I made two successful motions to dismiss based upon procedural grounds. Both cases were serious traffic offenses.

One of the biggest disadvantages for the pro se defendant is not understanding the rules of court and how to make them work. Of course, not every case gets dismissed because of a procedural issue, but an experienced lawyer knows how to exploit these rules and set his/her client up for success.

They key to my success is making sure that each case be handled as if I am the defendant, using all of my knowledge, experience and training to defend myself.

In State v Marquez, the NJ Supreme Court held that an individual arrested for DWI/DUI has the right to be informed of the consequences of refusing to consent (to submit) to an Alcotest (Breathalyzer) in the language that they speak. In this case, the defendant was arrested for DWI in New Jersey. It was clear that he did not speak English. When the Police brought him to the police station, the read to him, in English, what is commonly referred to as the Standard Statement. This eleven paragraph form informs the individual arrested for DWI what will happen should he/she refuse to blow into the machine. It was clear that Marquez did not understand, so the officers demonstrated what he was supposed to do (pantomime blowing into the Alcotest).

Even those who speak English have a tough time understanding this form. Most don't realize that a first conviction for refusal means no less than a seven month loss of license.

Prior to this decision, courts examining this issue had held that it was not necessary for the Standard Form to be read in the suspect's language before charging the individual with refusal. The reasoning behind this being that, under this State's implied consent laws (NJSA 39:4-50.2) a person who applies for and receives a NJ driver's license has, in essence, already agreed that he/she has an obligation to submit to a chemical test if arrested for DWI. The only requirement is that police read the standard form, in English, to the suspect. One could think of it like a contract you sign with the State when you get your license. Nonetheless, prior to being charged with refusal, the police must inform you of the consequences of doing so.

The Marquez decision is a dramatic departure from previous case law. Police are now required to provide the standard form in the language spoken by the individual arrested for DWI/DUI. In order to implement this decision, the Court will rely upon the efforts of the Attorney General and The MVC to provide the Standard Form in a variety of different languages. This may mean a simple written translation, or audio translations or ????.

This decision has received a good amount of attention. From a DWI defense lawyers perspective, I think it is a good decision for a number of reasons. But most importantly, it just seems fair that before taking a persons license for seven months, and with it their job, and all the other consequences that may follow, that they be provided with a little "heads up" in the language they speak regarding the consequences of refusal. Having on hand in the police station written or taped translations of the refusal right form is certainly not a huge burden on the State. Honestly, a CD player, a copy machine, a file cabinet, the minimal cost to the state of having a recording made of the standard form in a few different languages, it really is not overwhelming. Of course, as with all new case law decisions in favor of a DWI defendant, DUI defense lawyers will attempt to mold the case around the facts of their situation and manipulate accordingly. But I am certain that courts will give very little leeway when it comes to these types of situations. If the form is translated in the language the defendant says he/she speaks, that should suffice.

The NJ Supreme Court recently decided State v Privott. The holding is pretty interesting. Basically, the court held that when an officer has the right to conduct a "Terry" pat-down search for weapons, i.e. the officer has reason to suspect that the suspect may have weapons, the officer does not have the right to lift up the suspects shirt and circumvent the traditional pat-down requirement to recover evidence.

This does not mean that the officer can't recover evidence that he suspects may be a weapon following a legal frisk. However,under "normal circumstance", the law enforcement officer does not have the right to forgo the pat-down to determine whether the suspect may be armed and jump directly to a more obtrusive search. In this circumstance "the search exceeded the scope of the pat-down search needed to protect the officer against defendant having a weapon and was akin to a generalized cursory search of defendant that is not condoned."

For the full text of the decision please see State v Privott