Saturday, March 1, 2008

Brief to Dismiss DWI Summons Based on Police Failure to comply with NJ Attorney General Guideline on DWI /Refusal to give the defendant a copy of th

Brief to Dismiss DWI Summons Based on Police Failure to comply with NJ Attorney General Guideline on DWI /Refusal to give the defendant a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report upon arrest

The mandatory guidelines established by our Attorney General were not followed in this case. The "ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINE: PROSECUTION OF DWI & REFUSAL VIOLATIONS" of January 24, 2005 requires the arresting police officer to give the defendant a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report. The police violated this new AG Guideline.

The Attorney General issued the following Guideline to all Prosecutors and Police on January 24, 2005:






DATE: January 24, 2005

Section 3 of P.L. 2004, chapter 8, 1 included a provision that the Attorney General shall promulgate guidelines concerning the prosecution of DWI and DWI refusal violations. The Legislative purpose for these Guidelines is “to promote the uniform enforcement of [the DWI and refusal statutes.]”

Therefore, pursuant to P.L. 2004, c.8, §3, and the authority granted to the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey by the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-97 et seq., and N.J.S.A. 2B:12-27, the following Guidelines are issued to All County and Municipal Prosecutors for the Prosecution of DWI and Refusal Violations.

These Guidelines replace all previously issued memoranda from the Division of Criminal Justice or the Attorney General, regarding the Standard (Refusal) Statements for DWI refusal,

CDL/DWI refusal and OVWI refusal. Please inform all of the police departments and law enforcement agencies in your county.

These Guidelines do not, however, replace or rescind any Attorney General Law Enforcement Directives issued regarding DWI or DWI related subjects. E.g., Attorney General........

On page 20 of the Attorney General Guideline, the defendant shall be given a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report. The police violated the Attorney General Guideline, and failed to provide the defendant, after processing, with the Alcohol Influence Report.

Guideline- Page 19:

Fulfilling the Statutory Requirements for Implied Consent by Law Enforcement

While at the law enforcement facility, the defendant should also be continuously observed. In addition, during the observation period, and prior to the administration of any chemical breath testing, the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.24a through e, or N.J.S.A. 12:7-55, regarding implied consent, must have been followed.

Those statutory provisions are:

#1 The police or law enforcement officer “shall inform the person
tested of his[/her] rights” to be furnished with a copy of the record
of any chemical breath tests administered. [This was not done in this case.]
This first provision is designed to inform the defendant that a record of any chemical breath tests administered will be made and that the defendant is entitled to receive a copy of that record. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(b); N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.24b; N.J.S.A. 12:7-55b. That record, pursuant to

N.J.A.C. 13:51-3.6(a)2, is the “Alcohol Influence Report Form, Breathalyzer Check List.”

N.J.A.C. 13:51 Appendix. With the introduction of the Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C, a printed record, in the form of an Alcohol Influence Report, will be automatically printed by the...

Guideline- Page 20:

Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C. N.J.A.C. 13:51-3.6(c)2.

Following the administration of any breath tests, regardless of the results obtained, and the normal processing of a defendant, the defendant should be given a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report.

#2 The person “shall be permitted to have such samples taken and
chemical tests of his[/her] breath, urine or blood made by a person
or physician of his own selection.”

This second provision is designed to inform the defendant of his/her statutory right to obtain an independent test of their own breath, blood or urine. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(c); N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.24c; N.J.S.A. 12:7-55c. State v. Jalkiewicz, 303 N.J. Super. 430, 432, 434, 435 (App. Div. 1997), questioning State v. Broadley, 281 N.J. Super. 230 (Law Div. 1992), certif. den. 135 N.J. 468 (1994); State v. Hicks, 228 N.J. Super. 541, 544 (App. Div. 1988), certif. den. 127 N.J. 324 (1990); State v. Ettore, 228 N.J. Super. at 30-1.

Guideline- Page 18: The need to obtain chemical breath test evidence, in a prompt manner, due to the speed with which alcohol is dissipated by the body is also discussed.

Guideline- Page 19: Breath samples are a nontestimonial form of evidence. State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 14 (1970). Accordingly, a defendant

does not have a Fifth Amendment right to consult with an attorney

before taking the test, nor does a defendant have a right to have an

attorney present when the test is performed. State v. Leavitt, 107

N.J. 534, 536, 540 (1987); see also, Macuk, supra, 57 N.J. at 16,

(holding that police officers are not required to give defendants

Miranda warnings prior to administration of [a B]reathalyzer test

because "fundamental reason for the Miranda rules is just not

present"). Additionally, because breath sample evidence "is

evanescent and may disappear in a few hours," State v. Dyal, 97

N.J. 229, 239 (1984), police must administer the [B]reathalyzer test

within a reasonable time after the arrest in order to obtain an

accurate reading. Leavitt, supra, 107 N.J. at 541; see also, State v.

Pandoli, 109 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1970) (noting "rapidity

with which the passage of time and physiological processes tend to

eliminate evidence of ingested alcohol in the system"); State v.

Corrado, 184 N.J. Super. 561, 568 (App. Div. 1982) (holding

one-hour delay in consenting to take [a B]reathalyzer test violated

Implied Consent Law).

State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. at 487-8.

The Defense has filed this motion to Dismiss the DWI and refusal Summons Based on Police Failure to comply with NJ Attorney General Guideline on DWI and Refusal. The police failed to abide by this mandatory instruction. Therefore, violation of an Attorney General guideline should result in dismissal.

NJSA 39:4-50.3. sets forth the Method of analyses; approval of techniques; certification of analysts; reports; forms in DWI cases in New Jersey"

"Chemical analyses of the arrested person's breath, to be considered valid under the provisions of this act, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Attorney General, and by a person certified for this purpose by the Attorney General. The Attorney General is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses, and to make certifications of such individuals, which certifications shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall prescribe a uniform form for reports of such chemical analysis of breath to be used by law enforcement officers and others acting in accordance with the provisions of this act. Such forms shall be sequentially numbered. Each chief of police, in the case of forms distributed to law enforcement officers and others in his municipality, or the other officer, board, or official having charge or control of the police department where there is no chief, and the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles and the Superintendent of State Police, in the case of such forms distributed to law enforcement officers and other personnel in their divisions, shall be responsible for the furnishing and proper disposition of such uniform forms. Each such responsible party shall prepare or cause to be prepared such records and reports relating to such uniform forms and their disposition in such manner and at such times as the Attorney General shall prescribe."

Therefore, if a Police officer fails to follow the methods and forms of the Attorney General, any breath test is invalid.

The Appellate Division recently court recognized that all Police Officers are bound by Attorney General Guidelines.

See In the Matter of William Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429 (App. Div. 2001) for a discussion of AG Guidelines and their enforceability. Judge [now Justice] Wallace wrote:

"In this regard we note that the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of this State. N.J.S.A. 52: 17B s-98. The Legislature has authorized the Attorney General to provide for "uniform and efficient enforcement of the criminal law and the administration of criminal justice throughout the State." Ibid. Consistent with this authority, the Attorney General has issued guidelines concerning the appropriate application of the criminal laws.

Our Supreme Court has acknowledged the validity of various guidelines issued by the Attorney General. See generally State v Brimage, 153 N.J. 1, 24-25 (1998) (the Attorney General was instructed to reevaluate and issue new plea offer guidelines to assist all counties in consistently applying the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1997); Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 109-111 (1995)(holding constitutional, as modified, Attorney General's Guidelines for implementation of convicted sex offender registration and community notification statutes); Rawlings v. Police Dep't of Jersey City, 133 N.J. 182, 192 (1993) (Court cites with approval the Attorney General's Law Enforcement Drug Screening Guidelines); State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 32 (1992) (Court requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines which will assist prosecutors in rendering uniform decisions concerning enhanced drug testing)."

If a police officer fails to follow Attorney General's Guidelines on DWI and does not give the defendant a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report Form, then the DWI and/or refusal should be dismissed or reading suppressed.

Middlesex County Bar Association 3rd Annual Awards Dinner

Middlesex County Bar Association 3rd Annual Awards Dinner
On March 19, 2008, the Middlesex County Bar Association will hold its third annual awards dinner at Sunny Palace Restaurant on Route 18 South in East Brunswick. Awards will be given to bar members in the following areas: Pro Bono; Non-Litigation; Civil Trial Practice; Criminal Trial Practice; and Municipal Court Practice.

The guest speaker will be Hon. Travis L. Francis, AJSC.
The MCBA will pay tribute to these bar members for their significant contributions to their respective practice areas.
The following awards will be given:

-Pro Bono Attorney-of-the Year Henry Gurshman
-Civil Trial Practitioner-of-the-Year John Gorman
-Criminal Trial Attorney-of-the-Year Jim Nolan & Nicole Albert
-Municipal Court Practitioner-of-the-Year Kenneth Vercammen
-Young Lawyer of the Year Kimberly Yonta Aronow
-Transactional Attorney of the Year Michael Schaff

The purpose of the Awards is to recognize attorneys practicing in Middlesex County and adjacent municipalities who devote a significant portion of their law practice to their respective practice areas and exhibit one or more of the following:

- Leadership in the potential candidate’s field of practice;
- Significant, tangible contributions to the Bar, such as participation in educational panels, Bar committees, etc, pertaining to non-litigation issues;
- Contributions to the community and/or charitable endeavors;
- A record promoting participation and involvement in the MCBA and collegiality within the Association; and
- A reputation for personal and professional integrity.

The evening will commence with a cocktail hour (cash bar) at 6:00 p.m. and dinner will be served at 7:00 p.m. The cost to attend is $35 for MCBA Young Lawyers, $40 for MCBA Members and $45 for all others, in advance.
For additional information, contact the Bar Office at (732) 828-3433, ext. 102.
More details at

Sunny Palace
1069 Route 18 South
East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Notice of Claim must be served on correct Public Entity or Personal Injury case dismissed

Notice of Claim must be served on correct Public Entity or Personal Injury case dismissed
Leidy v. County of Ocean 02-28-08

In dismissing plaintiff's personal injury action against a public entity (County of Monmouth), the Court held that where the actual tortfeasor's identity has not been actively obscured and plaintiff has not been thwarted in his or her own diligent efforts to determine the responsible party, then plaintiff's misidentification does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting relaxation of the Tort Claims Act 90- day time constraint, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8.

Prompt inspection of the area within a reasonable time following plaintiff's motorcycle accident would have led to identification of the County of Monmouth as the party responsible for maintaining the portion of the roadway, bordering Ocean County, where the incident occurred. Moreover, the delay in notice, occasioned by the lack of any reasonable efforts by plaintiff in the interim 90 days to ascertain ownership of the roadway, likely prejudiced defendant in its efforts to investigate the accident scene which, due to time and weather, may have changed.