New Jersey DWI Library

Defense lawyers take Alcotest challenge to US Supreme Court

Defense attorneys who unsuccessfully challenged the use of a new device to test drunk drivers in New Jersey have taken their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more about the three year legal battle in philly.com by Troy Graham.

See why New Jersey DWI Attorney Evan Levow along with other defense attorneys filed a 529-page petition with the high court.

Chun Petition filed to the Unites States Supreme Court

Chun Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Click the link to view the 529 page petition filed with United States Supreme Court in June 2008: Chun Petition for Writ of Certiorari

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Breathtest Equipment

Court says law enforcement can use device during NJ DWI stops.

In a landmark case, affecting tens of thousands of NJ DWI cases, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that new breath test equipment is “sufficiently scientifically” reliable enough to determine whether a motorist is driving while intoxicated.

The ruling focuses on use of the Alcotest 7110, which is used in 17 of the state’s 21 counties to determine blood alcohol content in NJ drunk driving cases. The 7110 replaces the Breathalyzer, which was first developed in 1954.

Challenges to the new equipment were lead by New Jersey DWI defense attorney Evan Levow. At issue was the accuracy of the computerized tester. Levow says the Alcotest 7110 has problems that can violate a driver’s constitutional rights. High breath temperatures could result in false high blood alcohol content readings and the filing of inaccurate charges of driving while intoxicated in New Jersey.

The high court ruling comes after public hearings and two reports that found the Alcotest “much more reliable” than the previous testing equipment. The state said it needs the new device because maintenance parts are not available for the outdated Breathalyzer. The Alcotest was first used in New Jersey seven years ago and the state attorney general began seeking certification of the equipment in 2003. The legal challenge resolved by the recent ruling was started in January 2006.

During the two year review and debate over the accuracy of the Alcotest, 10,708 New Jersey DWI convictions have been on hold. The Supreme Court found breath test evidence gathered from use of the equipment is admissible in court. It says though that police and prosecutors must follow several safeguards. DWI lawyer Levow pointed out that the issue is especially critical because drunk driving cases in New Jersey are heard by judges, not juries, and there is a heavy reliance on breath test results.

New Jersey DWI attorney Evan Levow plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

NJ Court Approves DUI Breath Test

NJ Court Approves DUI Breath Test
New Jersey Court Approves DUI Breath Test by Jeffrey Gold, Associated Press Writer, Houston Chronicle, Chron.com, March 17, 2008.

State v. Jane H. Chun, et al. (A-96-06) (PDF Version)

This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.

If you have been arrested for a DWI in New Jersey, you will need to hire a New Jersey DWI Lawyer.

Judge Charged With New Jersey DWI

New Jersey Municipal judge nabbed for second NJ DWI incident while in black Maserati.

George Korpita, a Dover municipal judge, has been charged with his second New Jersey DWI. Korpita had left Zoe's By the Lake in Sparta, New Jersey shortly after 10:30 pm when stopped by a policeman who observed a black Maserati driving erratically.

Korpita, 48, just recently resigned from his post as judge for the municipal courts in Dover, Rockaway Borough and Victory Gardens because of a New Jersey drunk driving arrest in Roxbury last November. In that incident Korpita was found slumped over the steering wheel of his car after drinking at a local go-go-bar. His blood alcohol content registered nearly three times the legal limit for driving while intoxicated in New Jersey. He reportedly told the arresting officer “I'm a judge, bro” and presented his judicial identification card. He pleaded guilty last December to NJ DWI and threatening the arresting police officers.

There is no indication that Korpita tried to use his former position to influence the police officers in the Sparta incident. He has been charged with driving while intoxicated in New Jersey, failure to keep right, careless driving and refusal to take a breath sample.

Are you looking for a NJ DWI Lawyer?

Victims Angered by Plan to Name Road for Lawmaker Involved in NJ DWI

Former congressman injured two in New Jersey DWI wreck 15 years ago.

In 2006 the New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill to rename Route 23 in northern New Jersey for former U.S. Congressman Robert A. Roe. Roe served 23 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and, as chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, funneled billions of dollars in road funds to the state. Roe however was involved in a drunk driving accident that injured two people, and his victims and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) oppose the measure.

In May 1993, Roe was driving on the wrong side of the road in Rockaway Township when he ran into a minivan driven by Julia Worosila. The head-on crash left Julia and her 15 year-old daughter with serious injuries. Julia’s husband John suffered minor injuries.

Roe registered a blood-alcohol content of 0.17%, well above the legal limit for driving while intoxicated in New Jersey. While convicted of a New Jersey DWI, as part of a plea agreement he entered drug and alcohol counseling and avoided the serious crime of assault by auto. His license was suspended for six months and he paid court fines.

MADD has appealed to New Jersey Governor Corzine, asking him to block the legislation. Corzine’s office has said that the governor did not know about the NJ DWI accident when he signed the bill last month. In order to null the measure, another bill would have to be introduced to the state legislature. The original author of the bill has not replied to inquiries.

Congressman Roe declined comment through his attorney. John Worosila said Roe, “caused a nightmare for us”. He went on to say that lawmakers should be more concerned about maintaining the state roadways and think twice before assigning name rights.

Are you looking for a New Jersey DWI Attorney?

New Jersey Cops Target Bars

New tactic in battle with drunk driving

When motorists are arrested for DUI in New Jersey, they are now asked by police where they had been drinking. If the drunk driver identifies a bar or a restaurant that serves alcohol, those businesses could be penalized.

Law enforcement officers across the state enter the information into a database that helps them identify places that may be serving alcohol to those who are intoxicated. Because it is against the law to serve or sell alcohol to someone who is drunk, the state’s Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control could levy a fine and suspend or even revoke an establishment’s liquor license.

While supporting efforts to reduce drunk driving, the New Jersey Restaurant Association points out that there is little way of verifying the statements of DUI offenders. There are those who could simply lie, and unfairly hurt a restaurant or bar.

The bar identification question will be a part of the statewide police crackdown on drunk driving over the Labor Day holiday.

Stoned Driver

Court: Police can tell when a driver's stoned
Friday, July 21, 2006 BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG Star-Ledger Staff

Since 1924, New Jersey courts have followed this rule: anyone can spot a drunk, but it takes special training to recognize when someone is stoned.

Yesterday the state Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that rule, but offered this twist: Your typical police officer knows marijuana intoxication when he sees it.

"Expert testimony only requires that a witness be qualified 'by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,'" Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote. He said the curriculum for police training covers illegal drugs, their street names and their "symptoms of use."

Prosecutors routinely point to that training to show that a police officer is qualified "to testify as expert witnesses on the subject of marijuana intoxication," the justice wrote.

But Rivera-Soto also said nothing in the law on driving while intoxicated requires such expert testimony. The high court reinstated a Camden County man's conviction for driving under the influence of marijuana, which an appeals court had thrown out because the state did not present an expert witness.

Two state troopers who stopped Justin Bealor's car in Sea Isle City did testify that they observed him driving erratically and that his speech was slurred and his eyes "bloodshot and glassy," the ruling said. A drug test found metabolites of marijuana in Bealor's urine. Taken together, the high court ruled, that was enough evidence to convict Bealor of driving while drugged.

Bealor's lawyer, Brian S. O'Malley of Haddon Heights, said he had expected to win. He said Bealor, now 25, was a college student at the time of his arrest in July 2002.

"The family will be disappointed," O'Malley said. "It's been a roller-coaster ride: conviction, reversal, conviction."

Deputy Attorney General Steven Yomtov, who argued the case for the state, was "pleased with the outcome."

Yomtov said the appeals court ruling had created a problem for prosecutors because it required them to prove through expert testimony that a driver had not merely smoked marijuana, but was driving under its influence. He said drug testing, unlike alcohol testing, cannot tell if someone has enough marijuana in his bloodstream to impair his driving.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Yomtov argued the symptoms of marijuana intoxication are so well known that ordinary citizens would recognize them. In essence, he argued everyone is an expert at spotting someone who is stoned. The justices rejected that argument but agreed the appeals court had made the case unduly complicated.

"The issue is simple: Was the defendant 'under the influence' of a narcotic, hallucinogen or habit-producing drug while he operated a motor vehicle," Rivera-Soto wrote. He concluded the state proved Bealor drove under the influence of marijuana.

But he added that for future cases, the "preferred method" is for the prosecutor to establish the arresting officer's credentials as an expert in recognizing marijuana intoxication.

"We ended up getting, I think, the same result," Yomtov said.

Source: http://www.nj.com