VICTORY FOR DUI DEFENDANTS!!!!

On May 26, 2009 the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in State v. Putz, A-1004-08T4, reversed both lower courts findings that the accused was guilty of Driving under the Influence of Alcohol. On March 7, 2008, Lopatcong Township Police Officer Robert Stefano was on patrol, working the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. At 2:00 a.m. on March 8 he was driving a patrol car northbound on Route 519 heading towards Route 57 just before a tunnel. He observed a vehicle parked in a gravel turnaround on the side of the road heading northbound just before the tunnel about five feet from the fog line with its lights on and the engine running, an unusual observation at that hour of the morning. Although he had driven through this area more than once since 7:00 p.m., he had not previously observed the vehicle. He did not know at what points in time he drove through this area that evening. The officer did not know whether the turnaround was on private or county property, but it was about fifteen feet from along driveway going up to a horse farm. The turnaround was used to park tractor-trailers that drop off livestock at the horse farm. Stefano pulled in behind the vehicle and activated his emergency lights to check on the welfare of anyone inside. Stefano observed one person in the vehicle, exited the patrol car, observed exhaust coming from the tailpipe, and approached the driver's side window. Defendant was asleep in the driver's seat, slouched over with his head tilted towards his lap and to the side. His feet were on the floor close to the gas pedal and brake. Because he could not see the driver he knocked on the window a few times to awaken him but was unsuccessful. The officer observed that the vehicle was unlocked so he went ahead and opened the car door. The officer woke up the defendant at which time the officer noticed a strong scent of alcohol emanating throughout the vehicle.
The Appellate Division held that the trial court ignored credible evidence that the defendant, who was found asleep in his idling vehicle after midnight, in a secluded area, had no intent to move the vehicle. As such, the Appellate division reversed the lower court findings on the premise that the lower courts should have taken into account circumstantial proof provided by the accused regarding his intent not to drive.