NEW JERSEY PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP MOTORIST REVIEWED

In New Jersey a valid motor vehicle stop requires the following showing by the State:
In Deleware v. Prouse, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police must have at least an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a violation of the traffic laws has occurred. The articulable and reasonable standard has been further defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, the Court held a traffic stop is justified at its inception if the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation took place. This statement by the Court was made in the context of declaring that a motor vehicle stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. In determining whether the officer acted reasonably, due weight must be given not to the officer’s inchoate and/or unparticularized suspicion or "hunch." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 4 (1968). 

NJ -REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO BREATH TEST IS NOT CONSIDERED A DWI

In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court opinion, the supreme Court rightfully held that a defendant's conviction for refusing to submit to a Breathalyzer test is not a "prior conviction" for purposes of determining the sentence for a subsequent driving-while-intoxicated conviction. See, State v. Ciancaglini

The practical affect of this decision is illustrated by the following example: In 2001 John Doe pleads guilty to refusing to submit to a breathalyzer. Thereafter, in 2002 John Doe pleads guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of NJSA 39:4-50. According to State v. Ciancaglini, for sentencing purposes Mr. Doe would be considered a first time offender of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Therefore, he is subject to a possible loss of his driver's license for 3 to 12 months.  As opposed to a mandatory two year new jersey driver's license loss as mandated for all second time offenders of NJSA 39:4-50 (that are otherwise ineligible for the 10 year step-down).  

ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATERIAL PROVIDED TO DWI DEFENDANTS

In State v. Maricic the New Jersey Appellate Division (unpublished decision) held that a defendant charged with DWI has the right to obtain, as part of discovery demands, a copy the repair logs and date download stored on the Alcotest instrument used for his test for the period ranging from the date of the last calibration until the date of the defendant's arrest. This is an important decision especially in light of the recent pending Supreme Court case filed by Ashton Thomas, Esq regarding the Alcotest apparent hardware defect in failing to provide a calibration system for breath samples given.