Ignition Interlock Bill Gaining Momentum

Posted on January 30, 2009 by John Marshall

New Jersey currently requires multiple DWI offenders to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles under certain circumstances.  The ignition interlock device prevents the vehicle from operating until the motorist blows into a breath test device affixed to his or her ignition and logs a blood alcohol concentration below the legal limit of .08%.  Individuals who are subject to the regulation cannot register their motor vehicle or restore their license unless the interlock is installed.

Under "Ricci's Law", the requirement of an ignition interlock device would also apply to someone convicted of a First Offense of DWI where their blood alcohol content is .15% or above.  The law also extends the period an individual must possess an ignition interlock and grants authortity for Judges to order installation where someone has a blood alcohol concentration between .08% and .15% under special circumstances.

While I certainly appreciate the goals of the proposed law, I have heard many horror stories about ignition interlocks including cost, limited supply, over-sensitivity and malfunction.  If these problems can be worked out, it may be a worthwhile effort to combat those who simply do not have the ability to resist putting their keys in the ignition after they have been drinking.

Tags: , ,

DWI Plea Bargaining?

Posted on January 25, 2009 by John Marshall

I have to say that my surprise with Court rulings gets less and less as I close in on twenty years of defense work in NJ.  Nonetheless, I had to gasp for a second when I read the release associated with a Mercer County Superior Court judge's decision in State v. Rastogi.  In Rastogi, an individual was accused of drunk driving but there was apparently a significant issue concerning whether or not there was probable cause for the associated stop.  The accused lost his motion to invalidate the stop in Municipal Court and appealed the ruling.  While the appeal was pending, the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office decided that the stop was too risky to continue to fight over and proposed a dismissal of the dwi and entry of a plea to reckless driving. The Law Division refused to accept the plea, finding that it violated the ruling prohibiting plea bargaining in DWI cases.

The prohibition in question applies to "plea bargaining" but certainly does not prohibit the outcome proposed in Rastogi in my view  If a prosecutor concludes that he or she cannot prove a dwi case because of a bona fide issue(s), there is nothing to prohibit dismissal of the dwi and acceptance of a plea to some other offense. It seems to me that this was exactly what was being proposed in Rastogi.

Tags: ,

Breath Test Refusal Clarified by NJ Supreme Court

Posted on January 17, 2009 by John Marshall

The Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Spell appears to have created bad law for the defense.  The issue in Spell was whether or not a police officer had to read the second paragraph of the refusal form in all instances.  The Appellate Division concluded that this was always a requirement even when an accused unequivocally refuses to provide a breath test.  The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the second and final warning need not be read where an accused  "either conditionally consents or ambiguously declines to provide a breath sample."

I candidly see little logic to this ruling.  Why the Court sees no need to impose the minimum requirement of taking a minute to read a final warning is beyond me.  It certainly seems that this is only reasonable given the mandatory penalties associated with a refusal. 

Tags: ,