New Jersey Criminal Attorney Blog

The State Supreme Court issued criteria that Municipal Court judges must meet before revoking a driver's license for reckless driving.

In the past, municipal judges have had wide discretion in revoking licenses for reckless driving. But in its ruling in State v. Moran, released this week, the Supreme Court sought to provide standards that would guide judges in suspending licenses. In addition to clarifying that suspension requires that the driver acted willfully and deliberately, the decision also requires judges to consider the following factors:

1) the nature and circumstances of the defendant's conduct, including whether the conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public or caused physical harm or property damage;

2) the defendant's driving record, including the defendant's age and length of time as a licensed driver, and the number, seriousness, and frequency of prior infractions;

3) whether the defendant was infraction-free for a substantial period before the most recent violation or whether the nature and extent of the defendant's driving record indicates that there is a substantial risk that he or she will commit another violation;

4) whether the character and attitude of the defendant indicates that he or she is likely or unlikely to commit another violation;

5) whether the defendant's conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur;

6) whether a license suspension would cause excessive hardship to the defendant and/or dependents; and

7) the need for personal deterrence.

The conviction of a Spanish-speaking driver who refused a Breathalyzer test was overturned because police did not advise him of the consequences of his refusal in a language he could understand.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled this week in State v. Marquez that police must provide the warning in a language the driver can understand in order to satisfy the statutory requirement that police inform drivers of the penalties they face for refusal to submit to a test.

As a result of the ruling, the Attorney General's Office is reportedly preparing translations that police may use to administer the standard statement in various languages.

The statement that police are required to give is part of New Jersey's implied consent law and refusal law. The implied consent law deems all motorists to have consented to providing breath samples. The refusal law authorizes the state to revoke a motorist's license for refusing to submit to such a test.

Even when a police officer detects a strong odor of marijuana during a traffic stop, the officer may not conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle according to an Appellate Division opinion released on Friday.

The case, State v. Pompa, involved a truck driver who was pulled over by a state trooper because it appeared that someone had tampered with the vehicle's DOT number. The officer conducted an administrative inspection of the vehicle. During the stop, the driver appeared nervous, there were several air fresheners hanging in the vehicle, and the officer noticed a strong smell of marijuana coming from the sleeper cabin.

The officer conducted a search of the cabin without first obtaining a warrant or the driver's consent. He opened a closed duffel bag and discovered twenty to twenty-five freezer bags filled with marijuana. The driver was arrested and indicted for first degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (NJSA 2C:35-5(a)(a), NJSA 2C:35-5(b)(10)(a)); second degree conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute (NJSA 2C:5-2, NJSA 2C:35-5(b)(10)(a); and fourth degree possession of marijuana (NJSA 2C:35-10(a)(3).

At trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the marijuana, but the trial court judge denied the motion. The defendant was found guilty on all counts and was sentenced to ten years of prison with four years of parole ineligibility.

On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial suppressing the evidence. The appellate panel ruled that an administrative inspection of the vehicle was permitted, but a search of the sleeper cabin and duffel bag exceeded the scope of that search and required a warrant.

The opinion cited an earlier case, which stated that a warrantless search of an automobile is permitted only when 1) the stop is unexpected; 2) there is reasonable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime; and 3) there are exigent circumstances that would make it impractical to obtain a warrant. The appellate court found the first two requirements had been met, but found in this case that there were no exigent circumstances and that the trooper had an opportunity to obtain a warrant.

The case is a reminder that there are limits on police searches, and police may not search a person's vehicle without a warrant unless certain exceptions exist. When an officer exceeds his or her authority to search a vehicle, the court may suppress any evidence found as the result of an improper search.

Even where a small amount of marijuana is found, the penalties can be severe. For example, a driver who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a controlled dangerous substance in the vehicle faces a two year driver's license suspension in addition to fines. Other criminal charges may also result in fines and incarceration.

There are ways to fight such charges or negotiate a plea deal that results in probation or a fine. Knowing how the law applies to your specific circumstances could make a difference in how your case is resolved.