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 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.

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.

The report, entitled "The Untestable Drunk Driving Test" concludes that "there are serious reasons to doubt the accuracy and reliability of the test..." The report also points out that the Alcotest cannot be independently evaluated because of the State's contract with its manufacturer, which prohibits anyone else from purchasing a unit, and because of the manufacturer's proprietary rights to the Alcotest, which prevent anyone from determining how it works. An analytic chemist for Seton Hall attempted to obtain the test, but the manufacturer, Texas-based Draeger Safety Diagnostics, refused to provide one.

The New Jersey State Supreme Court considered the accuracy and reliability of the Alcotest in State v. Chun, which was decided in 2008. In examining the issue, the Court referred to the report of a special master. Although the special master was not permitted to analyze the software used in the Alcotest, the software was submitted to two independent software houses that provided their own reports. The special master determined that the test was reliable, and the Supreme Court approved of the Alcotest.

It remains to be seen whether the Seton Hall Report will have any affect on the use of the Alcotest breathalyzer. As the report indicates, State v. Chun resolved many complex legal questions surrounding the test. However, it also suggests that other jurisdictions may come to different conclusions, and states that "the New Jersey Supreme Court cannot be the last word on the constitutionality of its foreclosure of individual defendants' challenge to the Alcotest in general or to the particular device used to measure their blood alcohol concentration."

But what if a person outside official channels knows about an expunged criminal record and releases it to the public? The New Jersey State Supreme Court is considering just such a case in an effort to determine whether exposing someone else's expunged record is grounds for a defamation lawsuit.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported today that the state's top court will consider the issue. (Subscription required). In G.D. v. Bernard Kenny and The Hudson County Democratic Organization, Inc., a political operative for a State Senate candidate became the target of flyers produced by a political rival. The flyers referred to the operative's prior drug conviction, which was previously expunged.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on this case, expungement remains an important way to protect a person's record and prevent a past mistake from haunting him or her in the future. Expunged records can be used by the courts only in limited circumstances. For example, a judge may review expunged records when sentencing a defendant in connection with a subsequent conviction. Parole boards may also view expunged records.

Otherwise, state law provides that when a record is expunged, the arrest, conviction, or any other proceedings connected with the crime "shall be deemed not to have occurred, and the petitioner may answer any questions accordingly..." (N.J.S.A. 2C52-27). Consequently, petitioning for an expungement can be helpful to those who fear a background check may turn up damaging information.

Gooden allegedly struck a car in front of him, prompting a call to police. Authorities later stopped Gooden, who was driving a half mile from the scene of the accident. According to police, Gooden's 5-year-old son was not wearing a seat belt, and had bumped his head on the seat in front of him.

Although the story is noteworthy because of Gooden's celebrity, it is also worth noting that a DWI stop can often result in related charges that could complicate a defendant's case. In addition to DWI, Gooden was charged with being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, endangering the welfare of a child, DWI with a child passenger, leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, and other charges.

Further complicating Gooden's case is his history of DWI convictions. In 2005 he was sentenced to probation for speeding from police while under the influence of a controlled substance. As a repeat offender, he could be subject to more severe penalties than a first offender would face.

Making sense of the range of penalties and understanding the possible defenses to multiple charges may seem daunting, but talking with an attorney can help put the possible consequences into perspective.

In State v. Kim, the Court held that "[t]he mere allegation that defendant did not have sufficient comprehension of the English language to knowingly refuse to submit breath samples does not place a material issue in dispute to require an evidentiary hearing. . . let alone void the basis for his conviction."

At times, as the police officer spoke during the stop in question, the defendant stated that he did not understand what was being said. However, the Appellate Division found that the defendant understood English, and was even familiar with his rights, including the right to an attorney and the right to decline to make a statement.

The opinion makes it clear that any question about a defendant's ability to understand the police officer's statements must be raised in a motion, and evidence of the defendant's ability to understand must be offered to the court. It is not enough merely to assert that the defendant failed to understand the officer.

The opinion also underscores the importance of identifying all issues and raising them in a timely manner so that the court has an opportunity to develop the evidence on the record. Failure to do so could mean the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Some examples of disorderly persons offenses include possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, shoplifting items with a retail value of less than $200, and lewdness, among others. A conviction can mean a range of penalties, up to a $500 fine and six months in prison. Additionally, a conviction could show up on future background checks affecting employment and professional licensing.

There are ways to fight such charges, have them downgraded, or seek alternative penalties that can save time and money and, in some cases, keep a person's record clean. And in cases where the accused has already pleaded guilty or has been convicted in court, expungement may be available.

Before pleading guilty to a disorderly persons offense in Municipal Court, it is worth consulting an attorney on your range of options. Doing so could save a great deal of time and money in the long run.

The bill identifies some driver distractions you might expect, like talking on a cell phone, using a GPS device, or tinkering with the car stereo. But it also identifies some more unusual distractions, like using a "facsimile machine," or distractions due to "personal grooming." The bill also requires the Commissioner of Transportation to use the information to compile annual reports on distracted driving, but it could have consequences for drivers.

Drivers who are distracted could face charges that carry a range of fines and potentially result in points on their licenses leading to increased insurance rates. Even if a police officer was not present at the time of an accident, another driver can make a complaint if the responsible party was either careless or reckless while operating his or her vehicle.

However, there are options for drivers who are accused of driving carelessly or recklessly that could reduce their penalties and limit their liability in the case of an accident. If you think a car accident might expose you to costly traffic violations or a potential lawsuit, speaking with an attorney could help save time and money.

In addition to considering each of those factors, the Court has a range of sentencing options that includes a loss of driving privileges, fines, community service, classes provided by an intoxicated driver resource center, and possible imprisonment. Insurance surcharges are also applied.

In more severe cases, the Prosecutor may seek charges that bring even greater consequences. A man was convicted last week in Superior Court in Morristown of aggravated manslaughter after he struck and killed two teenagers while driving under the influence. He faces 60 years in prison -- the maximum possible sentence.

Understanding how the circumstances of a case affects the range of penalties is essential when considering how to defend against a DWI charge.

A violation for possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana is considered a disorderly persons offense allowing jurisdiction in municipal courts. Even though the matter may be handled at the municipal level, it is important to understand the consequences.

Such a conviction can result in fines of up to $1,000, penalties and fees of over $500, up to six months in jail, and suspension of driving privileges for up to two years. In addition, if the violation occurs within 1,000 feet of a school, there is a mandatory 100 hours of community service on top of any sentence handed down by the court.

There are ways to fight such a violation. As with all criminal cases, the State has the burden to prove its case. And while it may not be possible to win an acquittal in all cases, it is important to understand the range of sentencing options that a municipal court judge may impose.

It is also important to keep in mind that it may be possible to expunge prior convictions from your record. Depending on the circumstances, a person may petition the court to have his or her record expunged. If granted, all records would be removed; however they could still be used in the future for a limited number of purposes including bail or parole hearings, or sentencing.

As states have become more efficient at sharing information, motor vehicle agencies are getting better at flagging drivers with unresolved violations in other parts of the country. That means somebody who moved out of New Jersey twenty years ago leaving an unpaid ticket may suddenly have a problem renewing his or her license elsewhere.

Making matters worse, drivers with unresolved New Jersey tickets may not even be aware of the tickets if the municipality sent a notice of court hearing to the driver's old address after he or she moved out of state. Often times the violations are so old, drivers are at a loss to remember whether they received any notice.

Unpaid tickets can result in a suspended license in New Jersey. A suspension in New Jersey must be cleared up before a driver can obtain or renew a license in another state. The good news is, depending on the circumstances this may be a relatively easy matter to resolve. And with a competent legal representation, you may not even need to travel to New Jersey for court appearances.

The case, State v. Ciancaglini, involved a Monmouth County woman who was previously convicted of DWI in 1979, and of failing to submit to a breathalyzer test in 2006. She was again convicted of DWI in 2008.

The municipal court sentenced her as a third-time offender to six months in jail, a $1,006 fine, ten-year loss of license and vehicle registration, 12 hours at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and other fees.

On appeal, the Law Division held that she should have been sentenced as a first time offender because the 1979 conviction occurred more than ten years ago and the conviction for refusal to take a breathalyzer test did not qualify as a prior conviction for DWI. The Law Division sentenced her as a first time offender to 30 days in jail, a $500 fine, 12 months license revocation, and 12 hours at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.

The Appellate Division disagreed and reinstated the original sentence.

Among those arrested were a Cliffside Park man who police said crashed into another car stopped at a traffic signal on Route 17 in Rutherford. The driver of the car that was hit suffered no injuries.

Other DWI arrests took place in Teaneck, Passaic, Fairview and Secaucus. And just after midnight on New Year's Day, Clifton police arrested a Lodi woman who struck another car on the Garden State Parkway. Two people suffered non-life threatening injuries in that accident.

The woman was placed under arrest and charged with underage possession of alcohol, having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, and making an improper U-turn.