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.

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.

New Jersey legislators are considering a bill today that would require police to include information on accident reports concerning driver distractions, a step toward compiling statewide statistics on distracted driving. However, the law could have consequences for drivers accused of taking their eyes off the road.

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.

Those long-forgotten New Jersey traffic tickets may end up becoming a barrier to obtaining a license, or a license renewal, in another state.

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.

Police in Westwood stopped a driver to discover that the 19-year-old Fair Lawn woman had an empty bottle of liquor in the car. Police read her rights and upon further questioning, discovered two more bottles, one empty and one half-empty.

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.

An Appellate panel ruled that a police officer who monitors a DWI suspect for 20 minutes prior to an Alcotest does not have to be the same officer who then administers the test, overturning a lower court ruling and making it easier for prosecutors to convict DWI defendants.

An officer must monitor a driver suspected of DWI prior to administering the breath test as a way to guard against inaccurate results. The New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that specific procedures be followed in administering the test in its 2008 ruling in State v. Chun. Today's ruling said that the 20-minute period required by State v. Chun was meant to make sure a defendant did not do anything that could affect the test results. However, the requirement should not be read so literally as to unduly restrict the state from using the test to prosecute DWI cases.

The ruling came out of a Morris County case in which Joel Ugrovics was arrested for DWI. He blew above the legal limit for blood alcohol content and pleaded guilty in Riverdale Municipal Court, but later appealed to Superior Court which overturned the conviction. The Appellate Division reinstated the guilty plea and remanded to the lower court.

An opinion released Tuesday by the New Jersey Supreme Court interpreting the state's unsafe driving statute offers some good news and some bad news for drivers hoping to avoid points on their licenses.

Since the unsafe driving law went into effect in 2000, it has offered drivers in some circumstances a way to avoid having points assessed for moving violations. In some cases, drivers may have the opportunity to plead guilty to Operation of a Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner. The penalty involves payment of a fine and court fees without any points. However, the wording of the statute has been the subject of much confusion. It prohibits drivers from taking advantage of the exemption three times where each offense is within five years of the prior offense, raising questions about how the five-year limitation should be measured.

Last year, the Appellate Division took up the issue in State v. Patel. In that case, the driver had three offenses within five years of each other. On her fourth offense, she was assessed points. She argued that she should be allowed the exemption on the fourth offense because although it was within five years of her third offense, it was not within five years of her first and second offenses. Thus, she only had two offenses within the last five years. The Appellate Division disagreed and held that five years must pass from the prior offense before the exemption becomes available again.

Also in that opinion, the Court stated that points will be assessed upon a third unsafe driving offense within five years of the prior offense. After five years have passed from that offense, the driver would once again become eligible for the exemption.

The Defendant appealed that ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division's opinion that the Defendant should be assessed points because her fourth offense was within five years of her prior offense. Even though more than five years had passed from the first two offenses, each offense occurred within five years of the one prior.

However, the Court disagreed with the Appellate Division over the availability of the exemption on the third conviction. The opinion stated that the exemption applies to the third offense, no matter when the third offense takes place.

The opinion offers a mixed bag for drivers. The good news is that a driver qualifies for the exemption on a third offense no matter when it takes place. The bad news is that when a driver has three offenses each within five years of the last, he or she must wait five years after the third offense before the exemption will again be available.

New Jersey and New York are among several states that have banned texting while driving. Text messaging qualifies as using an electronic communication device, which is illegal under state statute 39:4-97.3. Violators face a possible fine.

But an article the New York Times this weekend raised questions about whether there could be even greater penalties in the future. The article discussed the British legal system's response to texting while driving through the case of a 22-year-old woman who was sentenced to 21 months in prison after her texting led to a deadly accident.

Closer to home, a New York Times - CBS News poll explored attitudes toward texting while driving. When asked if texting while driving should be illegal, 97 percent answered yes. Asked how severe the punishment should be, 50 percent said it should be punished "about the same" as drunk driving.

Meanwhile, texting continues to be a hot topic with regard to motor vehicle safety. Recently, President Obama banned federal employees from texting while driving. And this summer, a study by researchers at Virginia Tech found that texting while driving increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 23.2 times.

Given the building public attention to texting while driving, it should not be a surprise it becomes a major focus of law enforcement.

Whether you have a New Jersey driver's license and you receive a traffic ticket out of state, or you live elsewhere and get pulled over for a violation while driving through North Jersey, it's important to understand how out-of-state violations affect the number of points on your license.

Almost all states belong to the Driver License Compact, an agreement among member states to share information on traffic violations. However, each state establishes its own rules that determine whether it will assess points for minor out-of-state traffic violations.

For example, if you hold a New York driver's license and receive a minor traffic violation in New Jersey, no points will be assessed to your New York license. It's important to remember that such violations still could result in costly fines, so consider all of the factors before deciding whether to plead guilty to a traffic offense.

On the other hand, a New Jersey driver who is deemed guilty of a minor point violation in New York will typically see two points assessed to his or her New Jersey license. A New Jersey driver who accumulates points could have to pay surcharges, and a New Jersey driver who receives 12 to 15 points in two years could have his or her license suspended for 30 days.

The rules are different for more serious offenses such as DUI charges. An out-of-state driver who is convicted of such charges in New Jersey could be in danger of having his or her home state license suspended. Such rules depend on the state and the type of violation. For example, a New York driver 21 years or older who is convicted in New Jersey of an alcohol related offense could have his or her license suspended for 90 days. If the conviction is for a drug related offense, the suspension is six months.

An out of state driver who receives a summons in New Jersey and wants to plead not guilty may not have to appear in court to address the charges, depending on the circumstances. In some cases, a local attorney may be able to represent a driver at a court hearing without the driver being present.

New Jersey's point system has long been a source of confusion among drivers facing tickets for moving violations. The following is an overview of how the point system works, and its consequences for drivers.

The number of points a driver faces can vary greatly depending on the violation. While most will result in two points on a driver's license, a driver convicted of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in personal injury could receive eight points.

The penalty a driver faces depends on how many points he or she has accumulated over a given period of time. For example, drivers who accumulate 12 to 15 points in two years or less could have their license suspended for 30 days. Accumulate 36 points in a period greater than two years, and the penalty is suspension of not less than 180 days. The penalties in between vary according to number of points and time period.
A driver can avoid suspension by attending an approved driver safety course.

The Motor Vehicle Commission will also impose surcharges for drivers who accumulate six or more points over three years. The surcharges amount to $150 for the first six points and $25 for every point thereafter. The surcharges apply as long as the points remain on a driver's license.

Point violations remain on your driving record; however the number of points can be deducted over time. Three points will be deducted from your total if you go a year without another violation. You can also receive a two-point deduction for attending a defensive driving course approved by the Motor Vehicle Commission.