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.

New Jersey law permits those arrested or convicted of certain crimes to petition the court for an expungement under certain circumstances. When expunged, the records are isolated and removed from the files of any agencies that have them. Anyone who requests that person's criminal record is told that no such record exists.

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.

Franklin Lakes police arrested former Mets and Yankees pitcher Dwight Gooden for driving under the influence, child endangerment, and other charges on Tuesday after he was involved in an accident while driving his son to school.

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.

Police in Paramus followed a car travelling at a high rate of speed out of Garden State Plaza on December 4. When the driver threw a bag out the window, police stopped the car.

According to police, the bag contained several smaller bags of marijuana. The driver and two passengers were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.

A man was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly trying to ram his car into a Bergen County police officer who pulled him over in Hackensack.

The officer pulled over the driver for a routine traffic stop after observing him allegedly weaving in and out of lanes. When the officer approached the car, the driver sped off allegedly forcing the officer to jump out of the way. The officer caught up with the driver and arrested him in Paterson.

In addition to being charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, the driver was faces charges of eluding arrest, being a fugitive from justice, speeding, reckless driving and failure to pull over.

New Jersey State Police will be stepping up enforcement of aggressive driving laws as part of a campaign to reduce collisions between trucks and cars expected to begin in December.

The campaign will include a public relations component with radio advertisements and educational materials encouraging car and truck drivers to be more aware of each other, but it will also include additional enforcement. Police will be on the lookout for violators who risk truck-car collisions, and could increase tickets for following too closely or weaving between lanes. .

The crackdown comes after state police launched another program to target tailgaters last month. The new program is part of a federal initiative called the Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks program, and will be funded by $800,000 in federal money.

In Bergen and Passaic Counties last year, there were nine deaths and 818 injuries as the result of collisions between trucks and cars.

If you've received summonses for driving without a license, help is available.

A conviction for driving without a license could prevent you from obtaining a license in the future and subject you to fines and a possible prison sentence. An article in today's Newark Star Ledger cited the example of one man who racked up 20 traffic tickets and several summonses for driving without a license . Through a special program in Newark designed to encourage those wanted for non-violent crimes to turn themselves in, he was permitted to work out a payment schedule that would help him clear his name and obtain a driver's license.

But even where such programs are not available, municipal court judges have a range of penalties they can impose when a motorist is convicted of driving without a license. Additionally, the penalties vary depending on whether the driver did not have a current driver's license, or whether the driver never had a driver's license to begin with.

More importantly, a person cannot be convicted of driving without a license if the driver merely fails to show a valid driver's license to the officer requesting it. In some cases, the driver may at worst be guilty of refusing to exhibit a driver's license, which is punishable by a fine.

A Westwood Man allegedly tried to rob a bank on Route 17 Tuesday morning in Mahwah by passing a note to the teller, but fled after the teller activated an alarm.

As police searched for the man, schools in the area were placed on lockdown, but officers in the areas soon caught up with him. Police found the man, 33-year-old Anthony B. Dewberry, in a nearby parking garage and found the note in his car.

Dewberry was charged with robbery and bail was set at $250,000.

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.

A Paterson man who pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident in which the other driver was killed. The defendant faces seven years in prison.

Even in minor traffic accidents where that not result in injury or death, leaving the scene can mean added charges. Leaving the scene of an accident that does not result in personal injury can mean two points on your license, fines, and license suspension. If the accident does result in injury, it can mean eight points on your license, fines and prison time.

In the case of Jamal Williams, the Paterson who pleaded guilty, leaving the scene of that accident could cost him seven years of his life. After he left the accident, the other victim, a 60-year-old man, was taken to the hospital where he later died. Williams will be sentenced in December.

There is a lot of misinformation concerning the consequences of refusing a breathalyzer test, but the law in New Jersey is clear: you must take the test or face stiff penalties.

On a first offense, refusing a test can result in license suspension for 7 months to a year, up to a $500 fine and 12 hours in an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center Program. To convict someone of refusing the breathalyzer test, the State needs only to show that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated. However, it is possible to be found guilty of refusing the test even if a defendant is acquitted of driving while intoxicated.

In fact, just recently a Hoboken police officer was charged with refusing a breathalyzer test, adding to his legal troubles that include a DWI charge.