Significant DWI Case Summaries

Operating Under the Influence

Written by Travis Tormey, Esq.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing the issue of "operation":

State v. Mulcahy, 107 N.J. 467 (1987)

The important precedent from this case is that the key to establishing operation is whether or not the defendant intended to operate the vehicle. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that police officers, who saw defendant, who was drunk, stagger out of tavern into car that was illegally parked on sidewalk, could arrest defendant for purposes of submission to sobriety test when defendant started to put keys in the ignition. The defendant's attempt to place keys in the ignition was "operation" of motor vehicle sufficient to warrant submission to the breathalyzer test.

State v. Daly, 64 N.J. 122 (1973)

The defendant did not possess an "intent" to operate his car notwithstanding the fact that the car was running insofar as he had been sleeping in the car with the heat on for almost 1.5 hours prior to police arriving.

State v. DiFrancisco, 232 N.J.Super. 317 (LawDiv.1988)

A defendant does not "operate" a motor vehicle under the DWI statute where it is impossible to move the vehicle. Defendant who was sitting behind steering wheel of pickup truck which was partially on a driveway and partially in a ditch and which, according to officer, could not be moved was not "operating" the truck and thus could not be convicted of driving while intoxicated.

In the absence of any evidence from the State showing that breathalyzer test was administered within a reasonable time after defendant was stopped for drunk driving, breathalyzer test results were inadmissible.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority concerning "proper DWI stops":

State v. Carpentieri, 82 N.J. 546 (1980)

The police must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a violation of the traffic laws has occurred in order to effectuate a stop for DWI. Basically, the New Jersey Supreme Court in this case applied the United States Supreme Court decision holding random traffic stops invalid but applied this rule only to those stops that occurred after the Supreme Court decision.

State v. Pegeese, 351 N.J.Super. 25 (App.Div.2002)

The police may not detain occupant for consent search absence violation or criminal conduct once evidence of proper licensing, registration and the like is supplied.

State v. Puzio, 379 N.J.Super. 378 (App.Div.2005)

State v. Pitcher, 379 N.J.Super. 308 (App.Div.2005)

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing "proof of intoxication":

State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964)

The court held that proof of intoxication may be established either through breath test or other toxicology tests, or by other evidence such as the driver's own admissions or his performance of psycho-physical tests.

Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66 (1984)

The NJ Supreme Court established the reliability and admissibility of breathalyzer test results. The court held that (1) manufacturers' breathalyzer models "900" and "900A" are scientifically reliable for purpose of determining content of blood alcohol, with narrow qualification as to admissibility of test results relating to possible effects of radio frequency interference; (2) results of administration of model "900" can be received in evidence without further proof establishing any additional conditions for admissibility relating to effects of radio frequency interference, provided that hand-held transmitters are banned from area in close proximity to breathalyzer instrument; (3) model "900A" results may be admitted in evidence and form basis of driving under influence conviction either if breathalyzer result consists of two tests or readings within tolerance of 0.10 percent of each other, breathalyzer instrument has been found not to be radio frequency interference-sensitive, or if sensitive, it is shown that in administration of instrument, instrument was protected from transmitters and radio frequency; and (4) new trial on newly discovered evidence may be brought only when conviction based upon such breathalyzer results could possibly have been affected by radio frequency interference.

State v. Maida, 332 N.J. Super 564 (2000)

The court held (1) that the coordinator's certificate was sufficient to carry the burden of proof as to accuracy of breath test machine and (2) the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test was sufficiently reliable to be admitted as scientific evidence of intoxication in a criminal trial.

State v. Cryan, 363 N.J. Super 442 (2003)

The court held under the influence means a condition which so affects the judgment or control of the motor vehicle operator as to make it improper for him to drive on the highway. In this case bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and hostile and erratic behavior were sufficient to establish driving while intoxicated.

State v. Slinger, 281 N.J. Super 538 (1995)

The court held that proof of intoxication can be shown independent of the breathalyzer results where, as here, defendant's erratic driving, his physical appearance, demeanor, and speech, as well as the smell of alcohol on his breath were sufficient reliable indicia to establish driving while intoxicated.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing "DWI drug charges":

State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574 (2006)

The NJ Supreme Court held that competent lay observations of the fact of intoxication, coupled with additional independent proofs tending to demonstrate defendant's consumption of narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drugs as of the time of the defendant's arrest, constitute sufficient proofs to establish DWI beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. DiCarlo, 67 N.J. 321 (1975)

The NJ Supreme Court held that the definition of narcotic drug in the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act is not of controlling weight in interpreting the same phrase appearing in N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing "Blood and Breath test refusal":

State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84 (2005)

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the elements of refusal must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Bernhardt, 245 N.J. Super 210 (App. Div. 1992)

This case sets forth the six elements necessary to establish refusal. The court also held that once a defendant refuses to take a breathalyzer test he cannot thereafter "cure" the refusal by agreeing to take the test.

State v. Carrado, 184 N.J. Super 561 (App. Div. 1982)

This case held that a request requires a simple "yes" or "no" and setting is not one for explanation, negotiation, or debate.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing "Multiple DWI offenses":

State v. Burroughs, 349 N.J. Super 225 (2002)

The court held that the defendant was subject to third offender treatment, although more than ten years elapsed between his first and second drunk driving offenses, where less than ten years elapsed between his second and third drunk driving offenses.

State v. DiSomma, 262 N.J. Super 375 (1993)

The court held that a conviction for refusal to take a breathalyzer test could not serve as a basis for imposing second offender status when sentencing defendant for later conviction for driving while intoxicated.

State v. Tekel, 281 N.J. Super 502 (1995)

The court held that defendant can be sentenced as a second offender after refusing to take a breathalyzer test when they have a previous DWI conviction.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing "Roadblocks":

State v. Kirk, 202 N.J. Super 28 (1985)

The court held that temporary road block set up by exercise of absolute, unbridled discretion of officers in field is violative of State Constitutional provision against unreasonable seizure; however, if certain procedures set forth, ensuring supervisory control of checkpoints and warnings to motorists, are carefully followed, any constitutional objections will be overcome.

State v. Moskal, 246 N.J. Super 12 (1991)

The court held that the stop of a motorist at a sobriety checkpoint did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights; site of checkpoint has been determined by DWI arrest rate, past accident rate, public safety and awareness that would arise from the checkpoint, requisite participation of command or supervisory authority had been obtained in overseeing operation, and all necessary advance publicity and warnings of checkpoint had been given.

Important New Jersey Cases & Authority addressing "DWI/DUI Penalties":

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated