BAC levels

State Supreme Court to Rule on Right to Jury Trial in DWI Cases

On February 17, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in an appeal from a New Jersey resident facing a fourth prosecution for drinking and driving. The legal issue the court has been asked to consider? Whether a person charged with DWI in New Jersey has a right to trial by a jury of his or her peers. In the case before the Supreme Court, State of New Jersey v. James R. Denelsbeck, the defendant requested a jury trial in municipal court, but his request was denied. The lower court ruling was affirmed in both the Superior Court and the Appellate Division. Though many perceive the right to trial by jury to be automatic and universal, the U.S. Constitution does not grant such an absolute right. Pursuant to the terms of the 6th Amendment, a defendant only has a right to a jury trial if the potential sanction may be more than six months. Under New Jersey law, Denelsbeck, if convicted, would face a maximum sentence of six months. Accordingly, the trial judge denied the request.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the 6th Amendment, many states have allowed defendants in drunk driving cases have their cases heard and decided by a jury. In New Jersey, however, it has long been the practice to have DWI cases heard in municipal court, where all matters are handled by a judge. Numerous efforts have been made over the last 25 years to move DWI prosecutions to Superior Court, where a defendant may have a jury trial. State officials have resisted the attempt, citing concerns about the costs of the many jury trials that would ensue.

The New Jersey Supreme Court established the current precedent in 1990, in State v. Hamm, concluding that, in New Jersey, a DWI is a motor vehicle infraction instead of a crime. The ruling in Hamm was consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling a year earlier that found that DWI defendants facing a potential incarceration of six months or less do not have a right to trial by jury

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, criminal defense attorney in New Jersey.

At the law offices of attorney Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, we offer prospective clients charged with crimes a free phone consultation. We can answer your questions, explain your rights, and help you understand your options relating to a criminal charge.

Contact our office online or call us at 973-898-0161 for a free consultation. In addition to our criminal law practice, we also represent clients in personal injury law cases.

The fact that the human body naturally metabolizes alcohol in the blood does not automatically constitute exigent circumstances for the Fourth Amendment search warrant exception.

In Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that whether an officer is permitted to require a blood test of a suspected drunk driver must be determined on a case by case basis. In the McNeely case, the defendant had refused to submit to a breathalyzer test after failing field-sobriety tests. The officer who pulled him over then took him to a hospital where a blood test was performed without McNeely’s consent or a search warrant.

McNeely filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood test, which had determined his BAC (blood alcohol concentration) was almost double the legal limit. The trial court granted his motion to suppress due to his lack of consent and a warrant, saying that the typical circumstances of the body processing alcohol did not qualify as exigent circumstances under the established Fourth Amendment exception. The trial court determined that there was no reason the officer could not obtain a warrant first. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The exigency exception “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 131 S. CT. 1849, 1856 (2011).

The U.S. Supreme Court discussed how the metabolization of alcohol is a predictable process, and further how taking suspected drunk drivers to a place where a blood test can be performed requires time. In fact, likely the same kind of delay that would be necessary in order to obtain a search warrant. All of this was considered in the context of how technology enables officers to obtain warrants quicker and easier than ever before. In situations where true exigent circumstances do exist, the Court found that no warrant will be required. Trial courts will now have to decide on a case by case basis whether exigent circumstances exist in order for law enforcement to circumvent the warrant requirement when taking the blood of suspected drunk drivers to determine their BAC levels.

Contact Us Today

Contact Us Today

New Jersey Supreme Court to Consider Right to Jury Trial in DWI Cases

State Supreme Court to Rule on Right to Jury Trial in DWI Cases

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, criminal defense attorney in New Jersey.

Police Officers Will Now Need a Warrant, or Meet an Exception to the Warrant Requirement, in Order to Blood Test DWI Suspects