DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL

From prosecuting DUI cases to now defending them, it is important to know how law enforcement builds a case  to prepare a strong defense. 

THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE THAT YOU WERE IMPAIRED WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE

After a late night of partying, our client called 911 and advised dispatch that she pulled her car over because she was hallucinating from a "weed cookie." She  advised that she was now too "high" to drive, and asked for assistance. She advised police the make and model of her car, the location where it was parked, and left her hazard lights on so that police could find her. 

The police arrived at the scene and observed her in her parked vehicle, in the driver's seat, engine running, hazard lights on as she advised. The police also observed our client with blood-shot eyes, slurred speech  and clearly under the influence of drugs. She also reminded the police that she was "really high"  from the "weed  cookie"  she ate an hour earlier, while exhibiting uncontrollable laughter.  When police asked her to exit the vehicle, she stumbled,  could not stand straight, speak clearly and requested medical assistance to treat her hallucinations. Tests subsequently revealed that she also had marijuana in her system.  

Our client was immediately arrested for driving under the influence of drugs (N.J.S.A 39:4-50) and other related offenses which carried substantial fines and penalties including the loss of her driving privileges. 

To convict our client under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the Prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,  that our client operated a vehicle while impaired by drugs or alcohol. Our client did not want to fight the charges because she too assumed that she was guilty. It took time to convince her that she was wrong.

Impairment is generally proven by an officer's observation of the motorist's physical condition. Aside from physical signs of impairment (blood-shot eyes, odor of drugs/alcohol, unsteady gait, etc) indicia of impairment generally includes the office's observation of driving in an erratic condition. The Prosecution could easily demonstrate that our client was visibly impaired upon Police arrival. They even had lab results to prove that drugs were present in her system. That alone is insufficient to prove a person's guilty under the DUI statute.

As stated above, the Prosecution must prove that the defendant was impaired but the defendant must have been impaired while operating the vehicle.  What was our client's condition while she was driving? Nobody saw her drive!

Operation is generally proven by demonstrating that the motorist was driving, or had control of the car with an "intent to drive". Actual proof is when the motorist is observed driving with the vehicle in motion. Indicia of an intent to drive could include circumstances when a motorist is behind the wheel with the engine running.  Because the police did not see the defendant actually driving the vehicle, or her condition while she was driving the vehicle, the Prosecution was left arguing that our client had an intent to drive, because she was behind the wheel, while intoxicated, with the engine running at the time she was first observed by the police.  

Though the engine running could be indicia of operation, our client did not have the requisite intent to drive. The proof demonstrated that she was parked with her hazards on so the police could find her. She had no intent to drive. She wasn't going anywhere!

We demonstrated that even if the facts alleged by the police were true, our client could not be guilty of DUI under these circumstances. The State could not prove that she was impaired while driving. They could only prove she was impaired at the time the police arrived at the scene. A Judge or jury could not assume that our client was just as impaired when she was driving earlier that evening. It is the State's burden to prove such facts beyond a reasonable doubt and they could not do so. 

We also successfully argued that the drug test results were irrelevant and could not be used to prove that she was impaired while driving earlier that evening.  The Court agreed. 

Our motion to suppress was granted, and the DUI charges were dismissed.

It is important to seek legal assistance or consult with an attorney when charged with a criminal offense. Take a moment to review the Court's decision below which should provide some insight. Please note that each case is different and The "Weed Cookie" Case is for informational purposes only. It is not designed to guarantee a particular result or outcome or to incentivize anyone to drive while under the influence of any substance whatsoever. DUI is  illegal, selfish, stupid and reckless and could threaten the safety and lives of others (including yourself). 

Contact Us

Call Evan 24/7  (516) 644-7747

Office (201) 947-41