Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

Teaneck DWI Lawyers

• Comet Law Offices: The DUI / DWI laws in New Jersey have become increasingly strict. ¥ There are procedures that law enforcement, the breathalyzer operator, and the court must follow. If these procedures are not followed, we may have grounds to seek a dismissal of the case. These technicalities must be examined to see that your rights were properly preserved. ¥ A DUI / DWI conviction will impact your car insurance and life insurance premiums. A conviction may also result in jail time. In any situation where you are facing jail, it is crucial to hire a DWI lawyer that can vigorously and knowledgeably defend you. ¥ A summons for refusal to take a breathalyzer may result in your license being suspended for seven months
• Benjamin Kelsen:

  Proving a Charge of Drunk Driving

  The basic thrust of the drunk driving laws is that they are to prevent operation of a powerful machine when a person is too intoxicated to have adequate control of the machine. The intoxication element is proven by one of two methods: (1) showing a certain level of blood alcohol or illegal drugs, or (2) showing that the person was impaired. The first method is the one most often used. It does not rely on anyone's observations of the defendant's conduct, but rather on the results of a blood or breath test. A common statutory scheme requires a person suspected of being drunk or drugged while driving to give a sample of his or her breath or blood for testing. This so-called "implied consent" comes about because the statute provides for it whenever a person gets a driver's license. Once the sample is given, it is analyzed by a machine that measures the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood. One common limit for blood-alcohol content is .10 percent, although in recent years there has been a push to lower that limit to .08 percent. Any person who tests over the limit is legally intoxicated. The only way to challenge the charge is to show that there was some failure in the test procedure, such as a malfunctioning machine, improper sampling, foreign substances in the mouth (in the case of a breath test), or improper preservation of the evidence.

  Proof of impairment may also be based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. This type of proof is based on eyewitness testimony, statements of the defendant, and circumstantial evidence. The actual amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is irrelevant, since the focus is on whether the ability to drive has been impaired. Standard police tests for impairment, called "field sobriety tests," include having the defendant walk a straight line with one foot placed precisely in front of the other, closing the eyes and standing with arms held out from the body and touching the tip of the nose when instructed, reciting the alphabet, and counting backwards. Other signs of impairment come from the officer's observations of the defendant's driving, which often lead to the stop. Driving too fast or too slowly, weaving from lane to lane, and going through stop signs have all been used as evidence of impairment. A statement by a driver about how much he or she had to drink, and how recently, can also be used as evidence of impairment when supported by testimony about the probable effects of that amount of alcohol ingested at that time on a person's physical abilities.

• Rachel Kaplan: DWI / DUI defense often involves discovering legal errors that were made by law enforcement at the time of the arrest. Was there a legitimate reason for the traffic stop? Was the chemical test reliable? Was it administered properly?
• Benjamin Kelsen:

  Proving a Charge of Drunk Driving

  The basic thrust of the drunk driving laws is that they are to prevent operation of a powerful machine when a person is too intoxicated to have adequate control of the machine. The intoxication element is proven by one of two methods: (1) showing a certain level of blood alcohol or illegal drugs, or (2) showing that the person was impaired. The first method is the one most often used. It does not rely on anyone's observations of the defendant's conduct, but rather on the results of a blood or breath test. A common statutory scheme requires a person suspected of being drunk or drugged while driving to give a sample of his or her breath or blood for testing. This so-called "implied consent" comes about because the statute provides for it whenever a person gets a driver's license. Once the sample is given, it is analyzed by a machine that measures the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood. One common limit for blood-alcohol content is .10 percent, although in recent years there has been a push to lower that limit to .08 percent. Any person who tests over the limit is legally intoxicated. The only way to challenge the charge is to show that there was some failure in the test procedure, such as a malfunctioning machine, improper sampling, foreign substances in the mouth (in the case of a breath test), or improper preservation of the evidence.

  Proof of impairment may also be based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. This type of proof is based on eyewitness testimony, statements of the defendant, and circumstantial evidence. The actual amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is irrelevant, since the focus is on whether the ability to drive has been impaired. Standard police tests for impairment, called "field sobriety tests," include having the defendant walk a straight line with one foot placed precisely in front of the other, closing the eyes and standing with arms held out from the body and touching the tip of the nose when instructed, reciting the alphabet, and counting backwards. Other signs of impairment come from the officer's observations of the defendant's driving, which often lead to the stop. Driving too fast or too slowly, weaving from lane to lane, and going through stop signs have all been used as evidence of impairment. A statement by a driver about how much he or she had to drink, and how recently, can also be used as evidence of impairment when supported by testimony about the probable effects of that amount of alcohol ingested at that time on a person's physical abilities.