Success Stories

New Jersey Refusal & DWI Both Dismissed

Our DUI defense attorneys recently represented a client who was charged with a DWI and Refusal after State Police allegedly found her on the shoulder of the Garden State Parkway intoxicated. If convicted, our client would receive a mandatory suspension of upwards of 15 months and be required to install an ignition interlock device in her vehicle. Refusal and DUI cases are some of the hardest offenses to win in Municipal Court because there is absolutely no plea bargaining allowed. In order to secure a downgrade or dismissal of a DWI or Refusal, you have to aggressively attack the State’s case against you. Right from the beginning we began laying the groundwork for a trial and creating leverage for our client’s defense. We did this by challenging the State’s ability to establish operation of the motor vehicle and by identifying crucial discovery issues. In order to exploit the discovery issues, we successfully argued for the Judge to sign an order mandating that the State provide missing discovery and comply within a reasonable amount of time. In the end, upon a motion by our defense attorneys, were able to successfully argue for a dismissal of all the charges against our client including the Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal, and Reckless Driving. This allowed our client to walk out of court without ever losing her license and without paying any fines. If you or a loved one has been charged with a DWI and Refusal, contact our office today at (201) 793-8018 to see how we may be able to help you during a free consultation with an experienced DUI attorney.

State v. S.C.

Domestic Violence Assault Dismissed Against Non-Citizen

Our Hudson County criminal defense lawyers recently represented a client who had been charged with domestic violence simple assault after an alleged fight with his wife. To make matters worse our client was not a U.S. citizen and risked potential immigration consequences such as deportation or prohibition against re-entering the country if he was convicted of an act of domestic violence. By the time we got involved in the case our client had an arrest warrant for failing to appear in court and ever answer the charges. After lifting the warrant we had the case re-listed and made a demand to the prosecutor to provide the evidence and subpoena any witnesses they would need to try and prove the case.

Once we went to court, the prosecutor had trouble producing the evidence and the victim failed to appear to testify after being subpoenaed. After reviewing the information, the prosecutor conceded that there were substantial proof issues with their case. Based on these issues, we were able to make a persuasive argument to the judge for a motion to dismiss based on lack of prosecution. Our client was able to walk out of court with no criminal record after the charges were completely dismissed. Moreover, at the time of the dismissal our lawyers made an argument for the judge to sign an expungement to erase his record of arrest so nothing would come up on a background check. If you or your loved one has been charged with an act of domestic violence or has potential immigration issues like the client referenced above, then feel free to give us a call today for a free consultation so we can explain how we may be able to help.

State v. C.J. decided on August 3, 2017

Drug DUI Dismissed

Our DWI defense attorneys recently defended a client who had been charged with a Drug DWI for being under the marijuana. Our client had been arrested by Port Authority Police upon returning to New Jersey from New York City. He was initially stopped by police for a motor vehicle infraction and upon further investigation, officers asked him to exit his car after smelling marijuana. Our subsequently admitted to police that there was in fact marijuana in his car and that he had smoked earlier. Based upon this evidence and his admissions to police, our client was arrested for driving while under the influence of narcotics, DWI in a School Zone, CDS in a Motor Vehicle and Possession of Marijuana. These charges are extremely serious because the drug DUI carries a 7 – 12 month loss of license, the school zone DWI carries a 1 – 2 year loss of license, the CDS in MV carries a 2 year loss of license, and the marijuana carries up to 6 months in jail and an additional 6 month loss of license.

Once at court, our attorneys challenged the State’s evidence against our client including, but not limited to, the stop, search and seizure of the drugs, and the subsequent investigation and testing related to DWI. After addressing various issues with the prosecutor and the police involved in the arrest, we were able to secure a complete dismissal of the drug DUI, the DWI in the school zone, and CDS in the MV. Moreover, we were able secure our client’s admittance into the conditional discharge program so our client’s criminal charges with the marijuana possession would be dismissed at the completion of six months probation. At the end of the day, our client was able to walk out of court without losing his license for even a day and avoid a criminal conviction. To learn more about how our attorneys may be able to help you or your loved one, contact our office today at (201) 793-8018 for a free consultation.

DWI Dismissed after Being Charged with Felony Drugs

Our office had the opportunity to help out another one of the our clients who had been charged with a DWI and 3rd degree drug possession of prescription drugs. Our client was a hard working family man who had no prior record and had a great job which could have been easily lost if he was convicted of the felony drug possession or couldn’t drive to work for an extended period of time from a DWI conviction.

His case was sent to CJP in Hudson County Superior Court since he was charged with a 3rd degree felony which could carry up 3 – 5 years in state prison if convicted. At CJP our criminal defense attorney was able to speak with the prosecutor about the circumstances of the case and the state agreed to downgrade the charges from an indictable crime down to a disorderly persons offense and send the case back down to municipal court. This was a huge win right from the beginning because now our client was no longer facing the possibility of a felony conviction.

Once at municipal court we began challenging the evidence against our client as it pertained to the drugs and DWI. We were able to put forth a compelling argument and convince the judge to sign an order demanding that the state produce certain evidence against our client by a certain date or in the alternative that those missing pieces be suppressed. Ultimately, we were able successfully argue that the judge dismiss the DWI charges based on several items of missing evidence and the fact that the state may have trouble proving that the defendant actually had the intent to operate the vehicle. As for the drug charges – our client was admitted into the conditional discharge program which will result in a dismissal of the case after 12 months with no violations. To learn more about how a Kearny NJ DWI attorney may be able to help you, contact our office today for a free consultation.

State v. L.B. decided August 30, 2016

DWI Dismissed Against Driver Passed Out in Middle of Road

Our Hoboken DWI defense attorneys recently represented a client who was arrested for drunk driving and DWI in a School Zone after Hoboken Police found him passed out unconscious behind the wheel in the middle of the road around 5:44 A.M. Upon approaching the car the police noticed all the doors were locked and there was loud music blasting from inside the car. According to their report, the police could see our client seated inside with his eyes closed but he was completely unresponsive to their commands and it actually took them several minutes of knocking on the windows and physically shaking the car to wake our client from his slumber.

When he finally woke up and rolled down the window, the police smelt an odor of alcoholic beverages emanating from inside the car. According to the report, after speaking with the police, he appeared to be disoriented and did not know where he was at first. The police also noted that he had slow speech and glassy eyes. Based on the circumstances, an ambulance had been called to make sure our client did not need medical attention. When they asked him to step out of the car to be checked by the EMTs he was also observed to be stumbling and had to be guided with the assistance of the medical personnel. Lastly, he was heard making open admissions to the EMTs that he had been consuming alcohol throughout the night.

Based on these observations, the police arrested our client for DWI and DWI in a School Zone and transported him to the police station where he was administered the breathalyzer which showed he was in fact above the legal limit. This was our client’s first time in trouble and he was obviously very distraught about the situation, especially since he faced up to a 2 year loss of his driver’s license, if convicted. In order to challenge the State’s case against him, our defense lawyers began combing through the evidence looking for inconsistencies or potential issues with the police officer’s procedures and the breathalyzer machine itself. Based on the information we uncovered, we brought in a retired state trooper breath test coordinator, as a DWI expert, to challenge the validity of the breathalyzer reading. In the end, our attorneys made a motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the State’s evidence and the court dismissed both the DWI and DWI in the School Zone against our client.

State v. G.S. decided on October 24, 2017 resulted in Reckless Driving with 60 day loss of license

DWI Dismissed in Hudson County

Our office represented a client who had been charged with a DWI after crashing his car on the New Jersey Turnpike. State Troopers soon arrived and arrested him under suspicion of drunk driving and took him back to the station where he blew a 0.13% BAC. As a first time offender, he faced a mandatory driver’s license suspension of 7 – 12 months. To make matters worse, our client was a commercial driver who owned his own business and had a CDL. If convicted of the DWI, in addition to any basic driving suspension, he faced a mandatory 1 year suspension of his CDL and would be unable to work.

Our attorneys put together an aggressive defense to attack the State’s case against him and challenged their level of proofs, which included retaining a DWI expert. After months of back and forth, the case was set for trial and when the State’s key witness failed to show for a second time, the judge granted our motion to dismiss based on lack of prosecution. The DUI and all the ancillary charges were dismissed and our client was able to walk out of the courtroom without even losing his license for a day.

State v. N.G.

DWI Resulting in Accident Dismissed

Our DWI attorneys recently defended a client who was charged with driving while intoxicated after he rear-ended a car near the Holland Tunnel. Port Authority Police were called to the scene because of the accident and after speaking with our client they smelled alcohol on his breath and decided to arrest him for DWI. He was brought to the Port Authority Police Station so they could conduct the breathalyzer, also known as the Alcotest machine. However, the Alcotest failed after the machine had an internal error so the officers had to again transfer our client to another police station to conduct the test where he eventually gave a breath sample of 0.12% which was over the legal limit.

As part of our representation, we requested all the relevant evidence pertaining to our client’s case be produced in court. In particular we wanted to see the first breath sample from the Alcotest that failed earlier in the day in order to what level of alcohol it registered and also to set up a detailed timeline after the defendant’s arrest to see if the police officer’s followed the correct protocols, in particular the required 20 minute observation period before the breathalyzer. However, the prosecutor could not produce the results from the earlier test because, according to the police, they had destroyed it. Based on this information, our attorneys filed a motion to suppress the breathalyzer reading from evidence and successfully argued the motion before the municipal judge who suppressed the breathalyzer reading. This meant that the prosecutor could no longer rely on the 0.12% alcohol reading to prove our client guilty of the DWI and instead could only use the standard field sobriety tests such as walking a straight to try and prove he was drunk at the time of the accident. On the day of trial, our attorneys were able to convince of the police officer and the prosecutor that they could not prove the DWI simply based on the field sobriety tests because the defendant had performed them very well. Therefore, the court dismissed the DWI charges against our client.

State v. J.Z. decided April 10, 2017

Jersey City DWI Dismissed Outright Based on Speedy Trial

Our Jersey City DWI attorneys recently defended a client who had been stopped and arrested for DWI in Jersey City after officers found him sleeping inside his car with the engine running. Based on the prevailing law in New Jersey, even if you are sleeping inside your car you can still get charged and convicted for drunk driving. After awakening him, the police claimed that a struggle ensued and they found our client carrying a gun. Based on the serious felony charges, the case was sent up to the Hudson County Superior Court when the defendant ended up receiving a Pre-Trial Intervention which resulted in the criminal charges being dismissed once he successfully completed the program.

However, there was one big problem – the DWI and other motor vehicle charges were never sent back down to the Jersey City municipal court to be disposed of. To make matters worse, the New Jersey DMV had suspended our client’s license and would not reinstate even though a bench warrant was never imposed in his case because the motor vehicle tickets appeared to be frozen in this transfer status and unresolved for so many years. After years of trying to clear this up on his own and spending countless hours dealing with DMV, and court staff at Jersey City Municipal Court and Hudson County Superior Court he was at his wit’s end. He came to the conclusion that there was no way he could do this any longer by himself so he called our office to explain what exactly had been going on for the last 3 years. At first even our attorneys found it hard to believe that such a major case involving a DWI could “fall through the cracks” and result in such a hardship for someone. But based on the facts, we agreed to take on the case and assured him we would get to the bottom of it. After conducting our own investigation we were able to track down the prosecutor who originally handled the case and quickly figured out that through an error in the system the case was never actually sent back down to the municipal court 3 years ago like it should have been.

Based on this new information we had the case sent back down to Jersey City Municipal Court to finally be disposed of. Once we appeared in court, our DUI defense lawyers quickly asserted our client’s speedy trial rights and made motion to dismiss the case based on the fact that it had been approximately 36 months since our client’s case was resolved at the Superior Court and based on State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013) that time period pending a remand does not “toll” or stop the speedy trial clock from ticking. At first the prosecutor opposed the dismissal because of the original set of facts involving the gun and the fact that our client’s BAC reading was so high at 0.24% effectively making him 3 times the legal limit However, after a lengthy oral argument before the judge it became clear that the law was on the defendant’s side and the prosecutor had no choice but to agree to dismiss the case. Our client was able to walk out of court with no license suspension and no fines and now can finally get his license back after all these years.

State v. D.B. decided September 22, 2017

Leaving the Scene of Accident on Turnpike Dismissed

Our New Jersey traffic defense attorneys recently represented a client who was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after a car crash on the turnpike. To make matters worse, it was alleged that the car accident resulted from a road rage incident between our client and the other driver after one cut the other off and stopped short.

Our client was adamant that he did not do anything wrong and that there was no accident or damage to either vehicle. Based on this he did not want to take any type of plea deal or admit to doing anything wrong. In order to secure such an outcome we had to appear multiple times in court over several months eventually setting the case for a trial. At the time of trial our attorney made a motion to dismiss the charge for leaving the scene of an accident based on the lack of prosecution because the state was still missing crucial evidence that they would require to prove the charges. In the end, our client was able to walk out of court without admitting any guilt or paying any fines. If you are facing charges for leaving the scene of an accident like the above example, then contact our office today for a free consultation where we can discuss the facts of your case and possible defenses.

State v. W.S. decided June 12, 2017

Lewdness Charge Downgraded to City Ordinance

Our Hudson County criminal attorneys recently defended a client who was charged with lewdness after being arrested by Hoboken police in the early morning hours. Our client was very concerned when he contacted us for help because he was currently serving a suspended sentence for a charge of criminal sexual contact that had been recently downgraded to harassment. To make matters worse our client was not a U.S. citizen and is in the country on a work visa and another criminal conviction for an alleged sex crime could further complicate his immigration status.

The case originated after Hoboken police allegedly spotted our client urinating between two cars on the street after a night out at the bars. Urinating in public citations are common place in Hoboken, although they are normally not charged as criminal lewdness. This is because defendants charged with urinating in public will normally try and be discreet by peeing in an alley-way or side of a building. However, the circumstances alleged in this case seemed to be more egregious because the defendant was between two cars positioned between the sidewalk and the street so he could easily be viewed by pedestrians or traffic driving by. And that’s exactly what the police alleged when they drove by and said they saw the defendant’s penis clearly exposed to the public with no intention to hide what he was doing. Based on these facts, the police charged our client with a crime of Lewdness under 2c:14-4 and gave him a summons to appear in court. This meant that the police felt he had exposed his genitals in a manner likely to be seen by others. Now this could have been chalked up to just a bad night, which would allow for an argument that the defendant was just so intoxicated that he didn’t realize what he was doing. However, given his recent past discretion, our client was concerned that the police and court would simply assume the worst and quickly jump to the conclusion this was a continuing pattern of sexual deviant behavior.

One of our primary defense arguments in this case was that our client shouldn’t be treated any different from any of the other countless offenders ticketed for urinating in public in Hoboken just because he had a prior record. At court we were able to convince the prosecutor to give our client the benefit of the doubt even though the circumstances appeared a bit inordinary or “fishy”. Therefore, in the court agreed to amend the criminal charge to a municipal ordinance and our client was able to walk out of court without a criminal conviction and only had to pay a fine. If you have been charged with lewdness under circumstances similar to the events described above then feel free to contact us for a free consultation at (201) 793-8018.

State v. O.K. decided March 20, 2018