A recent DWI case handled by The Law Offices of Christopher G. Porreca demonstrates why the number printed on a breath-testing document should never be viewed as the end of the case.
Our client was arrested in Byram Township, New Jersey, and charged with Driving While Intoxicated under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. The police alleged that the client had been speeding, had crossed lane markings, and had driven erratically before being stopped. According to the police report, the officer also claimed to observe signs of impairment during roadside field sobriety testing.
Most significantly, police administered a breath test using New Jersey's newer Alcotest 9510. The police report states that the instrument produced a breath result of .198% BAC, while the State's Alcotest calculator generated a reported result of .192% BAC.
On paper, therefore, this initially appeared to be a serious DWI prosecution.
The Alcotest 9510 Changed the Defense Analysis
An experienced New Jersey DWI attorney does not simply accept a breath-test number because it appears in a police report.
The Alcotest 9510 is a newer breath-testing instrument in New Jersey, and the admissibility and scientific reliability of breath-testing evidence must be established in accordance with applicable New Jersey law. That distinction can have an enormous impact on how a DWI case is evaluated and ultimately resolved.
Rather than treating the alleged .192% result as automatically controlling, our defense focused on the State's ability to establish legally admissible evidence sufficient to support the level of intoxication it sought to prove.
That analysis ultimately made a substantial difference.
Case Resolved as a Tier 1 DWI
Following negotiations, the case was resolved with the client pleading guilty to DWI as a Tier 1 offense — the lowest DWI tier.
The sentence included only a 90-day ignition-interlock requirement on the DWI charge.
The client also entered a guilty plea to careless driving, with an additional 90-day interlock requirement. Only the minimum applicable fines were imposed.
The remaining motor-vehicle charges were dismissed. Those original charges included reckless driving, failure to maintain lane and failure to keep right. The police report confirms that these offenses had been issued in addition to the DWI and careless-driving summonses.
The final disposition was therefore dramatically different from what someone might have expected after simply reading the allegations in the police report and seeing an alleged breath-alcohol concentration approaching .20%.
A Breath-Test Number Does Not End a New Jersey DWI Case
This case illustrates an important point for anyone charged with DWI in New Jersey: the State still has to prove its case.
Breath-testing evidence must be carefully examined. The instrument used, its legal and scientific status, the manner in which the test was administered, the supporting documentation, the observations of the arresting officers, field sobriety testing, video evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the motor-vehicle stop can all matter.
A defendant should not assume that the penalties associated with an alleged BAC are inevitable merely because a police report contains a particular number.
Here, despite a police-reported breath result of .192%, the case was ultimately resolved at the lowest DWI tier, with a 90-day interlock requirement on the DWI, an additional 90-day interlock associated with careless driving, minimum fines, and dismissal of all remaining summonses.
Charged With DWI in New Jersey?
Attorney Christopher G. Porreca has defended individuals charged with DWI and serious motor-vehicle offenses throughout New Jersey for decades. Every DWI case should be examined individually, including the legality of the stop, field sobriety testing, police video, breath or blood testing, and whether the State can actually establish the admissibility and reliability of its evidence.
If you have been charged with DWI in New Jersey, contact The Law Offices of Christopher G. Porreca to discuss the specific facts and defenses that may apply to your case.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends upon its individual facts and circumstance