DWI Refusal notice withstands challenge
State v Quintero __ NJ Super __(App. Div. 2016)
The court
affirms defendant's de novo conviction for refusal to submit to a breath test,
N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a. Defendant argues that the Attorney General's current
standard statement under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(e) is fundamentally deficient for
not specifying the mandatory minimum penalties for refusal. In State v.
O'Driscoll, 215 N.J. 461, 479-480 (2013), the Supreme Court noted, but declined
to address, the sufficiency of the standard statement.
The court hold
that the current standard statement satisfies the statutory mandate — that is,
informing motorists and impelling compliance — by adequately informing drivers
of the maximum potential license revocation and fine, and the possibility of
ignition interlock, that they face for refusal. In so ruling, The court note
that adding other details, including the differing mandatory minimum and
maximum penalties for first offenders, second offenders, and certain third
offenders, may run the risk of submerging the most significant penalties in
those details.
