State v Gonzalez DWI affirmed where driver slumped behind wheel

State v Gonzalez DWI affirmed where driver slumped behind wheel Defendant appealed his DWI conviction and sentence. Witness reported car was stopped at a light, did not move when light changed and driver appeared to be slumped over the wheel. Officers found defendant asleep in the driver's seat, car was in gear and defendant had his foot on the brake. Officers managed to wake defendant up and the car lurched forward, almost striking officer. Officers detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed defendant had a flushed face and watery eyes and video showed him swaying as he exited the vehicle. Defendant alleged a leg injury prevented him from performing some of the field sobriety tests and he failed to follow the instructions for the "alphabet test." Officers administered an Alcotest breath test at the police station following defendant's arrest. Municipal court denied defendant's motion to suppress the Alcotest results and found defendant guilty. Law Division rejected defendant's claim that police did not have probable cause to arrest him. Court agreed there was probable cause to arrest defendant and to convict him based on witness's observations alone, Alcotest was properly administered and he was not entitled to be sentenced under the amendment. Source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1632512174NJA436619

State v Gonzalez DWI affirmed where driver slumped behind wheel

 State v Gonzalez DWI affirmed where driver slumped behind wheel

Defendant appealed his DWI conviction and sentence. Witness reported car was stopped at a light, did not move when light changed and driver appeared to be slumped over the wheel. Officers found defendant asleep in the driver's seat, car was in gear and defendant had his foot on the brake. Officers managed to wake defendant up and the car lurched forward, almost striking officer. Officers detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed defendant had a flushed face and watery eyes and video showed him swaying as he exited the vehicle. Defendant alleged a leg injury prevented him from performing some of the field sobriety tests and he failed to follow the instructions for the "alphabet test." Officers administered an Alcotest breath test at the police station following defendant's arrest. Municipal court denied defendant's motion to suppress the Alcotest results and found defendant guilty. Law Division rejected defendant's claim that police did not have probable cause to arrest him. Court agreed there was probable cause to arrest defendant and to convict him based on witness's observations alone, Alcotest was properly administered and he was not entitled to be sentenced under the amendment. Source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1632512174NJA436619

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY SCUDIERI (20-004, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0352-20)

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY SCUDIERI (20-004, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0352-20)

In this appeal, the court held that the Legislature intended prospective application of the amended refusal statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a. That intent was manifested by the Legislature's express statement that the amended legislation—which imposed on all defendants convicted of refusal the less onerous penalty of installing an interlock device rather than forfeiting his or her license as mandated by the former statute—would become effective on December 1, 2019, over four months after it was signed into law, and apply only to those defendants who committed an offense on or after that date. That unequivocal legislation pronouncement militates against retroactive application even for defendants who were sentenced after December 1, 2019.

In such circumstances, courts need not consider the common law exceptions to the presumption of prospective application as discussed in Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515 (1981) and James v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 216 N.J. 552 (2014), nor the timing of the penalty incurred under the general savings statute, N.J.S.A. 1:1–15. The Legislature's determination that interlock devices serve as a greater deterrent than license forfeiture supports the conclusion that the amended legislation was neither ameliorative nor curative, in any event.