Daughter's Tip Leads To DWI (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) For Father

Posted on December 26, 2008 by Tom Martin

On December 22, 2008, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in State v. Amelio. In this DWI case, the issue was whether the police had a reasonable basis to stop a drunk driver, based upon his daughter's telephone call to a police dispatcher. The Justices ruled that the phone call to police from the driver's (juvenile) daughter, reporting that her father was driving drunk, constituted adequate justification for the police to stop the defendant/father for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The Justices reasoned that the daughter's tip was not anonymous in nature, but rather from a known family member who risked prosecution for making a false report in the event she was lying. The justices gave no weight to the defense's arguments that the daughter was a juvenile and only provided limited information that her father was driving drunk. The Court held, that the tip gave the police a reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car.

By: Thomas H. Martin, Esq.

http://jerseycriminallawyer.com/

Tags: , , , , , ,

You Can Be Charged With DWI For Allowing a Drunk Driver to Drive Your Car

Posted on September 24, 2008 by Tom Martin

Under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the DWI statute, an individual can be charged with, be found guilty of and receive the same penalties for driving while intoxicated if they allow a drunk driver to operate his or her vehicle. The elements of the "allowing" provison of the DWI statute are set forth in the Appellate Division case of State v. Skillman,  226 N.J. Super. 193, 199-200 (App. Div. 1988). There the Court stated that ..."the State (prosecutor) must produce evidence from which the trier of fact (Judge) may reasonably infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such owner or custodian knew or reasonably should have known, of the permittee's impaired condition to drive."   

The standard is if you were aware or should have been aware that the person you allowed to operate the vehicle (which you had control over) was drunk, then you can be found guilty of the offense. In defending these cases, it is essential to establish that you were not aware of the operator's intoxication either because the operator did not appear to be visbly intoxicated or that you had some physical manifestation which precluded you from knowing of the person's intoxication.

By: Thomas H. Martin

www.thomasmartinlaw.com

Tags: , , , , , , , ,