The Super Bowl is often good reason to get together with friends and to drink a few brews.  After the game, you may make the decision that you had too much to drink and should not be driving.  That’s a good call.  However, allowing a buddy to drive your car can be as bad a mistake as driving the car yourself.

In New Jersey, the DWI laws punish not only a drunk driver but the person who let the drunk driver use his car.  Title 39:4-50 states in part:

a person who… permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control or permits another to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more.

In other words, if you allow a person to drive the car that is registered to you or a car that you control (e.g., a rental car), then you can be charged with a DWI.  If found guilty, the penalties are the same as if you were convicted for a DWI.  Even worse, if you had a prior DUI or DWI, then that prior conviction can be used to treat you as a second DWI offender.

As a first offender in New Jersey, the penalties include license suspension, fines and surcharges, intoxicated driver classes and the ignition interlock device.  Second offender status means that the license suspension is for two years and there is also mandatory jail-time.

So, when you make the intelligent decision not to drive drunk, you also have to make sure that the driver of your car is not intoxicated.  Otherwise, you may find yourself in a New Jersey municipal court.

Everyone is familiar with the scenario. You are driving down the road and police emergency lights go on behind you. A police officer has been following you and now you have an obligation to pull over.  Most citizens will immediately stop the car.  However, some make a bad decision to flee, because there may be illegal contraband or drugs in the vehicle.

It is always in your best interest to stop. Fleeing and eluding (N.J.S. 2C:29-2) in NJ is a criminal offense that will lead to suspended driving privileges and possibly will result in jail time. Even if you are guilty of some crime prior to being stopped, chances are, you will only make it worst if you floor it.

In the State of New Jersey, when someone fails to bring a vehicle to a full stop on any highway, street or waterway within state boundaries after being requested by law enforcement to do so, he or she can be found guilty of a third degree charge of eluding an officer.

The jail time for a third degree eluding is up to five years. If the flight creates a risk of death or serious bodily injury to any person, then the offense is a second degree crime.  If convicted of a second degree eluding offense, the court must sentence the driver to prison time up to ten years.

In addition to incarceration, drivers convicted of fleeing will have their driver’s licenses suspended for a minimum of six months and up to two years. If the driver already had a suspended license, the state will just add this suspension period to the end of the current one. The suspension is automatic and understood as part of the charge. Drivers claiming they were not notified of their suspension would most likely still face charges if found driving with an eluding-related license suspension.

What if you were really innocent of any wrongdoing at the time the officer tried to pull you over? Unfortunately, that is not a defense.  Even if the arrest from which you were fleeing was later found to be unlawful, you could still be convicted of resisting arrest and eluding an officer.  As long as the officer makes it clear that he intends to stop you prior to fleeing the scene, you could be found guilty of this crime.

The suburbs of Philadelphia may be quiet, but they are not without crime. First of the year police reports in Delaware County included petty theft, vandalism, and even a few windows knocked out by pellet guns. Perhaps, it can be assumed that everyone was still experiencing holiday good will except for the few motivated by holiday bills. In the first week of 2012, the most serious violation in Newtown and Marple Pennsylvania was driving under the influence.

A short list of misdemeanors was interrupted by two late night DUI arrests in Newton. Interestingly enough, both arrests were of West Chester drivers. Other than the driver’s hometown, there were no other similarities.

In another matter, a DUI investigation quickly became a narcotics arrest for a West Chester driver and his passenger.  While operating his vehicle late one night, the accused was arrested at the corners of Chestnut St. and Summit Ave. Police discovered narcotics and drug paraphernalia in the driver’s possession and he was charged with driving under the influence. The 24 year old had straws, a plastic gift card, a bottle of pills, and a white powdery substance in the car and on his person.

The driver wasn’t alone either. The passenger was charged with possession, as well as, the intent to deliver after police found a razor blade, over $700 and a tally sheet. The 23 year old passenger was from Kennett Square. Although charged with a DUI, the driver refused to take a blood test. In addition to DUI, the driver was also charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia.

A few days earlier, a West Chester woman was charged with driving under the influence as police witnessed her swerving heavily down Goshen Road. Driving in the very early weekend hours, the 30 year old driver crossed both the fog line and center line while driving. When stopped, officers could detect the odor of alcohol. They administered sobriety tests. The woman failed four field sobriety tests.

Although officers detected that she was under the influence, the driver was given a portable breath test. She measured .228 percent and was taken to a local hospital for a blood alcohol test.

Any Pennsylvania DUI lawyer will tell you that you must be careful to avoid DUI charges, even in the suburbs.

Officer Neal Arruchio and his companion had no idea about the terrible turn of events they were about to face as they headed out to enjoy a South Philly cheesesteak while wearing his Ranger’s jersey.  Arruchio was off duty and out for an evening to enjoy the match between the Rangers and Flyers.   At Geno’s Steaks they ran into serious trouble when the encountered Dennis Veteri an obviously rabid Flyers fan.

Powerful Video Evidence Helping to Build a Powerful Case

In video captured at the scene it is evident Arruchio was trying to bring their disagreement to an end and calm the situation when suddenly Veteri started throwing punches.  Veteri continued the assault after Arruchio was on the floor.

Arruchio sustained multiple injuries from the attack including a concussion, eye injuries, and facial bone damage.  The off duty officer will need reconstructive surgery in order to correct the damage sustained in the attack.

Veteri did not act alone in this battle.  He was joined by two other men who the police are currently trying to locate.  There have been no official charges filed on these two additional men.  They are being sought for questioning and to determine their involvement in the attack.  Veteri has a long history of violence in both Philadelphia and Florida with aggravated assault, battery, and drug charges in both states.

Dennis Veteri has been charged with numerous crimes for this attack which include:

• 2 Counts – Aggravated Assault
• 2 Counts – Conspiracy
• 2 Counts – Simple Assault
• 2  Counts – Reckless Endangerment

The two sets of charges are due to the attack on Arruchio’s companion, also.  The conspiracy charges come from his enrolling the assistance of his friends in this brutal attack.

The One Intelligent Move of Veteri

Veteri knew he was in serious trouble with the police immediately and sought the advice of a Philadelphia defense attorney.  He was arrested by the police in his attorney’s office and the later released on a $100,000 bond.  The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office has returned to the judge requesting a review of the bond amount.  It is their belief the bail is not set high enough to deter Veteri from attempting to flee.

When paired with Veteri’s previous criminal convictions he could be facing very stiff sentencing guidelines.  It is possible Veteri will face Pennsylvania’s second strike for a violent crime which has a mandatory sentence of 10 years.  Facing two separate charges could potentially lengthen the time to 25 years.  This is a crucial point Veteri needs to discuss with his defense attorney to determine if this one event represents just his second strike or his third strike since the sentencing guidelines are dramatically different.

The factor of assaulting an off-duty police officer paired with the strong video evidence may make the District Attorney’s office very reluctant to accept any pleas for leniency in the case.  The case will be an interesting one to keep a close eye on as it proceeds through trial and sentencing.  Hopefully officer Arruchio heals rapidly and is able to return to duty quickly.

The community needs to extend a thank you to the courageous 35-year old woman who managed to break free from her assailant and immediately notified police.  Her quick actions allowed the police to start an immediate search leading to the capture of Dominic Johnson as a suspect in this attack and two previous sexual assault cases.

The police spotted a man matching the description of the 35-year old woman’s attacker.  When Johnson saw the police he took off at a sprint trying to elude capture.  The police managed to capture Dominic quickly and recovered the handgun he had used in his earlier attack.  The apprehension took place near Chestnut and Sixtieth Street in West Philadelphia.

Multiple Attacks in West Philadelphia Using Identical Methods

Johnson’s attempted sexual assault on the 35-year old woman followed the same pattern as the two previous cases.  His normal mode of operation was to grab the victim from behind, pull a gun, and then sexually assault them.  The two previous victims were a 19 year old woman on January 3 and a 18 year old woman in the early morning hours of January 11.  This latest attempt occurred the same day at approximately 11:20PM.  The short time between attacks indicates his desire to attack may have been accelerating.

Dominic Johnson is a resident of Southwest Philadelphia.  His bail has been set at $1.5 million dollars due to the District Attorney and Court believing Dominic is a high risk for flight.  He has been charged with the following felonies:

• Rape
• Aggravated Assault
• Robbery

The District Attorney’s office has charged him with other related charges.  Each charge of rape carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years imprisonment in the state of Philadelphia.  With the other charges Mr. Johnson could be spending many years in prison if convicted.

The Court Could Slam the Book on the Suspects Freedom

It will be up to the discretion of the court whether charges will be served in concurrently or consecutively.  This is one issue where Dominic Johnson will need to rely heavily on his Philadelphia area defense attorney.  Being able to serve his sentences concurrently would shorten his time in prison dramatically.  You can expect the District Attorney’s office to fight vigorously for the opposite to keep him off the street if he is convicted.

From all reports Mr. Johnson acted independently in all of his attacks.  There currently no reports of his attacks being associated to gang activity in the area.

With multiple charges, plus multiple crimes, the suspect may be facing not only the standard stiff sentencing but further years of imprisonment under Pennsylvania’s two and three strike rules for violent crime.  This could increase his mandatory sentencing to 25 years or longer.  You can expect his choice of defense attorney to fight vigorously to avoid these additional sentencing guidelines being used.

The women of West Philadelphia may be breathing a big sigh of relief knowing a suspect has been apprehended in these cases.  The quick and powerful actions of a brave 35-year old Philadelphia woman provided police the opportunity they needed.

If you have been charged with a DUI or DWI, there are various ways the reliability of breath testing results should be challenged. One particular attack concerns the presence of dental appliances or fixtures, such as dentures or bridges, during breath testing. The ability of these fixtures to trap alcohol in the mouth can cause a falsely elevated reading that will be used to wrongly convict a driver for having a breath alcohol reading (BAC) over the legal limit.

Food or other foreign substances, such as chewing tobacco, often become lodged under bridges, plates or dentures. When a person has been drinking alcohol, the substances trapped under the dental fixtures will absorb the alcohol. These substances soaked in alcohol may then be present during the breath testing, causing the presence of “mouth alcohol.” Even a minute amount of this unabsorbed, mouth alcohol can mix with a breath sample.

Although manufacturers of modern breath testing devices claim these machines are equipped with detectors that will alert the operator to the presence of mouth alcohol, many experts have disputed the reliability of these detectors. As such, the breath testing machines are often unable to distinguish between the unabsorbed alcohol in a person’s mouth and the alcohol that has been absorbed into the subject’s bloodstream. This inability to distinguish between the two could lead to disastrous results for the person charged with a DUI.

Two studies in particular have addressed the issue of dentures, mouth alcohol and breath testing. In 1992, the American Society for Testing and Materials published a study that acknowledged the use of dentures and denture adhesive can cause alcohol to remain in the oral cavity for an extended period of time. The study did conclude that after 20 minutes the alcohol would have sufficiently dissipated, so it was not detected by the breath testing machine. However, that study did not address whether the presence of food substances or tobacco could cause alcohol to remain in the mouth for longer than a 20-minute period.

The second study (case report) published in 1994 by the Journal of Analytical Toxicology concluded that a bridge or periodontal space could trap mouth alcohol and cause an artificially inflated breath test reading.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey both require that a breath test operator conduct a 20-minute observation period prior to testing a subject in order to ensure that mouth alcohol has dissipated. Nonetheless, the presence of dental fixtures and foreign substances in the mouth could certainly interfere with the reliability of the breath testing results.

Based on these studies, a person charged with a DUI or DWI who has dental fixtures should make his or her attorney aware of this condition. Of course, a qualified and experienced DUI attorney will always ask a client questions concerning dental issues prior to being advised by the client. Once the attorney is aware of these issues, a breath testing expert can be consulted in order to help construct a defense.

Last month, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) proposed a total ban on the use of cell phones while driving. This ban includes text messaging and talking (even with headsets or portable speakers).
According to government studies, “distracted driving” caused by cell phone use is as dangerous as drunk driving (DUI).

In 2010, over 3,000 fatalities were caused by distracted driving. The proposed ban calls for enforcement of anti-cell phone laws that would be as aggressive as seatbelt and driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement.

Only individual states can enact legislation to regulate the use of cell phones while driving. Therefore, the NTSB proposal is only a recommendation to the states. However, few states at this time have acknowledged interest in a total ban on cell phone use.

Recently, Pennsylvania passed a ban on text messaging while driving that goes into effect in March of 2012. New Jersey has a ban on the use of cell phones for any purpose without the use of a hands-free device. Proposed New Jersey legislation has increased the penalties to include license suspension and jail-time.

Getting a DUI charge and conviction may change your life in many ways. Yet, if someone was killed when a DUI was committed, then the penalties are absolutely life altering. Thinking twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking is the easiest way to avoid such consequences.

Homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence is considered a felony of the second degree in Pennsylvania. This means that a conviction could result in a maximum of 10 years in prison, a $25,000 fine and a loss of license for three years following release from prison. Additionally, there is a minimum of three years of incarceration that has to be served for each person killed (e.g. if two people died, then a six-year minimum sentence is imposed). Because the minimum sentence is for three years, the time of incarceration cannot be served in a county jail. It must be served in a state prison with inmates convicted for committing other serious crimes.

For a conviction, the government is not required to prove that a person intentionally, recklessly or negligently caused the death of another person while DUI. Nonetheless, the prosecution has the burden of proving two facts. First and most obvious, the prosecution must show that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Certainly, defense issues may exist concerning field sobriety testing that was conducted and blood or breath testing errors that were committed. The use of expert witnesses to address these issues will usually be required.

Second, it must be shown that the driver’s actions caused the death of the victim. In other words, there must be a connection between the driving behavior, the accident and the death of the other person. For example, if the victim-driver ran a red light, hit the side of the drunk driver’s car and then died from the injuries, then the drunk driver did not cause the death. Often, an expert accident reconstructionist must be hired in order to recreate the details of the accident in order to determine the exact cause.

Defending a homicide by vehicle can be an expensive proposition if the right lawyer and defense experts are utilized. However, if there are defenses to be pursued, then getting the best people on board is most effective way to challenge a prosecution.

Philadelphia Eagles football is in full swing and the tailgating season has arrived.   Yet, keep in mind during all of this celebrating that you still have to make it home safely.

Many Philadelphia sports fans live in New Jersey and, therefore, have to make a return journey across one of the nearby bridges after the game.  Over and near those bridges the Delaware River Port Authority police (DRPA) patrols.  This police force has the ability to make car stops and arrests on the bridges and in the areas by the bridges on both sides of the river.

If you were arrested for DUI by the DRPA, then your case will be heard in a New Jersey Municipal Court.  This occurs even when a person is arrested on the Pennsylvania side of the bridge.  Most likely, the DUI charge will be heard in one of the municipal courts located in Pennsauken, Gloucester City, Camden or Palmyra.

When fighting a DUI charge, you must obtain as much information as possible concerning the evidence that the prosecution plans to present against you.  Unfortunately, the DRPA does not use any of the outrageously high toll fees for video surveillance systems in the patrol cars.  In other words, the roadside investigation will not be recorded by a car camera.  As such, the DUI case will be based primarily on the word of the police officer.  Therefore, it is important to make sure that your attorney understands the intricacies of field sobriety testing and the breath testing device used.

If the officer fails to follow his or her training for field sobriety testing, then those failures can be addressed through a defense expert in field sobriety testing.  A DWI defense attorney who is trained to administer field sobriety tests can readily identify problems with the testing and recommend that an expert be used to create a defense.  The defense expert should be someone who currently or formerly trained police officers in how to administer standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs).  This expert would write a report criticizing the failures of the testing, which would be submitted to the prosecutor.   Such a report could be used to convince a prosecutor to dismiss a DWI charge.

Ideally, this expert also understands the operation of the breath testing device used in New Jersey: The Alcotest.  If the Alcotest operator failed to use the machine properly or follow required procedures, then the expert can include in a report the problems in the breath testing administration.  A DWI lawyer should already have training for the Alcotest in order to identify issues that would necessitate the use of an expert witness.  Additionally, there are physiological factors that may affect the reliability of the Alcotest, such as reflux disease and diabetes.

Without hiring a qualified attorney, you may not be able to explore all possible legitimate defenses to a DWI charge.

Residents of Pennsylvania have the fortune of being able to enjoy the pleasures of boating in the many nearby lakes and rivers. Although the summer has ended, the boating season is still alive. Both avid and casual boaters need to keep in mind the severe penalties for boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs before making a decision to pilot a boat.

In Pennsylvania, boating or “operating watercraft” under the influence (BUI) carries similar penalties to those imposed for DUI (driving under the influence). Both have a three-tiered blood alcohol concentration (BAC) system that calls for imprisonment based upon the level of the BAC and number of previous convictions.

However, two significant differences exist between BUI and DUI. One is that the person convicted of boating under the influence must attend a boating safety course, rather than a highway safety course. The second, and most important difference, is that the defendant does not lose his or her driver’s license.

Convictions for boating under the influence calls for the following incarceration and financial penalties:

First Pennsylvania BUI Offense
BAC .08 – .099
• 6 months of probation
• $300 fine
BAC .10 – .159
• 48 hours mandatory, and up to 6 months in jail
• minimum fine of $750, with a maximum of $5,000
BAC .16
• 72 days mandatory, and up to 5 years in jail
• $1,500 fine

Second Pennsylvania BUI Offense
BAC .08 – .099
• 5 days mandatory, and up to 6 months in jail
• minimum fine of $300, with a maximum of $2,500
BAC .10 – .159
• 30 days mandatory, and up to 6 months in jail
• minimum fine of $750, with a maximum of $5,000
BAC .16
• 90 days mandatory, and up to 5 years in jail
• $1,500 fine

Third Pennsylvania BUI Offense
BAC .08-.099
• 10 days mandatory, and up to 2 years in jail
• minimum fine of $500, with a maximum of $5,000
BAC .10-.159
• 90 days mandatory, and up to 5 years in jail
• minimum fine of $1,500, with a maximum of $10,000
BAC .16
• 1 year mandatory, and up to 5 years in jail
• minimum fine of $2,500