The initial reaction to the reduced BAC limit in the state to .08 was that this would pose additional pitfalls for those accused of a DWI in New Jersey. While from a simplistic perspective this may appear to be the case, the tiering for a first offender under the statute has provided an interesting opportunity for the defense. In this regard, the DWI statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 provides for a three month suspension for a first offense where the BAC of the accused is between .08 and .099, and a seven to twelve month suspension where the first offender’s BAC is .10 or above. Under the previous version of the statute, the BAC was .10 and the minimum suspension for a first offense was six months. What we now have, therefore, is a statute which limits license suspension to 3 months where there are either no BAC readings or the readings are less than .10 but in excess of .08. Accordingly, when a knowledgeable defense lawyer can either get the BAC readings excluded or reduced below .10, for example, based on a depletion argument, software tolerance argument, cell phone interference, etc., he can eliminate four months of suspension (at a very minimum). Conversely, the tiering of the statute provides an out for prosecutors in these situations insofar as they can still obtain a DWI conviction, albeit for a reduced suspension period. We find that the new statute provides an opportunity to provide an enhanced frequency of reduction in license suspensions for first time offenders.

A third party who seeks to take custody of an arrested intoxicated driver after he or she has been processed by the police is required to acknowledge the potential civil and criminal liability associated with permitting the intoxicated person to drive. The law enforcement agency releasing the intoxicated driver into the third party’s custody must provide the third party with a written notice of the civil and criminal penalties for knowingly permitting an intoxicated driver to operate a motor vehicle. There is no requirement that the third person sign the written notice as a condition of the intoxicated driver’s release. The warning drafted by the attorney general admonishes the person who volunteers to transport the intoxicated driver from police custody that he or she would be potentially liable for criminal sanctions and civil liability by permitting the operation of a motor vehicle by the intoxicated defendant.

The attorney general’s warning refers to the “allowing” offenses under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) and mentions the license loss, fines, monetary penalties and possible incarceration associated with that offense. There are also vague references in the warning to criminal prosecution in the event the person taking responsibility for the defendant permits or facilitates the defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle while still intoxicated. If such a defendant were to become involved in an accident where other persons are injured or killed, the person who took responsibility for the intoxicated driver could be subject to indictment, prosecution, fines, mandatory sentences, and prison time. Finally, the warning advises that permitting an intoxicated defendant to operate a motor vehicle may result in civil liability in the event of an accident resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage.

The impoundment of motor vehicles of suspected intoxicated drivers is now mandatory. Whenever a person has been arrested for a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 for drunk driving or for refusing to submit to a breath test, the arresting officer must impound the motor vehicle that the defendant was operating. The vehicle must remain in impound for at least 12 hours. The law enforcement agency that impounds the vehicle may charge a reasonable fee for towing and storage of the vehicle. The vehicle may continue to be impounded until the fee has been paid.

After the initial 12 hour waiting period, either the defendant or his agent may reclaim the vehicle. The owner or lessee of the vehicle (who is other than the defendant or an authorized agent of the defendant when the defendant is the owner), may reclaim the vehicle prior to the expiration of the 12 hour waiting period provided that such person can meet certain statutory requirements. These include:

1. Presentation of current driving credentials, including a valid license, proof of ownership, proof of lawful authority to operate a vehicle, and proof of current liability insurance;

2. Proof that the operator is capable of operating a vehicle in a safe manner and would not be in violation of any provision of the motor vehicle statutes.

3. Proof that the person receiving the vehicle can comply with any other conditions for release of the vehicle that have been established by the arresting law enforcement agency.

The working definition of “under the influence of alcohol” as related by the case law has not changed much in the past 100 years. In State v. Emery, the New Jersey Supreme Court quoted with approval a definition that dated back to at least 1917. The court held “N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 penalizes a person who drives while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Although prosecutions pursuant to these provisions are commonly and colloquially termed ‘drunken driving cases’, it is settled that the statute does not require as a prerequisite to conviction that the accused be absolutely drunk, in the sense of being sodden with alcohol. It is sufficient if the presumed offender has imbibed to the extent that his physical coordination or mental faculties are deleteriously affected.” State v. Emery, 27 N.J. 348 (1958).

So, at one extreme, it is not necessary that the defendant be intoxicated in the sense of being sodden with alcohol in order to be under the influence. At the other extreme, the condition of being under the influence must mean something more than having partaken of a single drink, even though physiologically, the smallest amount of alcohol has some slight effect or influence on the drinker. Considering these issues, it appears that the Legislature intended to strike a balance between these two extremes when using the term “under the influence”. The concept of being “under the influence of alcohol” is a general condition as a result of which a motor vehicle operator is so affected in judgment and control that it is improper for him to drive. Notice that the standard is improper, not unsafe, although proof of erratic driving is generally admissible as evidence of being under the influence. The proper standard of proof is proof of an impairment of either mental faculties or physical coordination.