New Jersey has recently passed a law that will become effective sometime in June 2011.  The law is conceived to create a criminal violation for driving on the revoked list where the underlying cause of revocation was either a drunk driving conviction or a refusal conviction.

Specifically, the first section of the law states that if a defendant has been convicted of two driving while revoked offenses during the same term of license suspension created by the drunk driving or refusal offense, it will be a crime of the fourth degree.
 
The second component of the law allows for a fourth degree conviction if the defendant is operating a vehicle while on the revoked list where the underlying cause of revocation was a second drunk driving or refusal conviction.

A mandatory jail term of not less than 180 will be imposed, where the defendant will not be eligible for parole if he/she violates any of these two sections of the law. 

A legislative committee in New Jersey just voted to pass a bill that could do away with minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment, in some cases,  for non-violent offenders, including those convicted in a drug-free school zone.  The bill would empower judges to consider a number of mitigating factors to allow a non-custodial term for school-zone convictions, including whether: (a) the school was in session; (b) children were present; and (c) the defendant had prior convictions. 

One of the sponsors of the measure observed that while minimum mandatory jail terms make a state look tough of crime, they do little in terms of creating justice.  Unfortunately, this legislative movement was tied to another amendment that would increase the penalties for certain drunk driving offenses (DWI).

DRUNK DRIVING (DWI/DUI) IN
BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES:
DRUNKEN IDLING

For a good number of years, courts in this state have allowed convictions of drunk drivers to stand even though the accused was not driving a vehicle in its traditional sense. The core of each of these cases was that the defendant had the intent to operate the vehicle grounded upon the facts that existed in each of these cases.  


Last month, an appellate panel reversed the drunk driving (DWI/DUI) conviction of a defendant who was found asleep in an idling vehicle at 2:00 a.m.  At trial, the defendant produced evidence that established that he did not drive the vehicle to the site of the arrest; that he did not intend to drive the vehicle at the site of his arrest; that he expected to spend the night with his girlfriend; and, that the vehicle was parked outside the girlfriend's  house when he was arrested. While the trial court concluded that the evidence presented by the defendant was "a completely absurd story." The appellate panel did not and  concluded that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent to operate the vehicle.