By the instructions of a New Jersey statute law enforcement agents are required to read to a drunk driving arrestee an 11 paragraph statement advising the arrestee of, among other things, of his/her responsibility to submit a breath test as well as the consequences of a refusal. The statute also instructs that if the arrestee refuses, answers by requesting an attorney or otherwise gives a conditional or ambiguous answer, the law enforcement agent must continue with  further instructions about the consequence of not providing an unequivocal consent.

Recently, the Supreme Court addressed the question as to whether the second part of the statute had to be read where the arrestee failed to provide adequate breath samples. In that case, the drunk driver consented to provide a breath test after he had received the 11 point instructions. His consent was unconditional. Thereafter, the drunk driver provided two successive breath samples that were inadequate. At that point, the arresting police officer warned the drunk driver of the consequences of providing insufficient breath samples. When the drunk driver provide a third inadequate sample the drunk driver was charged with refusal.

On appeal to the Law Division of the Superior Court the drunk driver claimed that the arresting police officer had an affirmative responsibility to read the second component of the warning contained under the statute. That contention was rejected by the court. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the conviction was reversed. The court concluded that the drunk driver’s failure to provide sufficient breath samples was "an ambiguous indication of purpose" and as a result the second part of the statute should have been read. 

The case was ultimately presented to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was reinstated. There, the Court concluded that since the drunk driver’s consent was unequivocal his failure to provide sufficient breath samples did not require the additional warning.