New Jersey DWI Defense and Administrative License Hearing Package

NEW JERSEY DWI DEFENSE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE HEARING PACKAGE

PART I — INTAKE AND CASE SNAPSHOT

Client (Defendant): [_______________________________]
DOB: [__/__/____] NJ Driver License No.: [_______________________________]
Address: [_______________________________]
Phone: [___-___-____] Email: [_______________________________]

Arrest Date / Time: [__/__/____] at [__:__ __M]
Arresting Agency: [_______________________________]
Officer Name / Badge: [_______________________________]
Location of Stop: [_______________________________]
Municipal Court / County: [_______________________________] Municipal Court, [_______] County
Complaint / Summons No.: [_______________________________]
First Court Date: [__/__/____]

Charge Summary

Reported BAC (Alcotest 7110 reading): [____].[__]% Time of Test: [__:__ __M]
Twenty-minute observation period documented? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown

PART II — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2 and 39:4-50.4a)

Key Points to Convey to Client:

• By operating a motor vehicle on New Jersey roads, the driver is deemed to have consented to breath testing under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2.
• The officer must read the Standard Statement for Operators of a Motor Vehicle (Attorney General's Form RP-1) before requesting the breath sample.
• Anything short of unconditional, unequivocal assent (including silence, conditional answers, or requesting an attorney before deciding) is treated as refusal under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a.
• Refusal penalties (first offense, post-2019): fines $300–$500, IDRC, ignition interlock 9–15 months on every vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated.
• Refusal does NOT preclude a DWI conviction; the State may still prove impairment by observation evidence.
• No constitutional right to refuse breath testing (a warrant is not required for breath, but is required for blood under Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota).

☐ Client read Implied Consent Summary ☐ Client signed acknowledgment Date: [__/__/____]

PART III — PENALTY MATRIX (Post-2019 Amendments, P.L. 2019, c. 248)

Surcharges: $1,000/year for 3 years (1st/2nd); $1,500/year for 3 years (3rd+).
Additional: $230 IDRC fee, $100 Drunk Driving Fund, $100 AERF, $75 SNSF, $50 VCCO, $200 DUI surcharge.

PART IV — VOLUNTARY PRE-CONVICTION IID NOTATION REQUEST (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(1)(i))

NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Driver Management Bureau — Ignition Interlock Unit
P.O. Box 134, Trenton, NJ 08666

RE: Voluntary Pre-Conviction Ignition Interlock Notation Request
Driver: [_______________________________]
DL No.: [_______________________________]
Pending Charge: N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (Arrest Date [__/__/____])
Municipal Court: [_______________________________]

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(1)(i) as amended by P.L. 2019, c. 248, the undersigned driver requests issuance of a New Jersey driver's license bearing the notation that the licensee shall not operate any motor vehicle unless equipped with an ignition interlock device. The driver has voluntarily installed an IID on the motor vehicle they own, lease, or principally operate, as evidenced by the attached installer certification.

Enclosures:
☐ Installer Certification (manufacturer-approved)
☐ Copy of pending complaint/summons
☐ Proof of NJ license in good standing
☐ Photo ID

The driver understands that this submission must be made no later than seven (7) days after receipt of the documentation per Chief Administrator policy.

Date: [__/__/____] Signature: __________________________
Print Name: [_______________________________]

PART V — DISCOVERY DEMAND (R. 7:7-7 and State v. Tull)

[MUNICIPAL COURT NAME], [COUNTY] COUNTY
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. [DEFENDANT NAME]
Complaint No.: [____________________]

DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to R. 7:7-7 and State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008), Defendant demands the following discoverable materials, to be produced no later than seven (7) days before trial:

Stop and Arrest Records
☐ Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) records and incident detail report
☐ Mobile Video Recorder (MVR) and body-worn camera (BWC) footage — full unedited
☐ Police radio communications / audio recordings
☐ Officer's investigation report, supplemental reports, and field notes
☐ Drinking Driving Report (DDR-1)
☐ Alcohol Influence Report (AIR)
☐ Standard Statement (RP-1) signed/initialed by officer

Field Sobriety Test Materials
☐ NHTSA SFST manual edition relied upon by officer
☐ Officer's SFST training certifications and refresher dates
☐ DRE certification (if drug evaluation conducted) and 12-step protocol notes
☐ Roadway conditions, weather, lighting documentation

Alcotest 7110 Foundational Documents (the twelve Chun documents)
☐ (1) Most recent calibration records — control tests and linearity within 6 months
☐ (2) Most recent calibration certificate signed by coordinator
☐ (3) Certificate of Analysis of 0.10 Simulator Solution used in calibration
☐ (4) Certificate of Analysis of 0.04, 0.08, 0.16 Simulator Solutions
☐ (5) Calibrating Unit New Standard Solution Report
☐ (6) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy (NIST traceable thermometer)
☐ (7) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy (Simulator)
☐ (8) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy (Solution Control Standard)
☐ (9) Draeger Safety Ertco-Hart Calibration Report
☐ (10) Repair logs / Black Key access records
☐ (11) Alcotest Test Record (AIR ticket) showing both breath samples
☐ (12) Operator's Alcotest Coordinator Certification, in force at time of test

Chemical and Drug Testing
☐ Blood draw chain of custody, vacutainer lot, preservative content
☐ Laboratory analyst CV and bench notes
☐ NJ State Police Office of Forensic Sciences SOPs and accreditation records

Custodial and Constitutional
☐ Miranda waiver form
☐ Booking video and pre-test 20-minute observation log
☐ Defendant's prior driving abstract (per N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32.1 if applicable)

Demand to Preserve: Defendant additionally demands preservation of all MVR/BWC footage, CAD, and Alcotest digital records pending disposition.

Dated: [__/__/____] _____________________________________
Attorney for Defendant
NJ Bar No. [_________________]

PART VI — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

[MUNICIPAL COURT NAME], [COUNTY] COUNTY

Complaint No.: [____________________]

NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

TO: [Municipal Prosecutor]

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [__/__/____] at [__:__ __M], or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Defendant will move this Court for an Order:

1. Suppressing all evidence obtained as a result of the motor vehicle stop on [__/__/____], including officer observations, statements, field sobriety tests, and any breath or blood test results, on the ground that the stop was made without reasonable, articulable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution;

2. Suppressing all statements made by Defendant on the ground that they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and State v. O'Neill, 193 N.J. 148 (2007);

3. Suppressing the Alcotest 7110 breath test results on the grounds that:
   ☐ The arresting/operator officer lacked a valid Alcotest Coordinator Certification at the time of testing
   ☐ The State has not produced the twelve foundational documents required by State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008)
   ☐ The required 20-minute observation period was not maintained
   ☐ The simulator solution exceeded its certified shelf life
   ☐ The instrument's most recent calibration was more than 6 months prior or otherwise outside tolerance
   ☐ Both breath samples were not within statutory tolerance (±10%)

4. Suppressing the Drug Recognition Evaluation under State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023), for failure to satisfy the Daubert/Rule 702 reliability standard adopted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (Outline)

I. The Stop Lacked Reasonable Suspicion. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999); State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (2002); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

II. Alcotest Foundational Failures Require Suppression. State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008); State v. Holland, 244 N.J. 224 (2020).

III. Refusal Cannot Stand If Implied Consent Warnings Were Defective. State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010) (Standard Statement must be read in a language the driver understands).

IV. DRE Evidence Must Satisfy Reliability Hearing. State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023).

Dated: [__/__/____] _____________________________________
Attorney for Defendant

PART VII — POST-CONVICTION IID / HARDSHIP-EQUIVALENT RELIEF

Application for IID-Restricted License Notation Following Conviction

NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION — Driver Management Bureau

Driver: [_______________________________] DL No.: [_____________________]
Conviction Date: [__/__/____] Municipal Court: [_______________________________]
Conviction: N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 ☐ / 39:4-50.4a ☐
BAC of Record: [__].[__]%

The undersigned applies pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.17 for issuance of a New Jersey driver's license with the statutory ignition interlock notation. Enclosed:

☐ Certified court order of conviction reflecting IID period
☐ Installer Certification from MVC-approved IID vendor
☐ Proof of completion of payment of restoration fee
☐ IDRC enrollment confirmation
☐ Photo identification

The driver acknowledges that operation of any motor vehicle not equipped with a functioning IID during the restriction period is a separate offense under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.19 punishable by a one-year additional license forfeiture.

Date: [__/__/____] Signature: __________________________

PART VIII — PLEA-DEAL WORKSHEET

Plea Negotiation Worksheet — N.J.S.A. 39:4-50

Original Charges: ☐ DWI 39:4-50 ☐ Refusal 39:4-50.4a ☐ Reckless 39:4-96 ☐ Other [____________]
Strongest State Evidence: [_______________________________]
Strongest Defense Evidence: [_______________________________]

Per Se Plea Bargain Bar Compliance: Plea must not constitute prohibited dismissal/downgrade of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 charge to a non-DWI offense (see Directive #11-09, AOC Guidelines).

Client decision: ☐ Accept ☐ Reject — proceed to trial Date: [__/__/____]
Client signature: _____________________________ Counsel signature: _____________________________

PART IX — TRIAL READINESS CHECKLIST

☐ Witness subpoenas served (officer(s), Alcotest coordinator, custodian of records)
☐ Defense expert retained (toxicologist / Alcotest specialist) — Name: [_______________________________]
☐ All twelve Chun documents received and analyzed
☐ MVR/BWC reviewed frame-by-frame
☐ 20-minute observation period audited
☐ Standard Statement language adequacy assessed
☐ Defendant prepared to testify (Y/N): ☐
☐ Sentencing exposure reviewed with client in writing
☐ Bench memorandum filed

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, 39:4-50.2, 39:4-50.4a, 39:4-50.16 et seq., 39:4-50.17, 39:4-50.19
• P.L. 2019, c. 248 (S824)
• New Jersey Court Rules 7:7-7, 7:8-2
• State v. Hamm, 121 N.J. 109 (1990)
• State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008)
• State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010)
• State v. Holland, 244 N.J. 224 (2020)
• State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023)
• NJ Courts, "Implementation of New DWI Law L. 2019, c. 248" (Dec. 6, 2019)
• NJ MVC Ignition Interlock Program: https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/

DISCLAIMER: This template is intended as a working framework for attorneys handling New Jersey DWI matters. It is not a substitute for independent legal research and judgment. Penalty ranges and rules are subject to amendment; verify current law before filing.