Almost every state in the union, including New Jersey, has enacted what are commonly referred to as “implied consent laws.” Because such laws are almost universal, understanding New Jersey’s law can help understand the law in almost every other state.
Basic concept
The basic concept of New Jersey’s implied consent law is simple: any person who operates a motor vehicle on the state’s public roads or highways is deemed to have consented to being tested for intoxication. The test may use a sample of the defendant’s breath or blood alcohol content, or chemical analysis of the driver’s urine. A police officer must have a reasonable basis for believing that the suspect driver has driven while intoxicated before telling a driver to submit to the test. The results of the blood-alcohol test can be introduced as evidence at trial if the driver pleads “not guilty” to the underlying charge of driving while intoxicated.
Penalties for refusal
The consequences of refusing to submit to a proper demand for a blood alcohol test can be serious. For a first offense, the driver can be ordered to pay a fine of $250 to $400. The defendant can also be required to serve a term of imprisonment of 30 days. The driver may also be required to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle until the person installs an ignition interlock device in their car. Subsequent violations carry more severe penalties, such as a fine of $500 to $1,000 for a second violation.
After conviction and sentencing, New Jersey judges are directed by the statute to send to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services’ Intoxicated Driving Program Unit a copy of the driver’s conviction record. The driver shall also be required to pay a fee of $100.
To consent or not consent?
Many drivers who have been ordered to consent to a blood alcohol test under this law wonder whether to consent or not consent. If the driver pleads “not guilty” to an office’s valid order to submit to a blood-alcohol test, the refusal can be used in court as evidence.
Experienced defense attorneys have developed several methods of impeaching the results of implied consent test results. These defenses can be very effective at trial to thwart the prosecution’s efforts to obtain a conviction for drunk driving. While every person charged with drunk driving and told to submit to an implied consent blood test must make their own decision, the wiser course appears to be refusing the test in order to preserve all defenses to the evidentiary weight of the blood test and any errors the police officers may have made in demanding submission to the test.