State v. RB

May 04, 2018

OUTCOME: Client found not guilty of DWI at end of trial

State of New Jersey v. Schmidt, 206 N.J. 71, (2011)

May 26, 2011

OUTCOME: Individuals arrested for DWI now receive warnings of the consequences of not providing sufficient breath samples.

Defendant was observed swerving and driving erratically, and was taken to police headquarters where he was read the Standard Statement, pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 39:4-50.2(e), prior to being administered ... a breathalyzer test. After he consented to providing the required breath samples, he twice provided breath samples that were not of sufficient length and/or volume to generate a valid reading on the testing apparatus. Defendant contended that once the police officer determined to charge him with the refusal, the officer was required to read the Additional Statement. The trial court found that defendant was properly charged with refusing to take the test. The Appellate Division disagreed, concluding that since defendant consented to provide the required sample of his breath but failed to do so, he remained one who consented and reversed his conviction. The Supreme Court held that because defendant unequivocally consented to the breath test, his later failures to provide the necessary volume and length of breath samples did not render his earlier consent ambiguous or conditional. Thus, defendant remained among those who had consented and was not entitled to reading of the Additional Statement. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated defendant's conviction. However, the Supreme Court recommended that the Attorney General revise the Standard Statement to include a warning about giving improper samples.