Beware NJ drinking establishments: Big Brother is watching!
Feb 4th, 2008 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, Criminal & Traffic, DUI-DWI-DAI (Drunk Driving)Law enforcement in New Jersey is now questioning individuals who are suspected of drunk driving (DUI-DWI) as to:
Where they were drinking alcohol?
How many alcoholic drinks they had? and
What kind of drinks they had?
A 2007 NJ Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive mandates that New Jersey police ask these questions after they have read the DUI-DWI suspect the required Miranda warnings (their rights) and the DUI-DWI suspect consents. A report must then be filed by the police officer with the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control is then permitted to keep this information for a period of 25 months and is required to maintain a database of this information to be used by any law enforcement agency.
Although this mandates more government monitoring of the people, this NJ Attorney General Directive does serve legitimate purposes such as curbing drunk driving (DUI-DWI) which will ultimately lead to less innocent people being killed by drunk drivers.
See a copy of the Attorney General Directive here: Attorney General Directive2007-02.pdf
The author of this Law Blog, Bucks County PA & Mercer County, NJ criminal attorney, Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. of Saile & Saile LLP, Attorneys-at-Law practices both New Jersey and Pennsylvania criminal, traffic violations, and DUI/DWI/DAI law. Check out our website for DUI penalties. We handle all NJ Municipal Court cases including DUI in the following NJ Municipal Courts: Hopewell Township, Ewing Township, Trenton, Lawrence Township, Hamilton, Pennington, and other Mercer County, Burlington County, and Camden County, NJ courts. We also handle lower bucks county DUI and traffic violation cases in the following towns: Bensalem, Southampton, Richboro, Newtown, Levittown, Langhorne, Doylestown, Warminster, Trevose, Feasterville, Warrington, Bristol, Fallsington, Yardley, New Hope, Holland, Washington Crossing, PA, and other Bucks County courts. We handle DUI cases in Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery County, PA. We are located just outside of Philadelphia in lower Bucks County.
Well, Iam not sure that this mandate will lead to curbing DUI.
Here are my points.
- No arrested dui suspect should ever answer any questions.
It is not clear it is in the suspects best intrest to answer questions.
Unless the bar, bartender, or manager of the bar , can be held responsible for continuing to serve drinks to drunk people, it is not in the best intrest of any suspect to give out any information, especially information which makes them look guilty.
- another tricky legal issue here is can an impaired person waive miranda?
- suspects should never consent to even a field sobriety test, and they do not have to, let alone giving out information on what they drink, where, and how much, if in fact they did consume alcohol.
– a lot of attorneys will file a motion to supress any statements because of a warantless stop, such as for DUI.
– JUST BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS IT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
sOMETJUING LIKE THIS NEEDS TO BE LEGISLATED, AND IF IT WERE LEGAL, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD MAKE IT LAW.
- THE PEOPLE OF NJ SHOULD BE SICK AND TIRED OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKING UNILATERAL DECISIONS
LIKE TIS.
one point being here is the nj suprenme court in judiucial opinion told the State not to roll out the alcotrest in any more counties beyond the 4 they were in, but the attorney general turned around and rolled it out in another 13 counties.
to sum up, the police ccan ask whatever they want to, but the attorney general is greatly mistaken if he thinks suspects need to answer.
the attorney general must have rocks instead of a brain! it is unconstitutional.
this goes beyong government monitoring that you mention, it goes to the heart of the constitution.
the state of nj legislature has made refusing to give a breath test ilegal– and i can not for the life of me figure out why no one ever challanged this to the us supreme court.
now the state thinks it can take away more rights and force suspects to spill the beans.
what is next… how about anyone wqho does not truthfully answer these questions, be sent to gitmo, tortured by the cia, until such time they talk.
ok, would that make every happy?
so now it starts with dui,… but what will it lead into…
it is far bad enough the state thinks it can get away with this mandate.
a better idea even would be to make bars , thriough a computer system, automaticaly send information to the State everytime a drink is ordered, by who, and what it was.
every person entering a bar can have a special id card with a barcode, and have to swipe it for every drink they have.
would that be ok?
i am being sarcastic, if you can not tell… but there is truth in sarcasm, and what the state is doing here is bypassing the us constitution, trying to take away rights that are basic and fundamental to our way of life, our freedom!
this is something north korea may have in place, but is has no right being in the united states!
I want to know why you think “this NJ Attorney General Directive does serve legitimate purposes such as curbing dui”
I do not think that any suspect would answer these questions by police.
I also do not understand why a defense attorney would ever seem to suugest it is ok for suspects to answer any questions by the police witrhout attorney present at the very least, and maybe not even then.
Mr. Saile, please explain yourself.
Jim:
The sad reality is that most people in that situation do answer questions from the police.
This also holds true for the high number of Portable Breath Test and Field Sobriety Tests administered.
I think if there are problem bars or clubs out there serving people until they are stone drunk, then those bars should be monitored.
Obviosly, it would be difficult for a bar tender to gauge someone’s B.A.C. by looking at them…
But still, as a defense attorney, i would think that you would be reminding people to not say a word, instead of giving the impression it is ok to answer questions.
if they want to monitor bars, they could have someone from ABC IN EVERY ESTABLISHMENT STATEWIDE, EVERYDAY.
It is never good for the State to try to circumvent the constitution.
where is your zealous man?
Jim:
As you know I do not give specific advice on this blog. I did not give any impressions!
Excuse me, but you did write the following quote from the ABOVE… BY WRITING AND POSTING THIS QUOTE ON THIS WEBSITE YOU DO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WROTE AND POSTED THIS QUOTE.
AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE IT says you, mr saile, is the author.
My impression is you wrote th efollowing statemnt and believe what it says.. any reasonable person would get that impression,,, that you wrote it, so to say you didnt give any impressions is so wrong on many levels.
“Although this mandates more government monitoring of the people, this NJ Attorney General Directive does serve legitimate purposes such as curbing drunk driving (DUI-DWI) which will ultimately lead to less innocent people being killed by drunk drivers.”
Mr. Saile, if a client came into your office and said they were arrested for DUI and told the officers how much they drank, what is was, and where they drank it, you would know the State’s case is then stronger and your ability to defend the person would be weakened.
Wouldn’t you?
Wouldnt you try to get all statements supressed and wouldnt you tell the client they should have not talked to the police?
That is just so basic, its not even legal advice, its common knowledge.
Jim:
You should go to law school. You are trying to make an argument out of nothing.
I did not give any advice as to how someone should act when they get pulled over in this blog entry. In fact, I never said that I disagreed with anything you said. Maybe I do maybe I don’t…
This is a blog that gives news, cases, and thoughts about PA & NJ and sometimes national personal injury and criminal defense law.
This blog does not provide any legal advice. If you hire me and I agree to work for you and sign a fee agreement, I will then give you legal advice.
Perhaps you should read the Blog Disclaimer again at the bottom of this page.
I did not use the word advice until you brought it up.
Cettainly, you have given opinions on many headings in your blog site. Sometimes you say you agree with something, sometimes you say you dont.
What I said on this article was that I got what I thought was a reasonable impression that you agreed with the mandate for th epolice to ask these questions.
If I take that one step further in my head, .. the only way the program can work is if a majority, or even close to 100 percent of susprects answer the questions…
Therefore, if I have an impression you agree with the mandate, I can also have the impression you agree clients should answer.
That being said, Mr. Saile, it is no big deal if you give opinions, defense strategy or advice on here…. many many lawyer websites have tons of free advice, exactly what they will do , what a person should do if they get stopped….. ect…
Im sorry i railed into you on this one, but I feel strongly and its just words on a screeen, .. an open honest debate on the issues.
If a DUI defendant wanted to know exactly what he should have done if he were stopped I could post 10 links in here of lawyer websites within 60 seconds of my list.
I do not think I have the wrong impression of what you wrote though.
i am a pain in the ass on the points, I know, and most people just let things go in one ear or out the other, or say things they do not mean, havnt thought about, or just make a mistake, ,,,, the world is not perfect.
i would even suggest a group of defense lawyers get together and take out an ad in a couple of big newpapers in NJ to remind potential defendants to not answer these new questions, or any questions.
The State has been trying to take away our constitutional rights in many areas of defeandant rights, and I do not see it as a bad thing that defnse attroneys stand up and tell people the truth.
LOL! You tell him Mr. Saile! LOL! He can’t read, that is why he keeps posting this non-sense we have to weed out of your otherwise helpful and intelligent legal blog.
I can read, and i read and have great understanding.
KAEVIN, IT IS YOU WHO CANT READ.
mr. saile was so impressed with my arguments he said i should go to law school, thats what he told me.
YOU READ IT
KEVIN, YOU WOULDNT LAST 15 MINUTES UNDER MY DIRECT QUESTIONING.
I WOULD PUT YOU ON THE STAND AND POUND YOU WITH QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU HAD TO ADMIT THAT M.R SAILE IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG.
AND I WOULD MAKE YOU ADMIT THAT THERE’S NO WAY ANYONE COULD REASONABLY HAVE A DIFFERENT IMPRESSION.
THE FOLLOWING IS PRINTED UNDER EVERY LEAD ARTICLE.
“The author of this Law Blog, Bucks County PA & Mercer County, NJ criminal attorney, Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. of Saile & Saile LLP, Attorneys-at-Law practices both New Jersey and Pennsylvania criminal, traffic violations, and DUI/DWI/DAI law”
JUST TO SIT HERE AND SAY THIS IMPRESSION IS NOT GIVEN IS BEYOND UNREASONABLE, IT IS STUPID.
KEVIN, WHENEVER I READ SOMETHING, I DISECT EVERY WORD FOR EVERY POSSIBLE MEANING, CONSIDER EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE, POINT OF VIEW, AND ALL POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF ITS TEXT.
I THEN FORM A THOUGHT ABOUT IT, AND I AM VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS.
THE SAME IS TRUE WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION AS WELL.
FOR EXAMPLE, JUST A QUCIK ONE, BUT ILL THINK OF MORE..
WHEN A POLICE OFFICER ASKS “HAVE YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK TONIGHT”
AS A PERSON LISTENING TO THIS QUESTION, I HAVE TO SAY TO MYSELF THERE IS NOT REALLLY ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE EXACT WORDS TO UNDERSTAND WHEN HE IS ASKING ME THIS… MAYBE THERES SOME ISSUE WITHT EH LOCAL BURGER KING AND ITS FOUNTAIN DRINKS.
THE POINT BNEING PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN TO EITHER SPEAK OR WRITE TO SAY WHAT THEY MEAN , OR THEY SHOULD EXPECT TO BE QUESTIONED ONIT.
WHEN MR. SAILE SAYS HE HAS GIVEN NO IMPRESSIONS ON HERE, WELL IT WAS A LIE. HE HAS, .. JUST PUTTING HIS NAME ON THIS BLOG GIVES ME THE IMPRESSION HE IS THE AUTHOR OF IT.
KEVIN, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY.
why do you guys give me such a hard time?
Jim,
It appears that whenever you read something you…”DISECT EVERY WORD FOR EVERY POSSIBLE MEANING, CONSIDER EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE, POINT OF VIEW, AND ALL POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF ITS TEXT” and then throw all logic and rational thought out of the window and rant like a crazy person. LOL!
Mr. Saile said that “You should go to law school. You are trying to make an argument out of nothing.” because you are a baffoon! You are trying to get him to give you free legal advise and to extend himself, his career, his reputation and his livelihood to assist you in your legal case. He CANNOT give you free legal advise. That is why he went to college and law school, so that he can charge people for his knowledge. You are an idiot if you thought he was being serious, it was a joke. Are you mildly autistic in that you take everything literally and cannot tell when there is a bit of guile behind somebodys comments??? Seriously Jim, get a grip buddy. This is for comments on the articles and legal news that Mr. Saile feels are relevent to his legal practice. In no way is he offering his legal expertise or legal advise. His is offering an opinion to get the wheels spinning in the minds of the blog readers so that a discussion can take place on his blog forum. All of your entries are one crazy persons rambelings on about you! 99.99999999999% of the time are totally off topic or you somehow spin them toward your case. That is why i pick on you. You are such a mental midget that you fly off the handle and give 3-10 blogs in a row back at me and I sit and laugh at you. Seriously, get a handle on your rants. If you can contribute intelligently then do so..if not keep your crazyness to yourself. I believe I speak for everyone who reads this blog and would like to post on here.
I WASNT TRYING TO GET HIM TO GIVE ME LEGAL ADVICE OF ANY KIND.
I WAS QUESTIONING WHY A DEFENSE LAWYER, AS HIMSELF, WOULD THINK, FROM A DEFENSE LAWYERS POINT OF VIEW, IT WOUILD BE LEGITIMATE FOR SUSPECTS TO WAIVE MIRANDA AND ANSWER QUESTIONS .
DIDNT YOU READ WHAT I WROTE?
MR SAILE IS THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS LEGITIMATE THAT SUSPECTS DO THIS, I ASKED HIM WHY.
IF HE IS GOING TO PUT HIMSELF ON THE LINE AND MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT, THAT IS SO AGAINST ANY REASONABLE DEFENSE PLAN, I DO NOT THINK IT IS WRONG TO QUESTION HIM ON IT.
AND WHAT GOT ME MAD WAS HE DCENIED SAYIN G IT EVEN THOUGH ITS RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.
IT DIDNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY C=ASE AT ALL, IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE ARTICLE HE WROTE
KEVIN, YOU OBVIUOSLY DID NOT READ A WORD I WROTE.
KEVIN, YOU ARE AN IDIUOT AND ANYONE WHO READS WHAT I WROTE AT THE BEGINING , THE FIRST FEW POSTS CAN CLEARLY SEE I WASNT ASKING ADVICE AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, BUT WAS COMMENTING ON THE ARTICLE.
WHAT YOU SAID INYOUR LAST POST WAS A COMPLETE LIE ABVOUT WHAT I WROTE, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU WRITE IT, DOESNT IN ANMY WAY MAKE IT TRUE.
YOU MAKE ME SICK.
IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO READ WHAT I WROTE YOU WOULD SEE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BIG SOCIAL ISSUE OF THE ARTICLE MR SAILE WROTE, AND DIDNT SEEK ONE WORD OF ADVICE AS YOU CLAIM I DID.
KEVIN, WHY DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO LIE AND PUT PEOPLE DOWN?
ASKING FOR ADVICE WOULD GO SOMETHING LIKE– MR SAILE, I HAVE THIS CASE, THIS AND THAT HAPPENED, WHAT SHOULD I DO?– THAT IS ASKJING FOR ADVICE.
ASKING HIM WHY HE THINKS IT IS LEGITMATE DEFENDANTS WAIVE MIRANDA AND SPILL THE BEANS, SOMETHING HE ALREADY WROTE IN BLACK AND WHITE ON HERE, IS NOT ASKING FOR ADSVICE, IT IOS ASKIN G HIM TO FURTHER COMMENT ON SOMETHING HE PUT OUT THERE.
THE FACT THAT YOU CANT SEE THE DIFFERENCE KEVIN PROVES TO EVERYONE WHO READS ALL THIS THAT YOU ARE THE IDIOT.
I NEVER SAID A BAD WORD ABOUT YOU OR ANYONE ON HERE UNLESS I AM ATTACKED FIRST.
WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO ATTACK ME.
STICK TO THE ISSUES.
KEVIN, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO????
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOESNT CONTRIBUTE ANYTTHING INTELIGENT… ALL YOU DO IS MAKE UP STUFF THAT YOU CLAIM I SAY AND ATTACK PEOPLE POSTING ON HERE.
MR SAILE SHOULD BAN YOU FROM POSTING KEVIN
KEVIN, YOU ARE A TROUBLEMAKEER AND A BAD GUY.
WHO THE HELL DO YTOU THINK YOU ARE, A TUFF GUY I GUESS HIDING BEHIND A COMPUTER.
YOU WOULDNT LAST 5 MINUTES IN A DEBATE WITH ME ON ANY ISSUE.
JUST THE FACT THAT YOU THINK SOMEONE WITH A BAC OF 0.079 IS GUILTY OF DUI MAKES YOU SO COMPLETELY CLUELESS AND WRONG.
‘
THE STATUTE IN NJ IS VERY VERY CLEAR ABOUT 0.08% BAC OR ABOVE AS BEING DUI.
THERE IS NOT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD AGREE WITH YOU TUFF GUY.
I HAVNT SAID ONE THING THAT IS NONSENSE IN ANY OF MY 600 PLUS POSTINGS ON HERE.
I HAVE GIVEN INTELIGENT EDUCATED INSIGHT ON THE FDA, ANALYTICAL TESTING, VALIDATION, SOCIAL ISSUES, AND LEGAL ISSUES.
I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ALCOTEST, THE CFHUN ORDER, SPEEDY TRIAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE LEGAL PROCESS, THE POLICE, AND MANY OTHER THINGS.
MY POSTINGS ARE ALWAYS THOUGHTFUL AND ON POINT.
TO ATTACK ME ON A PERSONAL LEVEL IN SUCH A MEAN AND VENGEFUL WAY FOR WRITING IS WRONG.
FUTHERMORE, TO ATTACK ME BY MAKING UP BULLCRAP AND NOT READING ANYTHING OR UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING IS WRONG.
KEVIN, LETS SEE YOU DESCIBE THE VALIDATION AN ANALYTICAL TERST METHOD OR INSTRUMENT GOES THOUGH.
KEVIN LETS SEE YOU DESCIBE IN DEATAIL AN FDA AUDIT
KEVIN LETS SEE YOU DESCIBE AN OUT OF SPEC INVESTIGATION.
KEVIN, LETS SEE YOU SAY SOMETHING INTELIGENT INSTEAD OF JUST BASHING PEOPLE WHO PHO BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVBE THE EDUCATION TO UNDERSTAND IT.
INSTEAD OF BASHING PREOPLE, IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, ASK.
Jim you are confused.
I did not and would not say its legitimate for a suspect to waive Miranda rights or speak to police.
I said that I believe that the Attorney General’s program would serve the interests in curbing DUI’s, DUI related accidents, and problem drinking establishments.
I will not spend any more time addressing your distortions of my blog entries.
Both Jim and Kevin please stick to the issues and make intelligent comments about the law and how it should be changed. Stick to the blog article topic.
Otherwise, I will be forced to remove all of your entries from the blog.
mr saile, i have tried to do that, but time and time again, you post insulting comments kevin makes about me, to me, on here, in many many threads.
i do not attack people posting on a personal level, but i have been attacked so many times now by kevin and you just seem to go along with it, so i fired back at him.
i even got the feeling you were enjoying it, laughing with him, at my expense, at one point a few months ago.
i will not go back into what the possible inference is of the word “legitimate” in your article. my points are clear.
i will just allow myself to think that on the surface it is legitimate as you say, and that in depth analysis is not something you did before you wrote it.
also, to make another point, if relibility hearings are granted, as per the chun order, after the adjudication of chun, i should be allowed to have the software loaded into the particular instrunment i was tested on analyzed by an indepenadant software house, or expert of my choosing, to see if there are any problems with it , in addition to the 19,000 plus problems found by base one.
as this was part of the reliabilty hearings in chun, so should it be part of the reliability hearings in individual cases.
there are absolutley zero controls in place that can legally say , as a matter of law, that the software loaded into the instrument i was tested on is the exactsame, line for line, the software tested by baseone.
this type of universal validation, as done in the scientific valifdation of software, is done by the fda, with its strict guildelines and regulations in the cfr as to how documentation of saoftware loaded onto an analytical instrument should be done, and overseen, by the fda.
the process starts in the factory and is carried trhrough individual companies , manufacturers, installers, and validation engineers.
one questiuon here that stands out like a sore thumb is during the state plolice annaual calibration on an alcotest instrument, if there any verifdication that the software loaded into the instrument is fasctory certified and has not been tampered with???
this is somerthing the fda oversees and is sworn to, under penaly of prison, by indivuidual
validation engineers who go to a company d petrform anual validation services.
no one, not even the StaTE, AS IT STANBDS NOW, CAN SAY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE SOFTWARE LOADED INTO THE ALCOTEST I WAS TESTED ON WAS NOT TAMPERED WITH… THERE IS ABSOLUTLEY ZERO ON RECORD FOR THE CONTROL OF THIS ASPECT OF MY ARGUMENT.
CAN YOU SEE WHY I AM SO UPSET UPSET, CAN YOU NOW UNDERSTAND MY ARGUEMNTS?
I WAS SRTONE COLD SOBER ABND THE GD THING READ 0.09
Jim,
I didn’t attack you, I mearly made a comment about your posts, that they are off topic and have many grammatical & spelling errors. You chose to attack me with a name and going off on one of your rants for 10-12 posts.
So, as Mr. Saile has said, let’s end the bickering and keep it strictly about the posts. But for the sake of all of us readers, please try to proof read your posts before you submit them. It only takes an extra minute and it makes your post easier to read and understand what you are trying to get across to the readers.
NOW THERE ARE 3 POINTS HERE…
one, you may be saying to yourself, jesus chirst, this guy has been well trained and well versed as to analytical instruments and the fda with analytical intruments
two, you may also be saying to yourself, why would anyonbe make these arguments.
i make thsse arguments because they are there to be made , and they are relevant to me as a person, and relevant to every past prssent, and future alcotest dui defendant.
three, youy maybe be asking, well the breathalyzer was in use since the 50′s and stood up to arguments….
i say, the breathalyzer was in place before any ofd these instruments wre in place… certainly hplc was not in place at its begininguntil the 70,s.
it has taken a change in breath tsting technology to be able to bring these points to the forefront!
so, now we have switched tro the alcotest, a software driven analytical instrument, that uses 2 methods, one ecd, and one ir.
and i dont even want to get into the guitar string srgument, but suffice it to say, they are not indepenadent if one needs to calibvrate the other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the argume t was total bullcrap by the state and the person who made it needs to be thrashed, lol, , being sartcastic, but come on, it was a totally ridiculous argument.
i am saying lets get beyong all this bullctap, mandate the state to have in placec fda requirements, and then we can have a breath testing device that is incontrivertible as to the results, as long as all regulations are followed.
kevin, you have no right to tell me what to do, why do you keep insisting you have some right to tell me what to do?
mr saile’s webpage does not allow for spell check or editing at all… thats not my fault.
kevin, it is none of your business what i write or what mr saile posts or allows me to post, mind your own business and stop interfering with what i write.
mr. saile , you can see in kevins last post, he disregarded your statement to us, and continued to attack me on a personal level.