"Better get it right the first time you take the breathalyzer test"

No Second Warning for Breathalyzer Refusal Consequences

The N.J. Law Journal reports:

Suspected drunken drivers who, after a proper warning, consent to a breath test, but who then fail to give an adequate sample, need not be warned of the consequences of vacillation, a divided state Supreme Court says.

“Because defendant unequivocally consented to the breath test, his later failure to provide the necessary volume and length of breath samples did not render his earlier consent ambiguous or conditional,”

Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote Thursday for a 4-3 majority in NJ Supreme Court-A3510-State v. Aaron Schmidt

Appellate Division Judge Edwin Stern, temporarily assigned, led a minority that agreed with the Appellate Division that a second warning is necessary. Justices Barry Albin and Virginia Long joined in that view. But they concurred with the judgment upholding Aaron Schmidt’s conviction, agreeing he had been given enough of a subsequent warning when he provided a less-than-adequate sample.

Read more about Breathalyzer testing in NJ

Three myths debunked about drinking and driving

This video was prepared by the University of New Mexico Office of Substance Abuse.


About Lawrence "Larry" Berezin

I retired from the private practice of law after a 35-year legal career and fight parking tickets for people like you and me. I love sharing valuable information and beating NYC parking tickets for the driving community in NYC

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s