A police officers failure to read to a suspected drunken driver the statutory warning about the consequences of refusing to take a breath test doesnt upset a conviction if the driver voluntarily agreed to take a breath test, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled in a published decision. The three-judge Appellate Division panel disregarded an unpublished four-year-old ruling to the contrary, which lawyers specializing in drunken driving cases had been using to have some charges dismissed or convictions overturned. [A]n officers failure to read the statutory statement is irrelevant when the accused submits to the test, wrote Appellate Division Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr., in State v. Peralta. Judges Allison Accurso and Thomas Manahan joined in the ruling. Although he did not refer to the case by its name, Fisher said the panel was rejecting the conclusion reached in August 2010 by Appellate Division Judges Edith Payne and Carmen Messano in State v. Tirado. In Tirado, the judges said even in a case in which a suspected drunken driver consented to take a breath test, the conviction should be thrown out if the state could not prove that the driver had been read the statutory statement. Read more: njlawjournal/id=1202675234253/Appeals-Court-Reverses-Course-on-BreathTest-Warnings#ixzz3Hko3HGXz
Posted on: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:51:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015