A Bridge, But Not a Loophole: DWI and Shared Jurisdiction

May 15, 2014

Submitted by New Jersey DWI Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark On May 6th, the NJ Appellate Division, in the case of State v. Parikh ruled that a New Jersey Trooper has jurisdiction to pull over a driver in Pennsylvania due to the concurrent jurisdiction. While approaching the Walt Whitman Bridge traveling west towards Pennsylvania, Defendant Shravan Parikh…

Pretrial Motions and Preserving a Claim

May 15, 2014

Submitted by New Jersey DWI lawyer, Jeffrey Hark The recent case State v. Parikh involved a DWI charge that was disputed on jurisdictional grounds. However, in the background of the case there was another issue that deserves special attention on this blog. In a last-ditch attempt to have his case dismissed, Parikh invoked the “fruits…

New Jersey DWI and Aggravated Manslaughter – First Degree Charge

April 11, 2014

Submitted by New Jersey DWI and Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark 14-2-3474 State v. Liepe, App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) The serious issue presented in this case is the prosecutor’s decision to charge an individual with aggravated manslaughter, a first degree charge exposing the defendant to a possible jail term between 10-20 years in New…

State v. M.G.M . | New Jersey DWI and Pre Trial Intervention (PTI)

February 26, 2014

14-2-2963 State v. M.G.M ., App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Submitted by New Jersey DWI lawyer, Jeffrey Hark Several years ago the New Jersey legislature created the 4th degree offense under NJSA 2C:20-40-26(b) of driving while suspended as a result of a DWI suspension. This defendant, once indicted applied for PTI, Pre Trial Intervention.  The county…

State v. McGrath | New Jersey DUI and the Ignition Interlock Device

February 25, 2014

14-2-2924 State v. McGrath, App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Submitted by New Jersey DWI attorney, Jeffrey Hark After a trial de novo in the Law Division, defendant appeals from his conviction for refusing to submit to a chemical breath test. Defendant argues the conviction should be reversed because the officer read the April 2004…