'For the Benefit of the Public,' Court Rules Sitting Behind Wheel Drunk Is DWI
"Seven other times within the last twelve months—each time by unpublished opinion—we have considered" the same issue, Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. wrote.
February 10, 2020 at 03:31 PM
3 minute read
After a year of hearing questions of whether sleeping behind the wheel constitutes vehicle "operation" under the law, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled in a published decision that sitting in the driver's seat while drunk, even if the car is stationary, qualifies as driving under the influence.
The Appellate Division on Monday reached its ruling in the case of defendant John Thompson, who, according to the court, was allegedly found by police sleeping in his car in a Wanaque 7-Eleven parking lot on Sept. 17, 2017, after drinking alcohol and consuming multiple prescription drugs.
Upholding Thompson's conviction, Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. wrote in State v. Thompson that now is the time to set the record straight.
"In so holding, we readily acknowledge this opinion expresses nothing new. We have been driven to publish because of the extraordinary number of times the court has recently faced this precise issue," Fisher said, joined on the panel by Appellate Division Judges Allison Accurso and Robert Gilson.
"Seven other times within the last twelve months—each time by unpublished opinion—we have considered whether an intoxicated person, sleeping behind the wheel of a parked car with its engine running, can be convicted of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)," Fisher said. "For the benefit of the public, as well as the bench and bar, we deem it appropriate to express our holding in a published opinion."
According to the decision, Thompson appealed his DWI convictions for refusing to submit to a breath test. He argued that the evidence against him did not support the statutory definition of operating a vehicle since the record shows he was found sleeping behind the wheel with the engine running, not driving.
But the court disagreed.
"Operation, for example, includes sitting or sleeping in a vehicle, with the engine running, even when the vehicle isn't in motion. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that 'operation' may be found from evidence that would reveal 'a defendant's intent to operate a motor vehicle,'" Fisher said.
"Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that an individual who staggers out of a tavern but is arrested before he is able to insert a key into his vehicle's ignition may be convicted of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)," Fisher said.
Thompson's attorney, James Abate of Somerville, said he and his client "are obviously disappointed in the result" and are considering further appeal.
"It seemed that the Appellate Division was reacting to a number of appeals recently filed on operation issues while sleeping. However, it did not address our issues, which went more to the intent, as the police were unable to determine when our client became incapacitated because they did not investigate drug issues in the vehicle," Abate said.
The Passaic County Prosecutor's Office, which represents the state in Thompson's case, didn't immediately respond to a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250