New Jersey Supreme Court Criminalizes Weak Breathalyzer Blows

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
new jersey supreme court criminalizes weak breathalyzer blows

Blowing into a breathalyzer weakly is grounds to convict someone of the crime of refusal, according to a May 26 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Refusal carries penalties nearly as severe as a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). On November 29, 2007 at 2:36am, Sergeant Joe Morgan of the Woolwich Township police department pulled over Aaron P. Schmidt after noticing that he was driving 10 MPH under the speed limit. Morgan administered the usual field sobriety tests and decided to bring Schmidt to headquarters for a breath test.

Schmidt agreed to submit, and another officer told him to “take a deep breath and blow into the mouth piece with one long continuous breath” until he was told to stop. The officer was unsatisfied with Schmidt’s blowing. In a second attempt, Schmidt blew for 4.9 seconds — sufficiently long — but the Alcotest machine only registered 1.2 liters of air. After a third attempt failed, Schmidt was charged with refusal.

The municipal court and the law division each found Schmidt guilty, but an appellate division panel found that police had violated proper procedures by failing to read an additional warning statement specially prepared for cases where a person attempts to assert his constitutional right to remain silent, seek an attorney or provide an ambiguous response.

“I have previously informed you that the warnings given to you concerning your right to remain silent and your right to consult with an attorney, do not apply to the taking of breath samples and do not give you the right to refuse to give, or to delay giving, samples of your breath for the purpose of making chemical tests to determine the content of alcohol in your blood,” the additional statement reads. “Your prior response, silence, or lack of response, is unacceptable. If you do not agree, unconditionally, to provide breath samples now, then you will be issued a separate summons charging you with refusing to submit to the taking of samples of your breath for the purpose of making chemical tests to determine the content of alcohol in your blood.”

The state supreme court found it unnecessary to read this additional warning because Schmidt’s verbal assent to be tested was unambiguous.

“Once that consent is given, it cannot be vitiated, impeached or otherwise revoked by a defendant’s unilateral actions aimed at defeating the testing process,” Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote for the majority. “To hold otherwise would result in a conclusion at odds with the clear purpose of the entire intoxicated driver statutory scheme.”

Although the court found the standard warning was sufficient, the justices decided that a specific notice regarding blowing weakly into the machine should be added.

“For the avoidance of future doubt and to provide consistency of administration, the inclusion in the main body of the standard statement of a notice to a DWI arrestee that the failure to provide sufficient breath volume for a sufficient period of time will constitute a refusal to submit to the breath test is both reasonable and salutary,” Rivera-Soto wrote.

The court reinstated Schmidt’s conviction. A copy of the case is available at the source link below.

New Jersey v. Schmidt (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 5/26/2011)


Join the conversation
2 of 19 comments
  • SexCpotatoes SexCpotatoes on Jun 15, 2011

    "I remember the first time I got pulled over for driving too slow" Or words to that effect, Fresh Prince of Bel Air "Mistaken Identity" where Will and Carlton are pulled over for being black.

  • Junebug Junebug on Jun 16, 2011

    It's just not worth it to drive after drinking. I use to not think twice about driving after a couple beers or mixed drinks, no more than two though. I'm 225 pounds and I'm sure that my blood alcohol rating would still be legal. But today, it's 4 bucks for a beer or buy a 5 dollar "cocktail" that the skittish bar waved the bottle close to the glass. So, I buy my beer at Target, $12.50 for a 12 pack of Corona, sit on my patio and grill/chill.

  • Alan I would think Ford would beef up the drive line considering the torque increase, horse power isn't a factor here. I looked at a Harrop supercharger for my vehicle. Harrop offered two stages of performance. The first was a paltry 100hp to the wheels (12 000AUD)and the second was 250hp to the wheels ($20 000 (engine didn't rev harder so torque was significantly increased)). The Stage One had no drive line changes, but the Stage Two had drive line modifications. My vehicle weighs roughly the same as a full size pickup and the 400'ish hp I have is sufficient, I had little use for another 100 let alone 250hp. I couldn't see much difference in the actual supercharger setup other than a ratio change for the drive of the supercharger, so that extra $8 000 went into the drive line.
  • ToolGuy Question: F-150 FP700 ( Bronze or Black) supercharger kit is legal in 50 states, while the Mustang supercharger kit is banned in California -- why??
  • ToolGuy Last picture: Labeling the accelerator as "play" and the brake pedal as "pause" might be cute, but it feels wrong. It feels wrong because it is wrong, and it is wrong because Calculus.Sidebar: I have some in-laws who engage the accelerator and brake on a binary on/off all-in basis. So annoying as a passenger.Drive smoothly out there. 🙂
  • Johnny ringo It's an interesting vehicle, I'd like to see VW offer the two row Buzz in the states also.
  • Chuck Norton And guys are having wide spread issues with the 10 speed transmission with the HP numbers out of the factory......