Call Today for FREE Consultation… 856-424-4494
JEFFREY EVAN GOLD
Two Time Winner
of New Jersey State Bar Practice Award !
WITH OVER 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN:
• Criminal offenses • Drugs offenses • Drunk Driving
• DWI / DUI, Refusal • Traffic Offenses • Disorderly Persons
• Juvenile • Expungements
♦ 1847 Route 70 East, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003
♦ 37 Grant Street, Mount Holly, New Jersey 08060
Sex Offenses, Assault, Weapons, Embezzlement, Theft, Computer Crime, Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Fraud, Homicide.
Possession, Distribution, Conspiracy, School Zone, Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, Methamph., X, GBH, Steroids
DWI, DUI, Refusal, Assault by Auto, Death by Auto Leaving Scene, Reckless, Driving suspended, Revoked, No Insurance, Etc.
Shoplifting, Harassment, Loitering In CDS Area, Criminal Mischief, Lewdness, Resisting Arrest, Obstructing Justice
Expungements of your criminal record & Juvenile matters of all kinds.
CLICK ON PICTURES BELOW FOR DETAILS:
Jeffrey Gold & Associates Law Office
1847 Route 70 East
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
In State v Adkins, approved for publication, the NJ App Div. today has reversed the Glouc. Co. Law Div. and held that the requirement of McNeely DWI Blood draw warrant is a new rule of law that ought not be applied retroactively to the pipeline of pending cases. I suspect that the Supreme Court will grant certification if petitioned. But what will they do?
On 9/18/13 the Supreme Court turned tail and ran from the firmware change part of its own 5 year old Chun order, relieving the state of having to change the firmware at all. Although dramatic, this changes very little as the State hasn’t changed even the most mundane firmware such as to daylight savings to date, and frankly I doubt they would have ever changed any software unless the decision today forced them to. The court has decided to maintain the status quo minus the firmware revisions, with a minor adjustment for 60 year old women.
The N.J. Supreme Court released its opinion in State v O’Driscoll today. Its a very narrow holding based on the facts of the case that the mistake of an officer in reading the old refusal form statiung 6 months mandfatory suspenion instead of the current 7 months, is not “material” . It did not reach the larger issue that the case was cited for ie the interlock discrepancy or the present refusal form. However it as much as the court announces the standard of materiality, these issues are left for another day