Iler Law Firm consulted regarding recent weapons trafficking indictment

Our firm was contacted yesterday by one of the defendants who was among the twelve individuals charged with weapons trafficking following a recent investigation by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office.  A state grand jury indicted twelve defendants on a wide array of criminal charges including weapons trafficking, conspiracy, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

According to the news release on the Attorney General's website, "[t]he indictments, brought by the Division of Criminal Justice, are a result of investigations conducted by a new joint task force of State Police detectives and special agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The task force, which also includes the participation of officers with the Trenton Police Department, the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office and the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, is aimed at tracking and prosecuting illegal gun traffickers." For additional information, see the entire news release.

Our potential new client has a prior criminal record and is facing twelve counts in the indictment including conspiracy, unlawful possession and disposition of two assault firearms, and unlawful possession and disposition of three other handguns. As a result, he is facing substantial jail time and requires an experienced criminal defense lawyer to represent him. If we are retained to represent this defendant, I will try and update this case as is moves through the criminal justice system.

American Idol contestant found dead in Seaside Heights

A 23-year-old Toms River man was arrested this weekend in connection with a hit and run accident in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. The victim, 24-year-old Alexis Cohen, was previously a contestant on American Idol. The defendant was arrested in Atlantic Highlands on Sunday morning on charges of vehicular homicide by recklessly causing the death of the victim and leaving the scene of an accident. The defendant, if convicted, is facing ten (10) to fifteen (15) years in prison. The Defendant is being held at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River on $35,000.00 bail. The victim was killed after a motor vehicle struck her Saturday morning and she was found 350 yards from the Bay Boulevard parking lot where the police found her car. For additional information, see "Man arrested in 'Idol' hopeful's death".

This is a very sad story. It is unclear whether this is an alcohol related incident or not. However, it is an extremely tragic incident regardless to lose someone so young.

Monmouth County jury finds Marlboro man guilty of vehicular manslaughter

A Monmouth County jury found a Marlboro man guilty of vehicular manslaughter after a trial this week at the Monmouth County Superior Court in Freehold, New Jersey. He faces up to twenty (20) years in prison based on this jury verdict. The jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict after two days of deliberation. The defendant was also found guilty of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and reckless driving. The victim in this case, a 39-year-old woman, was driving her motorcycle on June 3, 2007 when she was run over by the Defendant's vehicle. She suffered multiple injuries in the crash and died at the hospital 22 hours later. The Defendant's vehicle was found two miles from the crash with a shredded tire. Forensic evidence also linked the Defendant's vehicle to the victim's motorcycle. This was enough evidence to convince the jury that the Defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For additional information, see "Marlboro man guilty in 2007 hit, run accident".

I am not surprised with this verdict. In fact, I was in Monmouth County Superior Court earlier this week and I saw the assistant prosecutor who was trying the case. I told him that based on the evidence it looked like he had a winner. I was right. The defense attorney in this case, an excellent lawyer, did everything he could but the evidence was too overwhelming in favor of the State.

New Jersey politicians arrested on corruption charges

Two New Jersey mayors and a New Jersey assemblyman were among those arrested this week on political corruption charges. These arrests stem from an international money laundering and corruption probe that includes leaders from the Jewish community as well. The arrests of these 30 individuals are the result of a two year FBI and IRS probe. The mayors of Hoboken and Secaucus were among those arrested. Further, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's office and the IRS seized evidence from a Yeshiva in Deal, New Jersey. As you can see, this was a statewide effort from Hoboken to Monmouth County to crack down on political corruption. It appears that the United States Attorney's Office is working together with New Jersey officials (such as the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office) to lead this investigation. For additional information, see "N.J. officials N.Y. rabbis caught in federal money laundering, corruption sweep".

Monmouth County judge rules tape inadmissible in Manasquan murder trial

Back in June I posted an article about an interesting evidence issue during a murder trial at the Monmouth County Superior Court in Freehold, New Jersey. Now, the issue has been decided. The judge ruled that the videotape is inadmissible against the defendant at trial. Judge Ira Kreizman ruled that the videotape is inadmissible because it is "completely untrustworthy" and the videotaped interview was filled with static, crackling, and all sorts of outside noises. The Judge also stated that it is incredible that the police officer destroyed his notes from the interview. The Judge further ruled that the State would not be allowed to show the videotape of the interview, with or without the audio, and that the investigators and/or police officers could not testify about the alleged confession during the interview. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Judge rules videotape unreliable in ex-Manasquan man's murder trial".

This is obviously a devastating blow to the prosecution at trial. The inability to use this confession is tremendously damaging to the State's case. However, it appears that the Judge got it right as it is extremely prejudicial to the defendant to use questionable and unreliable evidence against him during a murder trial. I will try and update this case when it finally resolves.

Neptune Sexual Assault Sentence: 10 Years

I wrote an article in May about a Mercer County man who was convicted by a Monmouth County jury of first-degree aggravated sexual assault. Recently, the defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Ronald Lee Reisner, sitting in the Monmouth County Superior Court in Freehold, to 10 years in state prison. The defendant must serve eight and a half years before he will be eligible for parole. Following his release from prison, he must register under Megan's Law as a sex offender and he will be subject to parole supervision for life. For additional information on this case, see "Man sentenced to 10 years for Neptune City sex assault".

In this case, the defendant must serve 8.5 years of the 10 year sentence, or 85%, because of the No Early Release Act. This statute essentially requires defendants to serve 85% of their sentence for certain violent offenses including murder, aggravated assault, and robbery. Otherwise, typically defendants serve approximately one-fifth (1/5) of their sentence in New Jersey. For example, for a first time drug offender who is sentenced to 5 years, he will typically serve about one year in prison. However, this is not the case for those offenses covered by the No Early Release Act.

Two men arrested in connection with Manalapan armed robbery

Two men were arrested on July 6th in connection with an armed robbery of a CVS store on Route 33 in Manalapan, New Jersey. The two defendants, ages 20 and 21, allegedly entered the store, pointed guns at the employees, and demanded cash. They stole approximately $2,400.00 in cash and $100.00 in store items before fleeing the scene. The defendants are charged with robbery, theft, terroristic threats, and conspiracy. The defendants are currently incarcarated at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold and are being held on $250,000 and $350,000 bail, respectively. For additional information, see the Asbury Park press article.

Criminal charges for terroristic threats in New Jersey are governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 which provides:

§ 2C:12-3. Terroristic threats

a. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. A violation of this subsection is a crime of the second degree if it occurs during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. The actor shall be strictly liable upon proof that the crime occurred, in fact, during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. It shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that there was a declared period of emergency at the time the crime occurred.

b. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.

Woodbridge Drunk Driving Charges Dismissed

I represented a client this morning in Woodbridge Municipal Court charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), consumption of alcohol in a motor vehicle, simple possession of marijuana (under 50 grams), and possession of drug paraphernalia. My client was allegedly sitting in a rest area on the New Jersey Turnpike with the car running, an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, and marijuana/marijuana paraphernalia in the vehicle. The state trooper approached the vehicle and allegedly smelled marijuana on my client and observed the marijuana and paraphernalia in plain view in the vehicle. Then, the police officer conducted the standard field sobriety tests, took the defendant's breath test readings, and obtained a urine sample from my client.

I was hired by the defendant's family to represent him. He had no prior criminal record and this was his first charge for drunk driving. I received the discovery evidence from the State and I was able to isolate a significant issue with regard to the drunk driving charge. First, the defendant's breath test readings were .01% blood alcohol content (BAC). Remember, the legal limit in New Jersey is .08% BAC. Thus, the defendant was under the legal limit in terms of alcohol despite the fact that he allegedly had an open container of alcohol in his vehicle. Further, the defendant's urine analysis came back as positive for marijuana. However, marijuana stays in your system for 30 days after consumption. Thus, the State could not prove that he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of operation. Finally, the State failed to utilize a Drug Recognition Expert (commonly known as a "DRE") at the time of the arrest to examine the defendant and determine if he was under the influence of drugs at the time he operated the vehicle. Therefore, the State was unable to meet its burden and show that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the operation of the motor vehicle. As a result, the driving while intoxicated charge was dismissed and the defendant applied for, and received, a conditional discharge with regard to the marijuana offenses. This was an extremely satisfying result for the client and the firm as the defendant avoided the license suspension associated with a DWI charge.

Vehicular homicide leads to five-year prison sentence in Ocean County

A 22-year-old Toms River man pled guilty to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to five years in prison for a June 2007 accident which led to the death of a 7-year-old girl. Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson in the Ocean County Superior Court in Toms River sentenced the defendant to five years in prison, three years of parole, and suspended his driver's license for two years following his release.

The crash occurred on June 10, 2007 at the intersection of Garfield Ave and Route 37 in Toms River. According to the Ocean County Assistant Prosecutor assigned to the case, the defendant was driving at least 70 mph in a 50 mph zone. The defendant was in an argument with his girlfriend which resulted in dozens of cell phone calls immediately prior to the crash when he ran a red light. The State argued that the defendant's actions gave rise to a level of recklessness because of the combination of speed, cell phone usage, and disregard of the traffic signal. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Five-year prison sentence in death of Lakewood girl, 7"

Typically, vehicular homicide charges surround a drunk driving incident. In this case, it doesn't appear that this was an alcohol related incident. However, the level of recklessness involved gave rise to a vehicular homicide charge. Vehicular homicide charges in New Jersey are governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5 which provides:

§ 2C:11-5. Death by auto or vessel

a. Criminal homicide constitutes vehicular homicide when it is caused by driving a vehicle or vessel recklessly.

Proof that the defendant fell asleep while driving or was driving after having been without sleep for a period in excess of 24 consecutive hours may give rise to an inference that the defendant was driving recklessly. Proof that the defendant was driving while intoxicated in violation of R.S. 39:4-50 or was operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of section 3 of P.L. 1952, c. 157 shall give rise to an inference that the defendant was driving recklessly. Nothing in this section shall be construed to in any way limit the conduct or conditions that may be found to constitute driving a vehicle or vessel recklessly.

b. Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, vehicular homicide is a crime of the second degree.

(1) If the defendant was operating the auto or vessel while under the influence of any intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or with a blood alcohol concentration at or above the prohibited level as prescribed in R.S. 39:4-50, or if the defendant was operating the auto or vessel while his driver's license or reciprocity privilege was suspended or revoked for any violation of R.S. 39:4-50, section 2 of P.L. 1981, c. 512, by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles pursuant to P.L. 1982, c. 85, or by the court for a violation of R.S. 39:4-96, the defendant shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the court. The term of imprisonment shall include the imposition of a minimum term. The minimum term shall be fixed at, or between, one-third and one-half of the sentence imposed by the court or three years, whichever is greater, during which the defendant shall be ineligible for parole.

(2) The court shall not impose a mandatory sentence pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection unless the grounds therefore have been established at a hearing. At the hearing, which may occur at the time of sentencing, the prosecutor shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was operating the auto or vessel while under the influence of any intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or with a blood alcohol concentration at or above the level prescribed in R.S. 39:4-50 or that the defendant was operating the auto or vessel while his driver's license or reciprocity privilege was suspended or revoked for any violation of R.S. 39:4-50, section 2 of P.L. 1981, c. 512, by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles pursuant to P.L. 1982, c. 85, or by the court for a violation of R.S. 39:4-96. In making its findings, the court shall take judicial notice of any evidence, testimony or information adduced at the trial, plea hearing, or other court proceedings and shall also consider the presentence report and any other relevant information.

(3) Vehicular homicide is a crime of the first degree if the defendant was operating the auto or vessel while in violation of R.S. 39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L. 1981, c. 512 while:

(a) on any school property used for school purposes which is owned by or leased to any elementary or secondary school or school board, or within 1,000 feet of such school property;

(b) driving through a school crossing as defined in R.S. 39:1-1 if the municipality, by ordinance or resolution, has designated the school crossing as such; or

(c) driving through a school crossing as defined in R.S. 39:1-1 knowing that juveniles are present if the municipality has not designated the school crossing as such by ordinance or resolution.

A map or true copy of a map depicting the location and boundaries of the area on or within 1,000 feet of any property used for school purposes which is owned by or leased to any elementary or secondary school or school board produced pursuant to section 1 of P.L. 1987, c. 101 (2C:35-7) may be used in a prosecution under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.

It shall be no defense to a prosecution for a violation of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph that the defendant was unaware that the prohibited conduct took place while on or within 1,000 feet of any school property or while driving through a school crossing. Nor shall it be a defense to a prosecution under subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph that no juveniles were present on the school property or crossing zone at the time of the offense or that the school was not in session.

(4) If the defendant was operating the auto or vessel in violation of R.S. 39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L. 1981, c. 512, the defendant's license to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for a period of between five years and life, which period shall commence upon completion of any prison sentence imposed upon that person.

c. For good cause shown, the court may, in accepting a plea of guilty under this section, order that such plea not be evidential in any civil proceeding.

d. Nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude, if the evidence so warrants, an indictment and conviction for aggravated manslaughter under the provisions of subsection a. of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4.

As used in this section, "auto or vessel" means all means of conveyance propelled otherwise than by muscular power.

e. Any person who violates paragraph (3) of subsection b. of this section shall forfeit the auto or vessel used in the commission of the offense, unless the defendant can establish at a hearing, which may occur at the time of sentencing, by a preponderance of the evidence that such forfeiture would constitute a serious hardship to the family of the defendant that outweighs the need to deter such conduct by the defendant and others. In making its findings, the court shall take judicial notice of any evidence, testimony or information adduced at the trial, plea hearing, or other court proceedings and shall also consider the presentence report and any other relevant information. Forfeiture pursuant to this subsection shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, civil forfeiture pursuant to chapter 64 of this title.

Monmouth County robbery suspect turns himself in

A 20-year-old Neptune township man turned himself in to authorities last week based on robbery charges. The defendant was wanted in connection to the robberies of two Chinese food deliverymen which allegedly took place on June 9 on Palmer Avenue and on Doris Terrace on June 11. The defendant turned himself into police without incident and plans on filing a motion for a probable cause hearing today. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Man wanted in robbery turns himself in, pleads not guilty".

Charges for robbery in New Jersey are governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:15-1. Robbery

a. Robbery defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

b. Grading. Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon.

Former Marlboro police chief indicted on sexual assault charges

A Monmouth County grand jury indicted a former Marlboro police chief this week charging him with sexually assaulting a child from 2005 to 2007. The defendant is charged with two counts of first degree aggravated sexual assault, two counts of second degree sexual assault, second degree endangering the welfare of a minor, third degree aggravated criminal sexual contact, and fourth degree criminal sexual contact. The defendant retired in December after 36 years on the police force. According to the indictment, the defendant committed the sex crimes against the minor female between April 2005 and March 2007, while the girl was between the age of 12 and 14. As a result, she was unable to legally consent in New Jersey to the sexual activity. The defendant also allegedly provided alcohol to the minor on several occasions and then engaged in sexual acts with the girl in his home. Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson set the defendant's bail at $100,000 and ordered that he have no contact with the victim or her family as a condition of his bail.

For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Indictment: Former Marlboro police chief sexually assaulted girl".

2nd man arrested in 2008 Lakewood murder

I posted an article yesterday about the arrest of a Blood gang member for the 2008 murder of a Toms River man. Now, authorities arrested a second man who they say ordered the murder of the 18-year-old victim. According to the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, the second man, also a member of the Bloods street gang, recruited the defendant to murder the victim because he was concerned that the victim was cooperating with authorities concerning the February 2008 armed robbery of a Toms River sub shop. Interestingly, it looks the like victim and the second man participated in the 2008 armed robbery together. Then, since the defendant knew the victim was cooperating with authorities, he had him killed. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "2nd arrest in Lakewood murder".

 

Keansburg man arrested for 2008 shooting of Toms River resident

After a year-long investigation, Keansburg police arrested and charged a man with the shooting of an 18-year-old Toms River resident in June 2008. The victim was found laying along a wooded trial on June 6, 2008. An autopsy revealed that he was shot once in the neck and once in the head the night before. The defendant, who was turned over to Lakewood police and Ocean County investigators following his arrest, is charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. He is being held at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River on $1 million cash bail. Authorities believe that the defendant is an active member of the Bloods street gang. For additional information, please see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Arrest made in 2008 shooting of Toms River man".

Jury deliberates following Brick stabbing trial

The trial of a Brick man charged with stabbing his estranged wife and their son during a domestic dispute ended earlier this week and the jury is currently deliberating. The case was tried before the Honorable Ronald L. Reisner at the Monmouth County Superior Court in Freehold, New Jersey. The trial lasted approximately four weeks and the defendant is facing up to 96.5 years in prison if convicted of the 12 charges against him.

The alleged incident occurred on December 9, 2007. The defendant dropped his two children and another friend off at his estranged wife's home. He returned an hour later and went inside the residence uninvited. He got into a fight with his ex-wife and allegedly struck her on the chin with a hunting knife and cut her multiple times on her arms and hands. During the altercation, the couple's 10-year-old son tried to intervene and was injured as he tried to pull his father off of his mother.

We'll see how the jury decides this case. The deliberations are expected to continue this morning. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article.

Two people charged with theft of $9,000 in Keansburg

Police arrested two people in connection with the theft of $9,000.00 from Ryan's Funeral Home in Keansburg earlier this week. A 29-year-old man is charged with burglary, theft, and criminal trespassing after stealing the $9,000.00 from a safe in Ryan's Funeral Home. He allegedly stole a key to the safe from his sister's friend, who is the owner of the funeral home. The defendant is being held on $55,000 bail. The defendant's girlfriend has also been charged with receiving stolen property and tampering with evidence. She was allegedly in possession of some of the proceeds of the theft. Police have recovered approximately $5,800 of the stolen cash.

Clients often ask about bail and the "ten percent" option often given by the court. In this case, the defendant is being held on $55,000 bail at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold with a 10% option. This means that the defendant must post $5,500 with the Monmouth County court and he will be released from prison. Now, the court does not always give a 10% option. I recently had a client in the Monmouth County Jail on aggravated sexual assault charges and he was being held on $250,000 bail, no 10% option. This means that the family must post the entire $250,000 bail to have him released from jail. However, the family can also hire a bail bondsman to post the $250,000 with the court. This usually costs the family 10%, in this case $25,000, as a fee to the bondsman. This $25,000 is not returned. However, if the family posts money with the court and the defendant appears as required, the money is returned after the case is resolved. This is important to remember when deciding whether to post the money with the court or hiring a bail bondsman instead.

We are often successful in arguing bail reduction motions with the court. This means an attorney from our office convinces the judge that the bail should be lowered based on the charges, the defendant's connections with the community, and the lack of flight risk. This is done based on the defendant's family ties, employment, and previous history of appearing for court when required. In this recent case, I filed a bail reduction motion with the Monmouth County Superior Court in Freehold and the bail was reduced from $250,000 to $150,000. This was a great result for my client as he was able to post the bail and has been released from prison.

Manahawkin woman charged with heroin possession

A 32-year-old Manahawkin woman was arrested and charged with several drug related offenses after her vehicle was stopped for driving with a suspended registration Friday night. After the vehicle was stopped for the motor vehicle violation, the officer approached the vehicle and observed drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. The police then searched the vehicle and found heroin and hypodermic needles in the vehicle. Police then obtained a search warrant and searched the defendant's home. As a result, they found additional heroin and hypodermic needles at the residence. The defendant was charged with traffic offenses, possession of CDS in a motor vehicle, possession of heroin, and possession of hypodermic syringes.

This is another example of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Ordinarily, police are prohibited from searching your vehicle unless they are conducting a search incident to arrest or the vehicle is being impounded based on a motor vehicle violation. However, as in this case, when the police observe in "plain view" evidence of a crime such as drug paraphernalia, this allows them to conduct a search of the vehicle to obtain other evidence without getting a search warrant first. Notice, however, that the police did need to them obtain a search warrant to search the defendant's home. This search also led to additional evidence of criminal activity.

Ocean County couple arrested on marijuana and cocaine charges

A man and a woman were arrested and charged Monday with possession of a stolen handgun, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after law enforcement stopped the couple's vehicle and searched it. The search led to a secret compartment in the vehicle which contained cocaine, pot, and cash. After this search of the vehicle, police obtained a search warrant for the defendants' home. This search of the home led to additional marijuana and a stolen handgun which was reported stolen in Toms River in 2006. Both defendants remained in the Ocean County Jail in Toms River on $150,000.00 bail.

It will be interesting the see what the basis for the initial search of the vehicle was. Police cannot simply search a vehicle unless they have probable cause to believe that contraband is contained in the vehicle, they are conducting a search incident to arrest, or they are impounding the vehicle. If the defendants are successful in arguing that the initial search was unlawful and violated their rights, then all of the subsequent contraband found is inadmissible against them under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. We'll see how this case unfolds.

Appellate Division upholds DWI conviction based on a refusal

The Appellate Division recently upheld the conviction of a Hispanic man who alleged that he did not understand the instructions read to him regarding his rights and the requirement that he submit to a breathalyzer test to determine his blood alcohol content (BAC). The Appellate Division held that state law does not require the translation of the mandatory statement read to all drunk-driving suspects. The defendant, German Marquez, argued that the statement should have been read to him in Spanish.

The Court did recommend that the Motor Vehicle Commission consider having the mandatory DWI statement translated in Spanish and other languages or potentially have them recorded in other languages to be played for suspects who potentially do not understand English. As a result of this decision, the Appellate Division upheld the municipal court judge's decision which found the defendant guilty of careless driving, driving while intoxicated (DWI), and refusal to submit to a breath test. The defendant will lose his license for seven (7) months based on these convictions. For additional information, please see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Court: Breath-test rules read to motorists should also be in Spanish". Further, the entire Appellate Division opinion can be found on the New Jersey Judiciary website.