Engine on and defendant peeing nearby sufficient for operation DWI State v. Lindsey Unreported.
Defendant appealed his convictions for driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, refusal to submit to a chemical breath test, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, and violating implied consent to a chemical breath test, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2.
Early one morning, after 2 a.m., two troopers saw defendant standing outside a vehicle with flashing lights on, parked on the side of a highway, adjusting his pants. When the troopers activated their vehicle's emergency lights, defendant raised his hands and then walked back to enter into his vehicle. Neither trooper observed defendant driving his vehicle.
One trooper testified that defendant's engine and headlights were on and no one was with defendant. Defendant told the troopers he had a drink hours earlier and pulled over in order to urinate. The troopers administered the standard field sobriety test then arrested defendant. The judge heard testimony from the troopers and convicted defendant. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court noted that while the troopers did not observe defendant operating the vehicle, he clearly had the intent to reenter and operate the vehicle when the troopers happened upon him. The testimony of the troopers also supported the finding that defendant was intoxicated at the time he was arrested. Source NJLJ Daily Briefing 2/23/21 Daily Briefing, an exclusive New Jersey State Bar Association member benefit, in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. Join the NJSBA for this benefit!
