DWI defense & Pretrial Motions

DWI defense & Pretrial Motions    
1. Suppress Evidence
2. Miranda/Privilege
3. Notice of Objection
4. Exclude Tests.
5. Discovery
6. Reciprocal Discovery
7. Speedy Trial
At a time to be set by the Court, Defendant will move for Orders pursuant to R. 3:10-5, 3:13-1, and 7:7-7, as follows and requests oral argument pursuant to R. 1:6-2(d) to preserve all of defendant's rights and defenses:

1. Suppress Evidence. Defendant will move to suppress, evidence obtained by the State during its investigation of case, pursuant to R. 3:5-7 and 7:5-2, because evidence-- ie defendant's person, breath, blood, and/or other things--was seized unlawfully, without a warrant  and contrary to U.S. Const. Amends. IV and XIV and N.J. Const. Art.1, para.7. Defendant believes the State will use this evidence in proceedings before this Court on the above captioned charges.

2. Miranda/Privilege. Defendant will move to exclude statements by, and evidence obtained from, Defendant during the State's investigation of this case because the statements and evidence (a) create substantial danger of undue prejudice to Defendant contrary to Evid.R. 403 (previously Evid.R. 4), (b) are privileged under Evid.R. 503 (previously Evid.R. 25), and (c) were obtained contrary to U.S. Const. Amends. V, VI, IX, and XIV, NJ Constitution 1, paras.1, 10, and 2], and requirements stated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US. 486, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), and its progeny.

3. Notice of Objection. If the State gives notice of intent to proffer a certificate executed by a laboratory employee pursuant to N.J.S. 2C:35-19c, Defendant hereby objects to it on the grounds that Defendant intends to contest at trial the composition, quality, and quantity of substances submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

4. Exclude Breath Tests. If police used a breath testing instrument in this case, Defendant will move to exclude evidence(- of breath test results because (a) the Attorney General failed to exercise administrative authority and prescribe methods and procedures for periodic inspection of breath testing instruments as required by N.J.S. 39:4-50.3, and (b) without such properly prescribed methods and procedures, the State cannot lay the foundation needed for admission of breath test results into evidence at trial. See Romano v. Kimmelman 96 N.J. 66, 81 (1984)

GENERAL PROVISIONS

5. Discovery.  Defendant requests that the State either produce or permit Defendant's attorneys to inspect and copy or photograph any relevant discovery as required by Rule 3:13-3, Rule 7:7-7(b), OPRA 47:1A-1 et seq. and the common law right to know under Shuttleworth v. City of Camden 258 N.J. Super. 573 (App. Div. 1992). including all relevant items specifically listed on the DISCOVERY requests submitted. Defendant further requests that the Court enter a DISCOVERY ORDER, provided the prosecutor neither sends notice of specific objections in writing pursuant to R. 3:1-4 nor moves timely for a protective order pursuant to R. 3:13-3(d).

      If the State fails to provide discovery as requested herein, Defendant may move either before or during trial pursuant to R. 3:13-3(f), R. 3:17-4, and Evid.R. 807 (previously Evid.R 64), as applicable, for an Order (a) permitting discovery or inspection of undisclosed materials, (b) granting a continuance, (c) prohibiting introduction in evidence of undisclosed material, (d) monetary sanctions, (e) dismissal of the charges, and (f) such other order as the Court deems appropriate.