State of New Jersey vs. Jonathan Carambot

On May 30, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division delivered an unpublished opinion regarding a drug based Driving While Intoxicated, contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Although unpublished, this case provides guidance on how the courts may interpret the testimony of police officers in drug based DWI offenses.

Background

On July 10, 2021, Bloomfield Police Officers conducted a motor vehicle stop after the driver, Jonathan Carambot, committed multiple motor vehicle infractions. Upon conducting the motor vehicle stop, the officers noted that Carambot appeared to exhibit signs of intoxication; namely that he was sweating profusely, his eyes were watery, and his speech was slurred. Carambot was then asked to exit the vehicle, so the officers could conduct the standardized field sobriety tests. Carambot failed them and was placed under arrest for DWI.

At the station, the officers attempted to obtain a breath reading from the defendant. Upon obtaining two successful breath results, the Alcotest machine showed that Carambot had a .00 reading. Said differently, the machine was unable to detect any alcohol on his breath. The officers asked Carambot to provide a urine sample, but he refused. They did not seek a warrant to draw blood and did not contact a Drug Recognition Evaluator to conduct an evaluation. Carambot was charged with DWI and other motor vehicle infractions.

Legal Proceedings

Carambot proceeded to go to trial on his DWI charge. The municipal court found him guilty of the DWI and some related motor vehicle infractions. After the conviction, Carambot appealed to the Law Division. The Law Division relied on the observations of the arresting police officers as well as a review of the footage from the officer’s body worn cameras.

Upon reviewing this evidence, the Law Division concluded that the testimony of the officers and the video footage was sufficient to support a DWI conviction. Importantly, the Law Division found that there was insufficient evidence to support an alcohol DWI conviction. Although the Law Division didn’t explicitly state it, the only possible basis for the conviction was a drug based DWI.

Carambot then appealed this conviction to the Appellate Division.

Appellate Division’s Opinion

The Appellate Division accepted the Law Division’s findings of fact. They found that Carambot was impaired. This finding was supported by the testimony of the officers as well as the video footage. However, The DWI statute doesn’t just require that the state proves impairment. Instead, it makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drugs.”

In this case, the Appellate Division found that the State failed to present any evidence to establish that the cause of the impairment was either narcotics, hallucinogens, or habit-producing drugs. It was not enough for the State to have provided evidence of general impairment – the Court found that there needed to be evidence linking this impairment to an intoxicating substance. Without this evidence, which may have potentially included a blood or urine toxicology, the opinion of a DRE, or drugs found within the vehicle, the Appellate Division was compelled to vacate the DWI conviction.

DWI Cases Moving Forward

This decision makes it clear that the State needs to do more than the bare minimum to secure a DWI conviction. It must have evidence to support that the operator of a motor vehicle was intoxicated and under the influence of an intoxicating drug. Without evidence supporting this, the State will be unable to prove similar cases.