Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Fogarty

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 8, 1992Published

1DissentStein, J.

A conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) ordinarily is not an occasion for hand-wringing about issues of fundamental fairness and due process. The cases are usually cut and dried: a defendant who had been driving a motor vehicle is found to have a blood-alcohol reading, based on a breathalyzer test, of .10 or above. Our decisions confirm this Court’s determination to enforce strictly the strong legislative policy to impose swift and certain punishment on those who would drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. See State v. Hammond, 118 N.J. 306, 571 A.2d…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Cox v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Raley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. Honorable Ronald v. Dellums v. James M. Powell, Chief, United States Capitol Police, Jerry v. Wilson, Chief, Metropolitan Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
  4. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
  5. United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API