Laurick Relief – IDRC Letter To Court

by | Jun 25, 2016 | Blog, Criminal Law, DUI, Traffic Stops

The following novel arguments were successfully submitted on behalf of one of Fred Sisto’s clients in order to reduce his two day jail sentence to twelve hours at the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center:

Fred-Sisto-Attorney-Criminal-DefenseWhen Laurick relief is granted for a second DWI, it is within the Court’s discretion to sentence the defendant from 12 to 48 hours at the IDRC, as opposed to 48 hours. Admittedly, as Your Honor noted, this will be a non-issue in the vast majority of second offender cases since most courts will sentence offenders on the otherwise mandatory two days of imprisonment to two days at the IDRC. However, under the rare where a second offender is granted Laurick relief, the mandatory two days of imprisonment does not apply.

Therefore, it makes sense to turn to the DWI statute to determine the range of IDRC sentences. Unfortunately, the statute is silent on the IDRC range for second offenders, whereas the ranges are listed for first offenders (12 to 48 hours) and third or subsequent offenders (up to 90 days at an IDRC approved inpatient program in lieu of imprisonment).

 

While a literal reading of the statute indicates that no IDRC time at all is required for second DWI offenders, it is respectfully submitted that the most reasonable positon is that the minimum IDRC sentence is the 12 hours that we are requesting. This is consistent with the DWI statute’s silence on the issue, along with precedent holding that ambiguities in statutes are to be construed strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. See State v. Reiner, 180 N.J. 307, 318 (2004).

Moreover, a 12 hour IDRC sentence, as opposed to a 48 hour sentence is the only way to give any practical effect to the municipal court judge’s order granting my client Laurick relief. That is to say, that a second offender who has not been granted Laurick relief will receive 48 hours at the IDRC (with the otherwise mandatory jail sentence running concurrent to this IDRC time). If my client is sentenced to 48 hours, his Laurick “relief” will be nullified and cease to function as relief, i.e. he will receive the exact same sentence as a second offender who has not been granted Laurick relief.

The relevant portions of the DWI statute are as follows:

 

(1) For the first offense:

(i) if the person’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to operate a motor vehicle owned byhim or in his custody or control or permits another person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10% to operate a motor vehicle, to a fine of notless than $250 nor more than $400 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of theIntoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days and shall forthwith forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of three months;

(ii) if the person’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher, or the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control, or permits another person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more to operate a motor vehicle, to a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $500 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days and shall forthwith forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than seven months nor more than one year; . . .

(2) For a second violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 30 days, which shall be of such form and on such terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 48 consecutive hours, which shall not be suspended or served on probation, nor more than 90 days, and shall forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of two years upon conviction, and, after the expiration of said period, he may make application to the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a license to operate a motor vehicle, which application may be granted at the discretion of the chief administrator, consistent with subsection (b) of this section. For a second violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417(C.39:4-50.16 et al.)

(3) For a third or subsequent violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of $1,000, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 180 days in a county jail or workhouse, except that the court may lower such term for each day, not exceeding 90 days, served participating in a drug or alcohol inpatient rehabilitation program approved by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and shall thereafter forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for 10 years. For a third or subsequent violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.). . . A court that imposes a term of imprisonment for a first or second offense under this section may sentence the person so convicted to the county jail, to the workhouse of the county wherein the offense was committed, to an inpatient rehabilitation program or to an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center or other facility approved by the chief of the Intoxicated Driving Program Unit in the Department of Health. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.

 

 

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great that Fred posts DUI for Monmouth County!
David F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very good Lawyer , easy to work with . Gets results !
William C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am very appreciative of all of the time and effort Fred his given to my case. It was a pleasure having him help me. Fred always was there to answer any messages about questions or concerns. If there were any fears i had as as well, Fred is responsive and helped mitigate any anxiety I had regards to your legal matter. In terms of knowledge of the law, he can explain and elaborate everything perfectly in a manner anyone can understand so you aren't caught off guard by anything in your legal situation. Fred as your lawyer allows for transparency which is needed for you as a client because it allows you to properly fathom the situation at hand and allows Fred to help you understand realistic outcomes for your situation. As a client, that is what you want to see from your lawyer so they clearly have your best interests at hand. That is a great attribute Fred has. Lastly, Fred helped me get everything dropped. I would recommend Fred because hes personable, his expertise, his array of legal knowledge, his legal experience and background, and he contains attributes you need in a lawyer to get you the best outcome.
Matthew F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto and his entire staff were courteous, professional and got our case handled quickly and to the best outcome. Great lawyer. Highly recommend.
Bryan B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I had the pleasure of dealing with Mr Sisto personally from beginning to end. He was very Professional, very clear with his communication and acted quickly to find a solution to my particular issue. I HIGHLY recommend Frederick P Sisto to any and all who need an amazing and hard working attorney...
Eddie B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Hired Mr.Sisto to handle a case of mine a couple of months ago and while the service was okay the customer service was awful. When I had inquired about a charge I was unsure of on my bill, Mr. Sisto immediately got defensive and had the unprofessionalism to ask me if I “was high” for asking this question. I wonder if Mr. Sisto asks all of his clients this question or only the ones who have jobs in the cannabis industry? Regardless, I don’t believe this was an appropriate question to ask, regardless of the industry one works in, and therefore Mr. Sisto needs to heavily work on his customer service. Edit: Mr. Sisto had the UNPROFESSIONALISM to reach out to my family and ask them to ask me to take down my review instead of reaching out directly towards me when it was I who was his client, not my family. Clearly speaks to the unprofessionalism surrounding this practice. This has not been the only time Mr.Sisto has gone directly to my family instead of me, his client, for important legal matters and I will not seek out his services again. For those who may not understand Spanish, the email starts with “You should speak to your daughter regarding the review she has just published.” Edit to Response: As an attorney, one should be able to make appropriate questions and comments regardless if a client is “uncooperative” or “disrespectful.” The fact that rather than apologizing for the awful interaction with your firm, and I was not released “within hours” as you claim shows how low value your firm is and how you openly instead chose to harass my family through email for my initial review rather than actually revomy case which I ended up doing and you chareged me for . Regardless of results, your character speaks volumes and anyone who reads this would know better than to give their money to an awful person such as yourself. What a shame
Ximena C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto did an absolutely fantastic job on my case. He achieved the best possible result for me, and really made me feel comfortable and that he had my best interest at heart. He kept in constant communication with me, was very prompt in his response to my calls and emails, and he went above and beyond in answering any and all questions that I had. His professionalism and the lengths to which he went to secure a good result for me really helped make a stressful situation feel better. If you ever find yourself in need of legal representation, I highly recommend Fred Sisto. You will not regret it.
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Helped with my issues timely manner and continued constant communication to make sure I was aware of any changes or issues that arose.
Whick 3
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was excellent and helped my son deal with a issue in PPB, despite being a long distance away. He is very thorough and knows how to navigate the ins and outs of the local legal waters.
Bruces
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I called Mr. Sisto a few weeks back and he returned the call immediately! I asked a few questions and he clearly explained the options for one of my employees. He then followed up with a detailed proposal. He was completely knowledgeable, helpful and insightful. If I ever had to use him I would feel VERY comfortable with his representation.
Dave P