Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Shakur

August 11, 2010


On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Municipal Appeal No. 060-09.

Per curiam.


Argued June 2, 2010

Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.

Defendant Naim Shakur was originally tried before the Atlantic City Municipal Court and found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, refusal to submit to the Alcotest, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(a), obstructing traffic,*fn1 N.J.S.A. 39:4-67, and reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96. The Municipal Court also denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence gathered by the State pursuant to the motor vehicle stop.

After merging the obstructing traffic conviction and the reckless driving charge with the DWI offense, the Municipal Court suspended defendant's driving privileges for two years for the DWI conviction. This was defendant's second DWI conviction.

The judge imposed a consecutive two-year suspension of his driving privileges for the refusal conviction. The court also imposed the mandatory fines and penalties, ordered defendant to install an ignition interlock device on his car for a period of one year, required defendant to perform thirty days of community service, and ordered him to serve forty-eight hours at the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.

Defendant appealed to the Law Division for a trial de novo pursuant to Rule 3:23-1. After conducting an independent review of the record developed before the Municipal Court and considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Neustadter found defendant guilty of the charges outlined herein and imposed the same sentence as that imposed by the Municipal Court.

We gather the following facts from the evidence presented before the Law Division.

At approximately 3:40 a.m. on September 27, 2008, Atlantic City Police Officer Maria Pali was on patrol driving east on Arctic Avenue, a one-way three-lane road with a lane designated for left-hand turns onto Arkansas Avenue. As she approached the intersection of Arctic and Arkansas, Pali stopped directly behind a car that was waiting at a red traffic light. When the traffic light turned green, the car in front of Pali's police vehicle did not move. Pali waited as the light turned red and then green again; the car in front of her remained at the light without moving.

After this, Pali activated her police car's overhead lights, got out of her car, and approached the stationary vehicle. As she reached the driver-side of the car, Pali saw defendant slumped over the steering wheel. Pali asked defendant: "Sir are you okay?" two times without receiving a response; the third time, defendant woke up, looked at her, then looked straight ahead and drove away. Pali immediately yelled for defendant to stop, which he did. According to Pali, defendant claimed that he was tired.

At this point, two other Atlantic City Police Officers arrived at the scene. Pali then asked defendant to step out of the car; defendant appeared disoriented and had trouble standing upright. Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath and appeared unaware of his surroundings.

Officer Michael O'Hala asked defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests to assess his motor skills. Defendant was unable to perform any of the tests as instructed by the officer. The tests, which are described in detail in Judge Neustadter's oral decision, included the walk-and-turn test, the balance test, the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and the finger-to-nose test. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the police arrested defendant for DWI and transported him to the police station to administer the Alcotest. While on route to the station, defendant became very emotional and began to cry.

Once at the station, the officer administering the Alcotest read to defendant the standard form advising him, inter alia, that he did not have the right to refuse to take the test, nor did he have the right to have his attorney present before the test was administered. When the officer asked defendant: "Now will you submit the samples of your breath?", defendant answered: "No, not without my lawyer." The officer then read to defendant the standard follow-up statement advising him of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.