The Key to Achieving a Positive Outcome

DUI & Traffic Offenses

If you are arrested and charged with drinking and driving or another traffic violation, it is critical to consult an attorney as soon as possible. Our team of highly qualified DUI lawyers is available in Atlantic City, NJ and throughout South Jersey to help you deal with your municipal court charges. Weinstock Defense is a highly-respected New Jersey defense firm – we will do everything in our power to reduce fines, save your license, and prevent prison time.

Weinstock Defense has decades of experience

fighting DUI charges throughout New Jersey.

DUIs

DUI charges can carry serious consequences, including jail time. But don’t lose hope or face the system alone: our DUI lawyers have handled thousands of cases like yours. At Weinstock Defense, we have proven strategies to discredit charges. We know the signs of errors by the arresting officer, such as:

  • Improper calibration or use of a breath test device
  • Incorrect assessment of field sobriety tests
  • Lack of probable cause to pull over your vehicle

We will attack any weaknesses in the prosecutor’s case to get your DUI charges reduced or dismissed. And since we have a high success rate for getting cases dropped, we never hesitate to fight.

Traffic Offenses

Aside from DUIs, Weinstock Defense handles the following traffic offenses:

  • Causing injury in an auto accident
  • Reckless driving
  • Driving without a valid driver’s license
  • Speeding
  • Illegal lane change
  • Improper passing
  • Failure to yield

Traffic tickets can lead to expensive surcharges or license suspension, depending on the number of points you have on your driving record. Getting a suspended license back in New Jersey is difficult—but we understand the court system and will aggressively advocate for you.

DUI/DWI Results

State v. A.G. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. A.G. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Weinstock demonstrated that A.G. was not operating the vehicle at the time of her arrest. Mr. Weinstock also was able to have her statement suppressed because law enforcement failed to read her the Miranda warning. The judge dismissed the case.

State v. E.D. – Driving While Under The Influence – “Not Guilty” Verdict. E.D. was charged with driving under the influence of Ambien, a prescription sleep medication. In order to properly defend E.D., Mr. Levin engaged a forensic scientist, who formerly worked as the Chief Forensic Scientist for New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety. At trial, the forensic scientist provided expert testimony that, at the time of driving, E.D. was not under the influence of the medication. At the conclusion of trial, Mr. Levin successfully argued that E.D. was not under the influence. The court found E.D. “not guilty” of the driving under the influence charge.

State v. S.S. – Driving While Intoxicated And Refusal To Submit To Breath Testing – Motion To Dismiss Granted. S.S. was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to breath testing arising out of an accident, after which the police officers suspected that S.S. was intoxicated. In order to defend S.S., Mr. Levin obtained expert reports from a board-certified pulmonologist and board-certified internist. The experts opined that S.S. was suffering from a medical condition and, as a result, was unable to generate the forceful expiratory flow necessary to complete the breath alcohol analysis. Mr. Levin successfully presented the reports, as well as other evidence, to the prosecutor and court. The court dismissed the driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to breath testing charges.

State v. B.S. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. B.S. was charged with driving while intoxicated even though she had a blood alcohol reading below the legal limit. The state alleged that she was under the influence of narcotics at the time. Mr. Weinstock successfully argued that there was insufficient proof that B.S. was under the influence and attacked the credibility of the state’s drug recognition expert. The judge dismissed the case.

State v. J.S. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. J.S. was charged with driving while intoxicated even though he had a blood alcohol reading below the legal limit – the state alleged that he was under the influence of narcotics at the time. Mr. Weinstock successfully argued that there was insufficient proof that B.S. was under the influence of any foreign substance. The judge dismissed the case.

State v. L.L. – Driving While Intoxicated – “Not Guilty” Verdict. L.L. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully asserted that L.L. was not under the influence of alcohol while driving. As a result, L.L. was found “not guilty” of the driving while intoxicated charge.

State v. J.D. – Driving While Intoxicated – “Not Guilty” Verdict. J.D. was charged with his third driving while intoxicated offense, which required a mandatory sentence of six months in jail upon conviction. Mr. Levin successfully argued that, although J.D. refused to submit to breath, urine or blood testing, J.D. was not impaired on the date-in-question. J.D. was found “not guilty” of the driving while intoxicated charge.
State v. J.D. – Driving While Intoxicated – Directed Verdict Of “Not Guilty.” J.D. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully procured a dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge, as the court granted a directed verdict of “not guilty.”

State v. T.T. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. T.T. faced a driving while intoxicated charge. Mr. Weinstock demonstrated that T.T. was not the operator of the vehicle and that the state would not be able to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge dismissed the case.

State v. M.G. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. M.G. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin engaged a forensic scientist to analyze the breath-testing machine. The forensic scientist provided expert opinion and report that opined that the machine was not operating properly. Based on the report, Mr. Levin successfully obtained a dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge.

State v. K.G. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. K.G. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully maintained that the state’s evidence was insufficient to convict K.G. The state agreed and the matter was dismissed.

State v. G.W. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. G.W. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully challenged the evidence from both the breath-testing machine and the police observations. The state conceded and dismissed the driving while intoxicated charge.

State v. A.P. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. A.P. was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to breath testing. Mr. Levin successfully challenged the testing procedures, demonstrating that A.P. had provided a sufficient breath sample and that A.P. was not intoxicated. The state agreed and the case was dismissed.

State v. R.B. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. R.B., a senior citizen, was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully challenged the State’s intoxication evidence, arguing that the police officers had mistaken R.B.’s health issues as intoxication. Ultimately, the driving while intoxicated charge was dismissed.

State v. C.M. – Driving While Intoxicated – Motion To Suppress Granted/Case Dismissed. C.M. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully litigated a motion to suppress, contending that the police officers unlawfully stopped C.M. while he was driving in violation of his rights under the federal and state constitutions. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case.

Weinstock Defense Practice Areas Include…

Aggressive Assault & Homicide

Drug & Gun Crimes

Sex Crimes

Personal Injury