The guy in the article below, Mr. Green, very narrowly avoided a DWI prosecution thanks to a very honest witness. And avoiding a DWI in NJ is like a near-death experience, so this guy should count his blessings, and be incredibly grateful no one (other than him) was hurt!
(As someone who I greatly admire once said with regard to NJ and its DWI laws: "You ask what happened to the former Soviet Union? It became the state of New Jersey!")
Had the witness positively identified Mr. Green as the driver who struck the pole, he would have had a much more unpleasant evening, most likely having been arrested and processed for DWI in addition to the other summonses he was ultimately issued.
So why wasn't he arrested for DWI when he admitted to the police six days later that he actually was driving the truck? Since the witness was unable to ID Mr. Green at the time, and Mr. Green was already in his home (creating an issue of access to alcohol and a timeline problem), the police lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Green for DWI and were consequently prohibited from administering any field sobriety tests or determining his BAC. Since the requirement for a DWI prosecution is that you be intoxicated WHILE operating a vehicle, the circumstances prevented the officers from attempting to determine Mr. Green's BAC or degree of impairment at any time remotely related to when he operated his vehicle.
Hopefully Mr. Green will fully appreciate the "break" he was given here and think twice before driving while intoxicated (or even while his ability is impaired) in the future.
Here's the article: