Woman Demands Police Read her “Remanda Rights” During DWI Arrest

Around 9:07 PM on August 28, 2022, Officer Zachary Knudsen with Ridgewood Police Department responded to a report of a motor vehicle accident near the Tire & Wheel Performance Center on 500 Route 17 South. As Officer Knudsen arrived on scene, he initially made contact with the driver of the truck, who told him that he observed the other vehicle swerving on Route 17 South all the way from Mahwah. He then made contact with the driver of the 2006 Pontiac G6, identified as Andrea. Andrea told Officer Knudsen that the truck driver had struck her vehicle on the passenger side as she was driving.

Within a few minutes, Officer (now Sergeant) John Ward arrived on scene. As he was speaking with Andrea, he observed signs of impairment. Andrea displayed a lack of balance, refused to follow lawful orders, and attempted to walk away from the officers multiple times. While Andrea was asked to perform field sobriety exercises, she was ultimately placed under arrest due to her uncooperative nature and his suspicion of impairment.

As Officer Ward placed Andrea under arrest, her boyfriend recorded the officers and attempted to interfere with her arrest. Andrea began to resist by tensing her arms and body. She also kicked an officer as she was being placed in the patrol car. Her vehicle was impounded for a mandatory 12-hour hold under John’s Law and she was eventually transported to the Ridgewood Police Department for further processing.

At the Ridgewood Police Department, Andrea was read the Standard Statement for Motor Vehicle Operators, but she refused to submit breath samples for testing. She was eventually released to a sober adult pending her court appearance after they signed the Potential Liability Warning form on Andrea’s behalf. Since Andrea had resisted arrest and assaulted a law enforcement officer, she was issued 2 criminal summonses for allegedly violating 2C:29-2A (resisting arrest) and 2C:29-1A (obstruction of justice). Officer Knudsen issued her the following traffic summonses as well: Operating under the influence, consent to take samples of breath, and failure to possess driver insurance card

Court records indicate that on November 3, 2023, the charge for obstruction was dismissed while the charge for resisting arrest was amended to “prohibited conduct – 1st offense” and she was fined a total of $150. Andrea also pleaded guilty to operating under the influence and refusal to submit breath samples, and paid a total of $540 and $440 in fines for those offenses, respectively. As a condition of her guilty plea, Andrea was required to use an ignition interlock device for 3 months and spend 12 hours at an intoxicated driver resource center. The citation for failure to possess driver insurance card was dismissed as part of the plea agreement.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Please LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and consider supporting this channel (email us for more information). Donations will be used to acquire more public footage related to law enforcement activities.

Our content is educational and in compliance with YouTube's Fair Use Policy because we edit several long clips into a concise story. This is similar to other law enforcement channels on YouTube. All videos and case documents were obtained pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (P.L. 2001, c. 404). Defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has previously affirmed in Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, 993 A.2d 778 (2010) that “The fair-report privilege reflects the judgment that the need, in a self-governing society, for free-flowing information about matters of public interest outweighs concerns over the uncompensated injury to a person's reputation.” This video advances a compelling public interest. The summary of events was based on records that are “open to public view through open access to public records” as defined in the Salzano case. In Ramos v. Flowers, 429 N.J. Super. 13, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court has also affirmed the right to film law enforcement interactions.