Facing charges under the New Jersey DWI statute in Stanhope can be an overwhelming experience for anyone. This page explains the statute, typical procedures you may encounter, and how local representation from the Law Office of Edward Appel can help protect your interests. We focus on Stanhope and Sussex County courts, the kinds of evidence often used by prosecutors, and the options available to people charged with driving while intoxicated. If you are worried about license suspension, fines, or criminal records, this overview will orient you to the process and the next steps you might consider.
This guide is intended to give residents of Stanhope a clear, accessible explanation of the DWI statute and how related cases usually proceed in New Jersey. It outlines common defenses, courtroom expectations, and administrative steps such as hearings before motor vehicle authorities. Our discussion emphasizes what typically matters most in these matters: the traffic stop, field sobriety testing, breath or blood testing, and the arraignment and pretrial stages. Reading this will help you ask informed questions and make better decisions about how to respond after an arrest in Sussex County.
A focused defense to a DWI statute charge can significantly affect outcomes related to criminal penalties, driving privileges, and long-term consequences. Effective representation seeks to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, such as procedural errors during the traffic stop or flaws in testing procedures. For Stanhope residents, timely legal action can preserve driving privileges and mitigate fines or jail exposure. Good advocacy also helps manage collateral effects like employment concerns and insurance rate increases. Ultimately, investing in a careful defense can reduce stress and improve the chances of a favorable resolution tailored to local courts and law enforcement patterns.
The Law Office of Edward Appel serves clients across New Jersey, including Stanhope and surrounding parts of Sussex County, providing defense for DUI and related criminal matters. Our approach emphasizes clear communication about the DWI statute, local court practices, and realistic case outcomes. We work to review arrest reports, evaluate testing protocols, and prepare for both administrative hearings and criminal proceedings. Clients can expect direct answers about possible penalties, timelines, and legal strategies. Our goal is to help clients navigate the process with practical advice and steady guidance through each stage of the matter.
Understanding a DWI statute defense begins with knowing what the state must prove and which procedural protections apply. In New Jersey, prosecutors must show that the driver operated a vehicle and was under the influence to a degree that impaired driving, or had a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. Defense work often focuses on the traffic stop, officers’ observations, timing of tests, and calibration or handling of breath or blood testing equipment. For Stanhope residents, local practices and court calendars also influence how cases move forward and what defenses are likely to be most effective.
A strong defense considers both the criminal case and any administrative proceedings that affect a license. In New Jersey there may be separate hearings before motor vehicle authorities regarding license suspension, and those procedures require prompt action. Reviewing police reports, dashcam footage, witness statements, and lab results can expose inconsistencies or gaps. Early intervention is frequently important to preserve rights and present challenges to the evidence. The lawyer’s role is to assess all available materials, explain options, and pursue the path that best protects the client’s driving privileges and legal standing.
The New Jersey DWI statute covers impaired driving by reason of alcohol or drugs and sets legal thresholds for blood alcohol concentration. Under state law, operating a vehicle while impaired or with a BAC over set limits can lead to criminal charges and administrative consequences. For drivers in Stanhope, the statute applies equally, and local enforcement procedures will influence how charges are brought. Understanding the specific elements the prosecution must prove helps shape defense strategies, whether challenging the reliability of a test, the legality of the stop, or the interpretation of observed behavior during the encounter.
DWI statute cases typically hinge on several core components: the traffic stop, officer observations, field sobriety tests, and chemical testing results. Each step involves procedures that can affect the admissibility and weight of evidence. Administrative license matters are often separate and require a prompt response to preserve driving privileges. The litigation side includes arraignment, discovery, pretrial motions, and possibly trial or plea negotiations. For Stanhope residents, understanding these stages and their timing is essential for preparing a meaningful defense and protecting longer term consequences.
This glossary provides plain-language definitions of terms commonly used in DWI statute cases in New Jersey, with an emphasis on what Stanhope clients should know. Definitions include terms related to testing, administrative hearings, and court procedures. Knowing these terms helps clients follow case developments, evaluate evidence, and make informed choices with their attorney. If any term remains unclear after reading, clients are encouraged to ask for clarification during an initial consultation so they can fully participate in decisions about defense strategy and administrative responses.
Blood Alcohol Concentration, commonly abbreviated as BAC, measures the amount of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream and is used to evaluate impairment under the DWI statute. In New Jersey, statutory limits determine when a BAC can serve as evidence of impairment, and testing methods include breath and blood analyses. For Stanhope cases, the timing of the test relative to driving, the handling of samples, and equipment calibration are important factors that can affect reliability. Challenges may focus on those aspects when test results are in question or when procedures were not properly followed.
Field sobriety tests are a series of roadside assessments officers may use to evaluate coordination and impairment, such as balancing or following instructions. These tests are inherently subjective and may be affected by environmental conditions, medical issues, footwear, and nervousness. In Stanhope, as elsewhere, prosecutors may use these observations to support charges, but defense review can highlight inconsistencies, officer training, or situational factors that undermine reliability. A careful review of how and why the tests were administered is an important part of many DWI statute defenses.
Administrative license suspension refers to separate proceedings before motor vehicle authorities that can result in loss of driving privileges independent of the criminal case. In New Jersey, a refusal to submit to chemical testing or a test result above legal limits can trigger administrative action. For Stanhope drivers, responding quickly to notices and attending any hearings is essential to preserve an opportunity to contest suspension. Administrative hearings focus on different standards than criminal courts, so timely legal guidance can help protect driving privileges while criminal defense continues.
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are legal standards that justify stops and searches during traffic encounters. A stop must be based on objective facts that support an officer’s belief that a violation occurred. In DWI statute cases, whether the initial stop and subsequent actions were lawful is often a central defense issue. For people charged in Stanhope, contesting the legal basis for the stop can lead to suppression of evidence or other case benefits if law enforcement did not meet required standards when initiating contact or conducting searches.
When responding to a DWI statute charge, clients often choose between a targeted approach that addresses a narrow issue and a broader, more comprehensive defense strategy. A targeted approach might focus on a single motion or negotiating a specific plea, while a comprehensive approach looks across the entire case, including administrative consequences and related charges. Which option is appropriate depends on the facts of the encounter, the strength of the evidence, and the client’s priorities. For Stanhope residents, understanding these tradeoffs helps determine whether to pursue immediate narrow relief or a fuller defense plan.
A limited approach can be appropriate when there is a clear, discrete procedural error that, if addressed, would substantially weaken the prosecution’s case. Examples include a documented failure to follow testing protocols, an unreliable calibration record for breath-testing equipment, or an improperly conducted traffic stop. In Stanhope matters, identifying and litigating a single significant defect can lead to excluded evidence or favorable negotiations. Choosing a narrow focus may reduce time and expense while still offering meaningful relief depending on the strength of that single issue.
A focused defense may also be chosen when a client prioritizes a quick resolution and wishes to limit legal costs. If the client prefers to seek negotiation or a specific motion to address the most damaging evidence rather than full discovery and trial preparation, this path can be efficient. For many in Stanhope, resolving an administrative license matter or excluding a key test result can be the practical outcome they need. That said, the limited approach should be selected only after a careful assessment of risks and likely benefits in the local court environment.
A comprehensive defense is often appropriate when evidence raises multiple questions or when the case involves complex testing, multiple charges, or overlapping administrative matters. This approach includes full review of police reports, discovery demands, consulting with scientific resources if necessary, and preparation for hearings and trial. In the Stanhope context, thorough preparation increases the chance to address all legal and factual issues that could affect outcomes, including collateral consequences such as employment and insurance. A broad approach helps ensure no important avenue of defense is overlooked.
When potential long-term consequences such as license revocation, criminal record impacts, or professional implications are at stake, a comprehensive approach can better protect client interests. Addressing both the criminal case and administrative matters together allows coordinated strategy to reduce or avoid lasting penalties. For Stanhope residents, the difference between a short-term resolution and one that safeguards driving privileges and future opportunities can be significant. A full defense effort attempts to minimize both immediate penalties and downstream effects that might otherwise follow.
A comprehensive defense brings several advantages, including a more complete factual record, the ability to raise multiple challenges to evidence, and better-negotiated resolutions when appropriate. It allows legal counsel to evaluate administrative and criminal avenues simultaneously, preserving options that might be lost with a narrow focus. For residents of Stanhope, a full review often reveals procedural gaps or testing irregularities that can be used to reduce charges or limit penalties. The broader strategy tends to produce more predictable outcomes and reduces the risk of unexpected collateral consequences.
Taking a holistic approach also helps clients understand the full spectrum of possible results and timing, so they can plan ahead. It enables proactive engagement with prosecutors, motor vehicle authorities, and other parties, which can yield favorable plea terms or alternative resolutions. Comprehensive preparation supports effective advocacy if a case proceeds to trial, and it strengthens negotiation positions when appropriate. For Stanhope drivers, combining administrative defense with courtroom defense improves the chances of preserving driving privileges and reducing the overall long-term impact of a DWI statute charge.
A comprehensive approach allows for thorough review and challenge of each piece of evidence, from police narratives to chemical test records. By exploring the chain of custody, equipment maintenance logs, and officer training records, many potential weaknesses can be identified and leveraged. In the Stanhope and Sussex County context, this detailed scrutiny can lead to motions that exclude unreliable evidence or lessen its impact. A fuller examination provides the best chance to counter the prosecution’s case on multiple fronts rather than relying on the success of a single challenge.
Coordinating administrative license defense with criminal case strategy ensures important deadlines are met and that actions in one forum do not inadvertently harm outcomes in another. In New Jersey, administrative hearings can progress on a different timeline and have distinct standards of proof, so simultaneous planning is beneficial. For Stanhope individuals facing both types of proceedings, aligning defenses increases the likelihood of preserving driving privileges while addressing criminal exposure. This coordination reduces surprises and allows more informed decisions about plea options and trial preparation.
Prompt action after a DWI statute arrest in Stanhope is important because administrative deadlines and court dates can move quickly. Contacting legal counsel early helps ensure that notices and hearing opportunities are not missed, which can protect driving privileges and prevent automatic suspension. Early review of the arrest report and testing records may reveal issues that are easier to address soon after the incident. Rapid communication with counsel also sets expectations about timelines, possible defenses, and the documentation needed to support a strong response in both administrative and criminal forums.
Attending every scheduled hearing, whether before motor vehicle authorities or in criminal court, is essential to protect legal rights and preserve options. Missing an administrative hearing or failing to appear in court can result in automatic license suspensions and other penalties. Showing up and being prepared demonstrates seriousness about the matter and prevents avoidable procedural losses. For people in Stanhope, coordinating attendance with legal counsel ensures that deadlines are met, motions can be filed on time, and the case proceeds with the best possible representation at every stage.
There are several reasons to seek dedicated defense when charged under the DWI statute. Legal representation helps navigate complex rules surrounding chemical testing, administrative hearings, and criminal proceedings. An attorney can review evidence, advise about realistic outcomes, and develop strategies to reduce penalties or avoid license loss. For people in Stanhope, local knowledge of Sussex County court practices and law enforcement procedures can be particularly helpful. Timely legal advice also helps manage collateral consequences such as employment risks and insurance impacts that often accompany these charges.
Choosing a careful legal approach also allows clients to consider alternatives like diversion programs, negotiated resolutions that limit penalties, or motions that exclude problematic evidence. Each case is different, and an early assessment clarifies which paths are viable. For many in Stanhope, preserving driving privileges and minimizing long-term consequences is a top priority, and coordinated defense between criminal and administrative processes supports that goal. Consulting with counsel promptly helps ensure that options are explored and deadlines are not missed.
People commonly seek defense after being stopped for driving behavior that draws officer attention, after an accident involving alcohol or drugs, or following a random checkpoint encounter. Other circumstances include a failed breath or blood test, refusal to submit to testing, or citations for related offenses such as reckless driving. In Stanhope and Sussex County, these situations trigger both criminal charges and potential administrative actions that affect driving privileges. Understanding the specific circumstances of the stop and the testing timeline helps determine the most effective defense approach.
Many DWI statute matters begin with an officer observing driving behavior that suggests impairment, such as swerving, erratic lane changes, or difficulty maintaining speed. Those observations can lead to a traffic stop and a sequence of assessments that may include field sobriety tests and chemical testing. In Stanhope, documenting the stop sequence, environmental factors, and officer statements is important for later review. Assessing whether the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion is often a key element in crafting a defense to the resulting charges.
Accidents that result in police investigation frequently prompt DWI statute charges when officers suspect impairment. In those situations, evidence includes witness statements, scene observations, and any chemical testing performed at or after the scene. For individuals in Stanhope, addressing both the accident investigation and any related criminal charges requires careful attention to evidence preservation and timing. Early legal involvement helps ensure witnesses are identified, evidence is documented, and any challenges to testing procedures are investigated promptly.
Refusing breath or blood testing can lead to separate administrative penalties in New Jersey, including potential license suspension, even if criminal charges are not ultimately sustained. People in Stanhope who refuse testing may still face complicated procedures before motor vehicle authorities and should seek counsel to understand rights and options. A defense strategy in these instances evaluates the circumstances of the refusal, the advisements given by officers, and any grounds for contesting administrative action in order to minimize suspension risk and related penalties.
The Law Office of Edward Appel offers focused attention to DWI statute matters with experience handling cases throughout New Jersey, including Stanhope and Sussex County. We emphasize clear communication, careful review of arrest reports, and timely action on administrative and court deadlines. Clients are kept informed about the status of their case and the implications of possible outcomes. Our approach aims to identify practical defenses, preserve driving privileges, and achieve the best possible resolution based on the facts and local procedures.
When you work with our office, you can expect a thorough examination of the evidence, including review of testing protocols, officer notes, and any available video. We aim to challenge unreliable procedures and bring motions where appropriate to protect client rights. For Stanhope residents, local familiarity with court schedules and procedures in Sussex County courts helps us manage cases efficiently. Clients receive guidance about administrative hearings as well as criminal proceedings so they can make informed decisions at every stage of the matter.
Our priority is to provide practical legal support tailored to each client’s situation, focusing on preserving driving privileges and minimizing lasting consequences. We discuss realistic options, possible outcomes, and the costs and benefits of different strategies. Clients appreciate straightforward communication about expectations and timelines. If you have questions after an arrest in Stanhope, calling our office promptly helps ensure that notices are addressed and that a coordinated plan is in place to respond to both administrative and criminal aspects of the charge.
Our process begins with a prompt review of the arrest report, any testing records, and notices related to administrative suspension. After an initial consultation, we identify immediate deadlines and prepare any required filings. Discovery requests follow to obtain officer notes, test records, and video. From there we evaluate motions that may challenge the legality of the stop or the reliability of tests, and we develop a negotiation or trial strategy accordingly. Throughout, we keep clients informed about likely timelines and outcomes specific to Sussex County courts.
The first step after a DWI statute incident is to preserve evidence and meet administrative deadlines. This includes retaining arrest paperwork, noting witness information, and responding to any motor vehicle authority notices within required timeframes. Prompt legal consultation helps prevent automatic license suspensions and secures opportunities to contest administrative actions. Early investigation may also uncover details about testing timing and procedures that are important for later challenges in court or during administrative review.
During the initial consultation, we review the arrest report, test records, and any summons or notices received. This stage identifies immediate actions, such as filing for a motor vehicle hearing or preserving discovery rights. For Stanhope clients, understanding local court timetables and administrative processes is part of the consultation. We explain the likely next steps and any immediate filings that must be made to protect driving privileges and legal rights, and we outline a plan for obtaining further evidence from the prosecution.
Preserving witness contact information and any physical evidence from the scene is important early on. Witness statements can corroborate or contradict officer observations and may be crucial for reconstructing events. We work to identify and reach out to potential witnesses while memories remain fresh and to document environmental factors that may have affected observations or testing. For Stanhope matters, timely collection of these details supports effective challenges to the prosecution’s account of the traffic stop and subsequent testing.
After initial preservation, the next step is obtaining discovery and evaluating grounds for legal motions. Discovery often includes officer notes, body-worn camera footage, calibration logs for breath-testing devices, and lab records for blood tests. Analyzing these materials helps determine whether motions to suppress evidence or challenge testing protocols are warranted. For Stanhope clients, targeted motions may lead to exclusion of unreliable evidence or better negotiation leverage with prosecutors, and they are a central part of building a strong defense.
Reviewing testing records is a critical task that can reveal problems such as delayed collection, improper handling, or gaps in documentation. Breath and blood testing involve protocols that must be followed to produce reliable results. We examine maintenance and calibration logs for equipment, chain-of-custody records, and lab procedures for blood analysis. Any irregularities may form the basis for challenges that weaken the prosecution’s case or lead to favorable resolutions for the person charged in Stanhope.
When discovery reveals potential weaknesses, we prepare and file appropriate motions and develop arguments for hearings or trial. Motions may target the legality of the stop, the admissibility of testing results, or other procedural errors. Preparing these motions involves careful factual and legal research tailored to local court rules. For Stanhope clients, timely and well-supported motions can change the trajectory of a case by excluding key evidence or prompting favorable prosecutor responses during negotiations.
The final stage is negotiating a resolution when appropriate or preparing for trial if necessary. After discovery and motions, clients can make informed choices about plea options, diversion programs, or contesting charges at trial. Trial preparation includes witness preparation, expert consultation if necessary, and a comprehensive review of the case strategy. For Stanhope matters, local courtroom dynamics inform trial approach, and thorough preparation increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome or an acceptable negotiated resolution that protects future interests.
Negotiations with prosecutors can sometimes yield reduced charges or alternative dispositions that limit penalties. We evaluate whether any plea offers adequately address license consequences, fines, or other impacts, and advise clients on the long-term implications of accepting such offers. In Stanhope, prosecutors and judges may be receptive to certain resolutions depending on case facts and prior history. A careful evaluation ensures clients make decisions that balance immediate benefits with future considerations.
If a case proceeds to trial, we prepare witnesses and evidence and present arguments designed to challenge the prosecution’s theory of impairment. Trial readiness includes detailed review of discovery, coordination of testimony, and framing key themes for the jury or judge that highlight reasonable doubt. For clients in Stanhope, local courtroom practices and judge expectations guide presentation choices. Solid preparation ensures that if the matter goes to trial, representation will be organized, clear, and focused on obtaining the best possible result.
The DWI statute in New Jersey prohibits operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs or with a blood alcohol concentration above legal limits. It covers driving while under the influence to a degree that impairs the ability to operate a vehicle safely, and tests such as breath or blood measurements are commonly used to demonstrate concentration levels. Prosecutions can lead to criminal penalties and administrative actions affecting driving privileges. For residents of Stanhope, local enforcement practices will determine how the statute is applied and how cases proceed through Sussex County courts. If charged under the statute, it is important to understand both the criminal and administrative implications. Criminal charges can result in fines, possible jail time, and a permanent record, while administrative proceedings can suspend or revoke driving privileges regardless of the criminal outcome. Early legal review helps clarify how the statute applies to the facts of your case, what evidence may be challenged, and the steps needed to protect driving privileges and overall legal standing in New Jersey.
After a DWI stop in Stanhope, prioritize safety and follow lawful instructions, but also note details about the encounter. Write down the time, location, weather, and any statements made by officers or witnesses while memories are fresh. If you are taken into custody, record any interactions concerning testing and whether refusals were requested. Preserving these details supports later review of procedures and evidence. Early documentation and prompt contact with counsel give you the best chance to identify and preserve relevant evidence for review. It is also important to respond timely to any administrative notices regarding license suspension. In New Jersey, missing deadlines can lead to automatic consequences. Contacting the Law Office of Edward Appel quickly helps ensure required filings are made and that discovery requests proceed on schedule. Prompt legal guidance supports preservation of driving privileges and puts a plan in place for criminal defense and any administrative hearings in Sussex County.
Breath and blood tests provide measurable data that prosecutors often use to support charges under the DWI statute. The reliability of those tests depends on correct procedures, proper equipment maintenance, and the timing of sample collection relative to driving. For Stanhope cases, reviewing maintenance logs, calibration records, and the chain of custody can reveal potential reliability concerns. If testing procedures were not followed, results may be subject to challenge in court or during administrative hearings. Testing outcomes also interact with administrative consequences, where a high result or a refusal can trigger separate license actions. A careful evaluation of how testing took place is critical for both criminal defense and administrative strategy. Challenges to testing can lead to reduced charges or exclusions of evidence, so obtaining and analyzing testing records is a central step after an arrest.
Yes, the legality of a traffic stop can often be challenged if it was not based on reasonable suspicion that a law had been or was being violated. Courts examine the facts known to the officer at the time of the stop to determine whether the stop was justified. In DWI statute cases, showing that the initial stop lacked a lawful basis can lead to suppression of evidence obtained thereafter, which may significantly weaken the prosecution’s case in Stanhope or Sussex County. Challenging a stop requires careful factual development, including review of dashcam or body camera footage, witness accounts, and the reported observations of officers. An attorney will assess whether the stop met legal standards and, if not, file motions to suppress evidence where appropriate. A successful motion can be a pivotal difference in the outcome of the matter.
Administrative consequences in New Jersey can include license suspension or revocation handled through the motor vehicle agency, separate from criminal prosecution. These actions can be triggered by a chemical test result above legal thresholds or by refusal to submit to testing. Administrative proceedings have their own deadlines and standards, so timely response is necessary to protect driving privileges. For Stanhope drivers, missing a motor vehicle hearing can result in automatic suspension even while criminal charges are pending. Administrative hearings focus on procedural and evidentiary matters that differ from criminal courts. An attorney can assist in presenting challenges to test administration, the advisement of rights, or whether the statutory triggers for suspension were satisfied. Coordinating legal strategies for both administrative and criminal processes increases the scope of available defenses and helps manage potential collateral consequences.
A DWI conviction can affect employment, professional licenses, and insurance rates, depending on the nature of the job and prior record. Certain occupations that involve driving or background checks may be particularly sensitive to criminal convictions. For individuals in Stanhope, understanding how a conviction could influence job prospects or licensing requirements is an important part of assessing defense options and potential plea consequences. Insurance companies often increase premiums after a DWI-related incident or conviction, and those financial implications can persist for years. Addressing both the criminal and administrative aspects of a case can reduce the chance of conviction and limit collateral impacts. Legal guidance helps evaluate available defenses and alternatives that may minimize effects on employment and insurance.
The duration of a DWI case in Sussex County varies based on case complexity, discovery timelines, motions, and court availability. Some matters resolve relatively quickly through negotiated dispositions, while others requiring motions or trial preparation can take several months or longer. The specific facts of the stop, the need for outside testing analysis, and scheduling considerations in local courts all affect how long the process takes for Stanhope residents. An early consultation helps set expectations about likely timelines and necessary steps. Filing motions or pursuing a trial typically extends case duration but may lead to better outcomes. Clients should plan for variability in timing and stay in close communication with counsel to monitor progress through administrative hearings and criminal proceedings.
Refusing a breath or blood test has specific consequences under New Jersey law and may trigger administrative license suspension even if criminal charges do not follow. People sometimes refuse testing out of concern for self-incrimination or for personal reasons, but it is important to understand the statutory and practical repercussions. For Stanhope drivers, refusing can complicate administrative hearings and requires careful legal consideration to decide whether that choice aligns with other defense goals. If a refusal occurs, preparedness for administrative proceedings is essential. Legal representation can evaluate whether the circumstances surrounding the refusal provide grounds to contest suspension and can guide clients through hearings. Weighing the potential administrative penalties against the implications of submitting to testing should be part of informed decision making early in the process.
Common defenses in DWI statute cases include challenging the legality of the traffic stop, questioning the administration and reliability of field sobriety and chemical tests, and presenting alternative explanations for observed impairment. Medical conditions, medication effects, environmental factors, and delays in testing can all weaken the prosecution’s case. In Stanhope matters, evaluating these possibilities requires detailed review of police reports, testing records, and any available video or witness accounts. Another defense path focuses on negotiating resolutions that avoid harsh penalties while protecting driving privileges. Pursuing motions to suppress unreliable evidence can result in reduced charges or dismissal in some circumstances. Each case requires individualized assessment to identify the most promising avenues for defense based on the local facts and evidence.
To schedule a consultation with the Law Office of Edward Appel, call the office phone number to arrange an appointment and provide basic information about the arrest and the documents you have received. During the initial conversation, we will outline necessary immediate steps, advise on urgent deadlines, and request copies of arrest paperwork or administrative notices. For Stanhope residents, early contact helps preserve rights and sets a plan in motion for discovery and any administrative filings. We welcome questions about timing, likely outcomes, and what documents to bring to an initial meeting. If you cannot immediately attend in person, ask about remote consultation options so that required deadlines are met and evidence can be reviewed promptly. Taking action early helps ensure the strongest possible protection of driving privileges and legal rights in Sussex County.