Articles Posted in DWI/DWAI

Recently, a defendant in a New York DWI case filed an appeal of the lower court’s decision regarding his sentence for driving while intoxicated and criminal mischief.   The lower court had sentenced the defendant to two years in prison, which the defendant argued was excessive. The higher court looked at the record of the case and determined that the sentence was, indeed, excessive. The court therefore granted the defendant’s appeal and re-sentenced him to six weeks’ incarceration.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with several crimes, including: driving while intoxicated (“DWI”), making an unsafe lane change, leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and criminal possession of a controlled substance.

Under advice from counsel, the defendant entered into a plea deal with the State. As part of that deal, he promised that if he failed to complete a treatment program through drug court, he would face a sentence of up to two years in prison. The defendant then began his treatment program, but he soon tested positive for THC and later withdrew from the program.

Continue reading

In a recent New York DWI case that came before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the defendant argued that his criminal convictions should be reversed because the police officers did not give him adequate Miranda warnings before interrogating him about his charges. On appeal, the court looked at the circumstances of the defendant’s case and determined that no warnings were necessary because he was not in “custody” at the time of the questioning.  Ultimately, then, the court disagreed with the defendant’s argument and affirmed the convictions for aggravated DWI and aggravated vehicular homicide.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers and emergency responders came immediately to the scene of an automobile collision after receiving reports that it had taken place. When the officers first arrived at the scene, the defendant was face-down and injured in a ditch. While the defendant waited on an ambulance to arrive, the police officers placed him in the back of their patrol vehicle. Sitting in the back of the car, the defendant made several incriminatory statements about the accident in question.

It was later discovered that the defendant was intoxicated while driving. Tragically, the passengers in the second vehicle died as a result of the crash, and the defendant was charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated as well as aggravated vehicular homicide. The defendant pled guilty, and he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to time in prison.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion from a New York appellate court, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his convictions of attempted assault in the second degree and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol. The defendant argued that the blood sample the State used as evidence against him was both based on an invalid search warrant and was inadmissible in court. Disagreeing with the defendant on both arguments, the court denied the appeal and affirmed the guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant had been charged with violating a traffic law in New York one evening in 2017. In connection with the accident that occurred as a result of the defendant’s violation, he was taken to the hospital and his blood was drawn for medical purposes. One month later, while investigating the original violation, the State applied for and was granted a search warrant and order of seizure for the defendant’s blood sample. After examining and testing the blood sample, officers discovered that the defendant had been intoxicated at the time of the traffic violation.

Based on this information, the defendant was charged, convicted, and sentenced to time in prison.

Continue reading

In a recent New York DWI  case coming out of the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, the defendant lost his appeal challenging the court’s previous decision to take away his license. Previously, the defendant had refused a chemical test when an officer pulled him over for a DWI. Because of this refusal, the New York State Department of Motor vehicles (NY DMV) revoked his license. The defendant argued on appeal that he had every right to refuse the officer’s request to test him because more than 2 hours had lapsed between the arrest and when he refused the test, but the court disagreed and affirmed the original decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was arrested for driving while intoxicated in 2016. About three hours after police officers arrested the defendant, the officers warned the defendant that there would be consequences if he decided not to consent to a chemical test. Despite this warning, the defendant refused the test.

In New York, drivers charged with a DWI are subject to something called the two-hour rule, which says that a driver who appears drunk must be tested either within two hours of the time of the arrest or the time of a positive breath screening test. Because of this law, the defendant’s refusal to submit to a test resulted in another hearing, during which the court had to decide whether or not to take away his license.

Continue reading

Recently, a New York court considered a defendant’s appeal that too much time had elapsed between his DWI charges and the date of the trial that resulted in his guilty verdict which was a violation of his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights.  The defendant argued that his original guilty verdict should be overturned because his trial was unreasonably delayed. The court considered the defendant’s appeal and decided it did not have enough evidence to make an informed decision on the matter at hand. Thus,  the higher court sent the case back to the lower court to consider the speedy trial issue which was never raised in the lower Court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving in March 2017 when he was pulled over by a police officer. The officer asked the defendant to step out of his car and perform a variety of field sobriety tests. The defendant performed poorly, and he was taken into custody. Tests revealed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was .13%. He was charged with two misdemeanor counts of driving while intoxicated and one count of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

Many of our clients who are charged in New York DWI cases are  confused by the differences in the two tests that they may have been offered by the police. Very  often, police officers will offer a portable breath test (PBT) to a motorist on the side of the road to help them determine whether there is probable cause to arrest someone for DWI.  The refusal to take such test is punishable by a traffic infraction which can result in 2 points being assessed on your driver’s license.  After a person is arrested for DWI they will be offered the opportunity to take a chemical test by either blood, breath or urine.  The refusal to take that test is very serious and can result in a revocation of a person’s driver’s license for a minimum period of one year.

Prosecutors seeking to introduce scientific or technical evidence in a criminal trial have a burden to prove that the evidence is reliable enough to put before a jury. Jurors are not expected to be familiar with the technical specifications of alcohol and drug testing equipment, and prosecutors must show that the methods used by law enforcement to obtain evidence are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community in order to introduce test results as evidence at trial. A New York criminal trial court recently published a decision denying a prosecutor’s request to admit the test results of a portable breath test (PBT) in a defendant’s DUI trial.

In the recently addressed case, the defendant was charged with a DUI offense after he was pulled over by law enforcement officers for violating traffic laws. After he was stopped and the officer claimed to observe signs of intoxication, officers administered a PBT to the defendant, which suggested his blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. As a result of the PBT results, the defendant was arrested and charged with a DUI. Notably, a second non-portable breath or blood test was not administered to the defendant while he was at the police station.

One of the most common defenses to a New York DWI offense is challenging the admissibility of the government’s evidence. When police officers investigate someone for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they must respect the constitutional rights of the motorist. For example, a police officer cannot pull over a driver for no reason; they must have either probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that an offense occurred. Similarly, police officers cannot ask that every driver take a breathalyzer without justification. If a police officer exceeds the bounds of their authority, any evidence they recovered cannot be admitted at trial.

However, if you wish to challenge the admissibility of evidence, it is imperative that you do so in a timely manner. In a recent case, a New York appellate court rejected a defendant’s appeal because he failed to raise his objections to the admissibility of evidence in a pre-trial motion to suppress.

In that case, the defendant was arrested and charged with two DWI-related offenses. The arrest occurred after police officers used a radar gun to determine the defendant was speeding. As officers approached the car, they identified the smell of alcohol and noticed that he had bloodshot eyes. Officers asked the defendant had been drinking, and he responded that he drank two beers. The officer called backup, who administered a breath test, indicating the defendant was intoxicated.