New York Criminal Attorney Blog

CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM TILEM & CAMPBELL SCORES ANOTHER MAJOR VICTORY ON DWI CASE

October 21, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell scored another major victory in a DWI case today when Supreme Court Justice William Wetzel found the defendant not guilty of felony DWI after trial. The defendant was found not guilty of the felony but was found guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana, a non-criminal offense that carries a maximum penalty of a $100 fine. The defendant was facing up to four years in prison on the felony charge.

The charge arose based upon a one car accident in Yonkers. The defendant refused to take a chemical test but his driving privileges were quickly restored after Tilem & Campbell, partner Peter Tilem won at the DMV refusal hearing.

The defendant had been charged with one count of Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs or Alcohol and Drugs under Vehicle & Traffic Law section 1192 (4-a), a relatively new section of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.

NEW YORK DEFENSE ATTORNEY PETER TILEM WILL APPEAR ON BRONX LEGAL TONIGHT

October 20, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

New York defense lawyer Peter H. Tilem will appear on a television show called Bronx Legal tonight at 6:30 pm. The topic of the show tonight is New York’s new Texting While Driving law and other common New York traffic violations. Although the television show will only air in the Bronx, it will be available in several days on the internet both at Bronxnet.org and at the Tilem & Campbell media page.

Peter Tilem is the senior partner at the White Plains based law firm, Tilem & Campbell. The firm handles a wide variety of criminal defense matters throughout the New York metropolitan area and handles traffic violations throughout New York State. Tilem & Campbell operate the website site DRSUMMONS.COM.

NEW YORK CRIMINAL ATTORNEY Peter Tilem HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER’S 13TH ANNUAL DUI/DWI DEFENSE SEMINAR

October 15, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

Peter Tilem, managing partner of White Plains law firm Tilem & Campbell, has successfully completed a three day class in Driving Under the Influence/Driving While Intoxicated defense sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National College for DUI Defense.

The class, held at Caesars Palace Hotel in Las Vegas from October 8th through October 11th, focused on, among other things, Field Sobriety Testing (Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus), the various Breathalyzer machines and their shortcomings, cross-examination of the arresting officer as well as the Breath Test Operator, issues involving blood and urine testing, cross-examination of the state’s toxicologist, recent decisions concerning DWI defense and public speaking issues involving jury presentation. The classes were taught by leading DWI and DUI attorneys from across the nation; many of whom are Board Certified in DUI Defense by the National College for DUI Defense.

Additionally, Mr. Campbell is certified by Blackwater Worldwide in Driving Under the Influence Detection. Blackwater’s certification required Mr. Campbell to complete and 8 hour class in DUI detection and pass a proficiency exam. He is also certified by NIK Public Safety in Narcotic Field Testing having taken a two hour class offered by NIK as well as passing a proficiency exam.

THE TRUE COST OF NEW YORK TRAFFIC TICKETS

October 10, 2009 | Peter Howard Tilem

Many articles have been written about the numerous costs of paying traffic tickets. While New York traffic fines are high and surcharges that are imposed by the Courts have recently been increased, there are many hidden costs that New York Driver’s need to be aware when deciding whether or not to fight their New York Traffic Ticket.

One such surprise is the New York Driver Responsibility Assessment covered in a past blog. In a nutshell, the New York Driver Responsibility Assessment imposes a fee, billed by the New York State DMV of $300 when you get 6 points on your license and $75 per point over 6. The fee is payable over three years.

Another hidden cost comes from your insurance company. According to an article published on the National Motorist Association website, one traffic violation can raise your insurance 20% per year for a period of three years. According to the article even if your insurance costs a modest $800 that works out to $480 over three years. The article further explains that a second offense in 3 years can result in a 40% increase which can cost you $1200 more just in insurance.

New York City Mace Issue Has Sparked Interest

October 5, 2009 | Jasmine Hernandez

Our July 15, 2009 blog on the Auxiliary Police Officer arrested for possession of Mace has sparked tremendous interest with many calling our firm or writing in about the issue and many wanting to find out how to obtain a New York City permit for mace. Some have contacted us about there failed efforts to obtain information about the permit from the New York City Police Department. The regulations are summarized in our May 24, 2009 blog. So I leave it to you; if any one knows how to obtain a New York City permit for mace, please comment to this blog, or contact Tilem & Campbell with the information. I will publish the results in a future blog.

TILEM & CAMPBELL LAUNCHES AD CAMPAIGN USING 888-DWI-COUNSEL

October 4, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

New York DWI defense firm Tilem & Campbell has recently launched an ad campaign targeting individuals accused of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and/or related charges. The campaign, which involves, print, radio and internet media uses the toll free number 888-DWI-COUNSEL which corresponds to the numbers (888) 394-2686. The campaign also utilizes the domain address www.888dwicounsel.com. The toll free vanity number and domain should help the public locate Tilem & Campbell. DWI-COUNSEL is spelled with the SEL at the end and not COUNCIL with the CIL at the end to indicate that the firm counsels those accused of DWI.

The lawyers at Tilem & Campbell have a wealth of experience and knowledge in DWI and related cases and can assist those accused. Two lawyers at Tilem & Campbell are former prosecutors, in addition a third has recently completed courses in Driving Under the Influence Detection and Narcotics Field Testing.

Anyone who has been accused in New York of Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs or any related charges is encouraged to call 888-DWI-COUNSEL for a free consultation either in person or over the telephone.

NYPD COP’S BLOOD NOT DRAWN FOR MORE THAN SEVEN HOURS AFTER FATAL ACCIDENT – UPDATE

September 30, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

According to today’s newspapers the NYPD Cop accused of killing a woman while driving in an intoxicated condition, had a blood alcohol content of 0.0 indicating that no alcohol was present in the officers blood seven hours after the incident. The blood was not drawn for seven hours after the accident. As discussed in my previous blog, New York drivers arrested for DWI have the right to refuse to take a chemical test. The result of the blood test substantially weakens the case against the officer who is accused of killing the woman while driving drunk.

NYPD COP’S BLOOD NOT DRAWN FOR MORE THAN SEVEN HOURS AFTER FATAL ACCIDENT – A DRIVER’S RIGHT TO REFUSE A CHEMICAL TEST

September 29, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

Early Sunday morning, New York City Police Officer Andrew Kelly, while allegedly driving in an intoxicated condition, struck and killed 32 year old Vionique Valnord in Old Mill Basin, Brooklyn. The accident happened at approximately 12:41 a.m., however, Kelly’s blood was not drawn for more than seven hours. How can this happen? Simple, Officer Kelly exercised his statutory right to refuse to submit to a chemical test.

Let’s start with a brief overview of New York’s “deemed consent” law. To summarize the law; every New York driver is deemed to have given consent to the testing of their breath, blood, urine or saliva to determine the alcoholic and/or drug content of their blood provided the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired or intoxicated and the test is administered within two hours of arrest. See NY VTL § 1194(2)(a)(1), (2) see also 10 NYCRR 59.2 (All samples shall be collected within two hours of the time of arrest).

However, a driver has a qualified statutory right to refuse to submit to a chemical test. The right to refuse is qualified in several ways. Yes, one may refuse to take the test and, absent a court order, no test will be given. However, although one may refuse the test, if properly warned of the consequences, and if they persistently refuse, they may incur a “civil” penalty which includes a fine and the revocation of their driver’s license if the refusal is proven at a DMV refusal hearing. See NY VTL § 1194(2)(b). Further, if the driver, after being sufficiently warned about the consequences associated with refusing, nevertheless, persistently refuses, the refusal can be used by the prosecution at trial. See NY VTL § 1194(2)(f).

DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED – STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS (SFSTs)

September 25, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

While police officers many times have drivers perform any number of “tests” on the side of the road to determine whether the driver is impaired or intoxicated, only three have been validated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). They are the (1) Walk-and-Turn; (2) One-Leg-Stand; and (3) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus tests. No other sobriety test (for example, the Alphabet Test, Finger Touch, Finger-to-Nose, Write the Alphabet, Pick up Coins, and others) is validated by the NHTSA. The NHTSA validated these three SFSTs after an extensive study commenced in 1977 by Anacapa Sciences of various Field Sobriety Tests being used by law enforcement throughout the country. As stated above, at the conclusion of the Anacapa study, the only three Field Sobriety Tests validated by the NHTSA were, and remain, the (1) Walk-and-Turn; (2) One-Leg-Stand; and (3) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus.

It must also be noted that the SFSTs do not determine intoxication or “drunkenness”. In other words, they do not determine whether one is drunk. They are instead designed to determine whether one has a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) above .10.

In order to accurately determine whether one’s BAC is above .10, SFSTs must be administered in accordance with national standards developed by the NHTSA. With regard to accuracy, studies have shown that if the three validated SFSTs tests are properly administered and the driver “fails” all three, there is an 80% chance that the driver has a BAC of .10 or greater. Therefore, even if the driver “fails” all three tests, there is still a 20% chance that his BAC is lower than .10. A 20% error rate surely raises reasonable doubt.

THE THREE PHASES OF DWI DETECTION – PHASE 3– PRE-ARREST SCREENING

September 20, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

As previously discussed, officers are trained in three different Phases of Driving While Intoxicated detection. Phase 1 involves the officer’s observations of the vehicle in motion, Phase 2 involves the officer’s personal contact with the driver and Phase 3, which I will discuss here, involves Pre-Arrest Screening.

During Phase 3, the officer will determine whether the driver has consumed alcohol and whether such consumption has impaired the driver to the extent that he should be arrested. The main focus during Phase 3 is on the driver’s performance on the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). During this Phase the officer might also ask the driver to blow into a Portable Breath Test (PBT) to determine the presence of alcohol but the PBT should only be used to support the SFST; it should not be used in place of SFSTs. In New York, the results of a PBT are not admissible at trial (but they are admissible at pre-trial hearings).

The SFSTs not only determine impairment but also whether the driver can perform divided attention tasks. The only three SFSTs validated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are the (1) Walk-and-Turn; (2) One-Leg-Stand; and (3) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. These will all be discussed separately in future blogs.