New York

Published on: February 29, 2012

Court Rules on Evidence Submitted in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant faces charges of DWI or driving while intoxicated. The defendant is also charged with violating traffic laws. According to the arresting officer, the defendant failed to maintain driving within the correct lane. A hearing was held in court to determine if the evidence against the defendant had been illegally obtained. The court was tasked to decide on the validity of the evidence in court. The alleged evidence includes the statements made by the defendant and his refusal to take a chemical test.

The witness on this case was the police officer who had arrested the defendant. The police officer had 20 years’ worth of experience working in law enforcement. Through the years, the officer had made several arrests involving drinking while intoxicated charges.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the statement of the police officer, he was patrolling the highway during the night when he came across the defendant’s car. The officer observed that the driver of the car was driving at a high speed. The police officer followed the car in order to get closer. As the driver of the car made the turn, the police officer noted that he ran past two stop signs and went over the yellow lines.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Decides DWI Case Where Weapons Were Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent in this case had a license to carry firearms. The same license was suspended by order of the court. All guns owned by the respondent were to be turned over to the sheriff’s department pending the hearing of the case. The permit to carry firearms was reinstated after the proceeding of a DWI charge.

The court was tasked to determine the circumstances leading to the arrest of the respondent. According to the witness who was also the arresting officer, he arrived at the house of the respondent as back up. The officer had responded to a call made on the emergency hotline involving a dispute between a husband and wife. When the officer spoke to the husband and also the respondent in this case, the respondent said that it was his wife’s fault. The respondent claimed that his wife assaulted him. He did not do anything to his wife. The officer noted the behaviour of the respondent as uncooperative. The respondent kept on telling the officer to get out of the house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer also noted that respondent showed signs of intoxication. The officer arrested the respondent for his disorderly behaviour. During the investigation of the police regarding the dispute, the respondent kept on harassing his wife and the officers present. Upon arrest, the respondent was brought to the court to be arraigned. The respondent continued to be in an unruly mood while inside the premises of the court. The charge at this point was changed to obstruction. At the request of the respondent’s wife, the court granted an order of protection. The officer imposed the order by seizing the guns of the respondent.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Decides Probable Cause for DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case was charged with DWI and violation of traffic laws. Upon receiving all statements of the parties involved, the court has scheduled a hearing to determine if the statements made by the defendant should be admissible as evidence.

According to the case files, the defendant gave an initial statement to the police regarding the circumstances of his traffic violations. The defendant first drank four beers before moving on to another place to take two more beers. The defendant then proceeded to drive home. He got out of his car sometime later and walked home instead. The defendant further told the police that he was driving his car home when he the police car approaching. It was during that time that he got out of the car and ran away to walk home.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he police officer was named the only witness in this case. According to his statement, he and his partner were on their usual patrol but they were not in uniform. The police officer was driving an unmarked car. While patrolling, they received a radio call that a suspicious-looking car was parked along the side of the road. The police officer then proceeded to the direction of the reported vehicle.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Defendant Appeals DWI Charge for Lack of Sufficient Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has filed an appeal for his conviction. The court found the defendant guilty of DWI. He was also found guilty of violating traffic rules and regulations. The defendant reportedly failed to stick to the right side of the road while driving and went over a hazard marking.

The court finds the defendant guilty of the DWI after he went off the rural road while driving and as a result, his car hit the telephone pole. The defendant allegedly left the scene without reporting the incident to authorities. After his trial by jury, the court sentenced him to 1 to 3 years of imprisonment. The defendant has filed a motion for appeal.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant asserted in his appeal that the proof of his intoxication while driving should be declared as legally insufficient. According to his statement, the defendant claimed that he did not become intoxicated until after his accident involving the telephone pole.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Court Rules on DWI of Underage Driver

by Stephen Bilkis

Two state police troopers were parked at a corner when a red pick-up truck sped past the intersection. The radar in the police trooper’s patrol car registered that the vehicle was going at a speed of 65 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone. The police troopers then followed the red pick-up truck and while they were right behind the red pick-up truck, the police radar was still tracking the speed of the red pick-up truck.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that then the red pick-up truck parked into the parking lot outside a bar, the police officers got out of their patrol car and asked the driver for his license and registration. They noted that the driver was only 20 years old. The officers noticed the strong smell of alcohol on the driver and his red, watery and glassy eyes. One of the officers asked the driver if he had been drinking that night and the driver said he had been drinking beer. He also stated that he knew that he should not have been drinking that night.

At this point the officers asked the driver to take sobriety tests at the parking lot. The driver was staggering and swaying when asked to stand still. He failed to follow with his eyes a pen that the officer moved in front of him. The driver succeeded in walking heel to toe in a straight line for about nine steps. But the driver could not keep his leg up to stand on just one leg without staggering or swaying. He could not recite the letters of the alphabet correctly and stopped midway. He was not given a breath analyzer test. After this, the state troopers then placed the driver under arrest for DWI.

Published on: February 24, 2012

Host of Party Charged as a Result of DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

A father organized a graduation party for his 18 year old son who graduated from high school. He decided to hold the party on June 16, 1983 at a club and he agreed to have an open bar where beer will be served to the guests from a keg with a tap. The father agreed to be charged for each keg of beer consumed. Food will also be served at the party and the father will be charged per plate served. The father decided that the party should start from 12 noon until 6:00 p.m. as an open house for his son’s adult relatives; but the party beginning at 6:30 will be for his son’s friends at school.

A New York DWI Lawyer commented that the party was such fun, beer flowed abundantly. At around 6:30 p.m. a classmate of the party host’s son who was around 19 years old arrived and had two beers. He stayed at the party until midnight drinking freely but not eating anything at all. The beer was available on a self-serve basis. When the club closed at midnight, the classmate gave some of his friends and school mates a ride at the back of his pick-up truck. Half an hour after leaving the party, the pick-up truck skidded off the road and turned over. A friend of his who was sitting in the back of the pick-up truck with his girlfriend died as a result of the accident.

The classmate pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and to driving while intoxicated. A New York DWI Lawyer said thttps://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1398152.htmlhe parent of the high school graduate who hosted the party also pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawfully dealing with a child (by giving alcohol to a minor.)

Published on: February 24, 2012

Court Rules on DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer had just gone off-duty and had changed from his police uniform to civilian clothes. He got into his car and was driving home. When he reached an intersection with a stop light, he stopped and waited for the light to turn green before he turned left. As he was turning left, a big SUV came at high speed and ran the red light. A New York DWI Lawyer said that the officer had to stop and turn sharply to avoid being blind-sided by the SUV that ran through the red light.

The officer then followed the SUV as it ran two more stoplights. At one of the stoplights, there were people crossing the street who had to jump out of the way so as not to be hit by the SUV. The SUV stopped a few blocks later in front of an auto body shop. The officer got out of his car and talked to the driver of the SUV. He showed the driver his shield and asked for the driver’s license and registration but the driver refused. The off-duty officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the driver. The officer then told the driver to remain in his car.

The driver did not heed the officer’s instructions. He got out of his car as did all of his passengers. They began chanting that the officer could not arrest them because he was off-duty. So the off-duty officer called the 45th Precinct to send officers to arrest the driver.

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Resolves Custody Issue Surrounding DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, an alcoholic father appealed that the court should grant him full custody of his child without any visitation rights to the mother. The mother was granted sole legal and physical custody with visitation to the father. The couple had been before the Family Court on numerous occasions in the course of which the father’s alcohol dependency had been a factor in visitation. He had previously been ordered to successfully complete alcohol treatment before unsupervised visitation would be allowed and was prohibited from consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to or during visitation.

A few months after the order was entered, another series of proceedings were commenced between the couple after the mother refused to turn the child over for visitation one afternoon because the father showed up visibly intoxicated. The incident prompted the father to file violation and modification of custody petitions. The mother, in turn, filed a modification petition alleging that the father was once again consuming alcohol on a regular basis and seeking, among other relief, to suspend visitation pending successful alcohol treatment and a family offense petition, alleging that the father made repeated threats to remove the child from the state. In her modification petition, the mother also noted that the father had recently been arrested on another alcohol-related offense.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that based on records, the Family Court dismissed the father’s petitions for failure of proof and modified the prior order by directing him to undergo alcohol treatment and permitting supervised visitation on the condition of his active engagement in such treatment. It also denied a motion for a new trial.

Published on: February 22, 2012

Defendant Convicted of Manslaughter in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a pending motion of a man’s appeal to dismiss the charges against him. He seeks to dismiss the first count of accusation, murder in the second degree, the second count which is manslaughter in the second degree and all other counts of charges against him.

Based on the record, on the night of the incident, the man was operating his motor vehicle in an eastbound direction. It crossed the center line into the westbound lane of traffic then he collided with a westbound vehicle driven by a woman. As a result of the collision, a man seating on the front seat of the woman’s vehicle died. The grand jury returned a seven-count felony, charging the man with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, criminal negligence homicide, two counts of misdemeanor, DWI and failure to keep right. Under the facts presented here, the distinction between the two types of homicides takes place in the context of a driving while intoxicated fatality case.

The analysis results from the man’s motion requesting that the court review the grand jury’s minutes of the proceedings to determine if the evidence presented was legally sufficient to sustain an indictment for depraved indifference murder and manslaughter in the second degree.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Vehicuclar Manslaughter Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A driver from New York appealed when he was convicted of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) and the traffic infraction of failure to keep right.

In tne early morning, following an evening of drinking at a bar, the defendant commenced driving his car with one passenger in the front and the victim, who was acutely intoxicated in the back seat. Shortly afterwards, the defendant was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which his car struck a guide rail, crossed the road and went into a ditch. Although the front seat passengers were not seriously injured, the one seated at the back died. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who conducted the autopsy concluded the cause of death was Aspiration gastric contents due to Concussion. A jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts. His subsequent sentence included a prison term, a fine and restitution for vehicular manslaughter, one year in jail on each of the driving while intoxicated counts, and a fine for failure to keep right. All the prison terms were concurrent.

Records revealed that the defendant argues that his conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree was not supported by legal sufficient evidence. When analyzing legal sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning for a rational jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime. Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is comprised of criminally negligent homicide in which the death is caused by an operator who is driving while intoxicated. The defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish criminal negligence and failed to show that his conduct caused the victim’s death.