DWI / DUI

Published on: April 27, 2012

Defendant Contends Eyewitness Testimony is Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Cases that involve drug crimes often include violence. In some cases, this violence is more severe than others are. Few people will not admit that the violence of a criminal exploit is directly relative to the amount of money that the criminal stands to gain. A New York DWI Lawyer said in drug crimes, a criminal often stands to profit huge amounts of money. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the correlation between the modern prohibition against drugs and the historical prohibition against alcohol. Both have caused huge spikes in crime rates and violence. Whenever there is a market for a substance, someone will supply it. If that substance is illegal, the price to obtain it is higher because the supplier is shouldering substantial risk. This is nothing new. John Hancock was a convicted tea smuggler. During the civil war, many privateers smuggled products into the south through the blockades of the ports. Smugglers are nothing new. They are simply privateers who are attempting to increase their income at the expense of people who are willing to pay an inflated price for an illegal substance.

With drugs that are highly addictive, the smuggler or supplier’s income is virtually secure. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is in their best monetary interest to peddle an addictive substance to ensure that the customer will continue to come back and purchase more. In the 1980s, the ability to smuggle drugs into this country was incredible. There were famous drug lords in Bolivia and other areas of South America and Mexico. These men were ruthless and their drug cartels became their family businesses. Few were better known than the Escobar’s.

On January 26, 1985, a woman was standing outside of the ladies’ room in the Extasis bar in Queens County, New York. The music was loud, and she thought she heard firecrackers going off inside of the mens’ room. As she stood in the cramped hallway, she saw a man open the mens’ room door with one hand while holding a handgun in his other. While she watched, she saw him fire two more shots into the mens’ room. The man ran out of the bar. The woman looked into the bathroom and saw the body of another man on the floor bleeding from gunshot wounds. It was later determined that he had been involved with drug trafficking with the Escobar family.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Discusses Miranda Warning at DWI Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Driving while Intoxicated or Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs has become a more commonly charged offense than it has ever been. The reason for this is that the legally intoxicated limit has been substantially reduced in recent years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the current intoxicated level is .08, but someone with an even lower limit can be charged with DUI if there are circumstances where the officer can prove that the driver was acting in a less safe manner. What that means is that even if the person exhibits no symptoms or behaviors of being intoxicated, the officer can charge them with DUI if they can show that the driver was less safe. What does a court consider less safe? It can be anything from missing a stop sign to having a fatal car accident. Less safe has not been sufficiently defined so that anyone can reasonably protect themselves from this type of charge.

There are several rules that anyone should know when it comes to being charged with DUI or DWI. The first is that the officer is supposed to have articulable suspicion to stop your car. Articulable suspicion means that the officer has observed driving mannerisms that either do constitute a traffic violation, or indicate that the driver may be impaired. Either way, the officer must show that he or she had a reason to stop the car. If there is no reason, or the reason is improper, everything after the stop is inadmissible in court.

Also, as soon as a police officer makes contact with a driver, they are attempting to determine if that driver is intoxicated or not. In order for a police officer to arrest a person for an offense, they must have probable cause to believe that that person is involved in a criminal pursuit. In the case of DUI, the officer must prove that he has probable cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated and less safe to drive the car.A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that means that all voluntary tests requested of you on the side of the road, are designed not to prove your innocence, but rather to obtain probable cause to place you under arrest.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of the IDV Court

by Stephen Bilkis

On 18 January 2011, defendant was arraigned in Buffalo City Court on one count of harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law alleging an act of domestic violence by the defendant against the complainant.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on 26 January 2011, the People declared their readiness for trial and defendant served motions on the Erie County District Attorney on 1 February 2011. While this Buffalo City Court action was pending, three petitions were simultaneously pending in Erie County Family Court between the defendant, complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the defendant and complainant’s child. The pendency of these simultaneous criminal and Family Court matters with the underlying issue of domestic violence prompted a screening by the herein Court, the Supreme Court Integrated Domestic Violence (hereinafter IDV) Part, located in Erie County.

Accordingly, the Court determined that a transfer of the family’s cases to the IDV Part was appropriate by finding that said “transfer of the case to the Supreme Court would promote the administration of justice” pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for Integrated Domestic Violence Parts.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Discusses Sick Leave Policy in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1 June 2000, petitioner was hired by the New York City Department of Correction, subject to a two-year probation period. She is the mother of two pre-teenage children and a victim of abuse by their father, a crack and alcohol abuser with a criminal history.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on November 2000, petitioner moved out with her children and went to live with a relative in the Bronx. Things did not work out and she was ejected from that apartment on 22 March 2002. She requested vacation time to find a home and was granted leave through 4 April 2002.

On 5 April 2002, petitioner, who was still homeless, asked the Department’s Health Management Division (HMD) for further time off to continue her search for a place to live. HMD put her on immediate sick leave due to stress, confiscated her identification, and directed her to obtain a new one which reflected she was psychologically unfit to carry a firearm. At that same meeting, HMD demanded that petitioner provide them with an address. When petitioner told them she was homeless and lacked an address, she was told she could not work at the Department without one. A New York DWI Lawyer said faced with that threat even after she had explained her homelessness, she gave her husband’s address.

Published on: April 23, 2012

City Sues Street Gang

by Stephen Bilkis

The Queens Plaza area is located at the foot of the Queensboro Bridge. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is one of the major entranceways to Queens and indeed to the rest of Long Island. In addition to being a conduit for the vehicular traffic to and from Manhattan over the bridge, the area is a major hub for public transportation, where all three subway lines serving the City meet and have stations. Several urban gangs had commandeered a residential neighborhood for their drug crime, taking over the streets, lawns and homes, making murder, attempted murder, drive-by shootings, assault and battery, vandalism, arson, and theft.

The City sues 21 named offenders, each of whom is described as a member or affiliate of a criminal street gang. It is alleged that the offenders, individually and collectively, have created and maintained an ongoing street prostitution operation which has overwhelmed the Queens Plaza area. It is alleged that the female offenders are prostitutes, and that the male offenders are the pimps who set up, control, and profit from their prostitution activities. It is further alleged that between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. the activities are so intense, widespread, and pervasive within the Queens Plaza neighborhood as to have essentially taken it over, in that they slow vehicular traffic, block sidewalks, impede pedestrian traffic and entrance to the Queens Plaza subway station, and interfere with the operation of local businesses. It is alleged that the offenders’ activities lead to the routine solicitation of passersby for prostitution, to violent criminal acts related to the interaction of gang members with competing criminal elements, to the littering of the public streets with used condoms, to public urination, and to noise. It is alleged that the abovementioned activities constitutes a public nuisance which requires the court’s intervention. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is further alleged that all the activities is created by the offenders on behalf of, and for the financial benefit and support of, the gang. It is also alleged that none of the offenders reside or work in the Queens Plaza area other than as part of the prostitution operation.

The complaint is against the named individuals only. No claim is made against the gang as a group, or against any individual as offenders. No explanation is offered as to why those particular individuals were chosen for the action, and none was offered at the hearing or in the post-hearing memoranda.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Woman Claims DWI Stop Was Not Lawful

by Stephen Bilkis

Many issues of law are important to cases of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In some cases, these lines can be blurred. However, when it comes to what rights an officer has to stop a vehicle, the law has stated that an officer only needs to have articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person under suspicion was involved in the commission of that crime in one way or another. A New York DWI Lawyer said that sometimes, a person may attempt to have their case reviewed by the court in order to suppress some or all of the evidence against them. When this happens, it is clear that often it involves the legality of the traffic stop itself.

If the legality is not in place, the traffic stop is not legal. If the traffic stop is not legal then everything after that stop is not admissible. This is an example of the exclusionary rule. Any evidence that is obtained as the result of an illegal search or seizure is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. It is not admissible in a court of law. Therefore, if a defendant can prove that the traffic stop was illegal, then everything after that stop cannot be used against them in a court of law.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that in one case, which occurred in the Bronx, a woman was stopped after a police officer observed her executing a left turn without using her turn signal. The officer pulled in behind her and observed that she was talking on her cell phone as she executed a U-turn to return in her previous direction. The officer turned on his emergency equipment and executed a stop of her car. When he approached her car, he noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about her person. He asked her if she would submit to field sobriety tests and she agreed. After the officer noted that she had not passed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn, and the one leg stand, he asked her if she would take a portable Alco sensor test. She agreed, and tested positive for alcohol. A Queens County DWI Lawyer said she was arrested and transported the precinct for a breath test.

Published on: April 21, 2012

DWI Defendant Claims Breathlyzer Machine was Inaccurate

by Stephen Bilkis

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs has been a hot political topic for the past decade. The results of the political impact is that more laws and tougher laws have been enacted that are aimed at reducing DUI incidents. The problem is that whenever more laws are created, more people fall into the category. Twenty years ago, DUI cases were straightforward. The tests that the officers used in the field tested long term memory and coordination that were clearly indicative of impairment. Since, lower acceptable levels of blood alcohol have been established; the old tests were unable to detect this lower level. The reason is that the lower level is a point below what used to be considered impaired. Because of this, new field sobriety tests had to be created. The current tests are designed for failure, not for actually testing impairment.

The political atmosphere has created other problems as well. Government grants for DUI police units mean that police departments get money for catching more DUI drivers. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is no longer in the officer’s best interest to determine if the person is impaired or not. It is in the officer’s best interest to make an arrest, no matter how low the person’s blood alcohol content is.

Some states, like Florida, have made the penalty for first time DUI so harsh that refusing the test is a better option. In order for a person to fail a breath test, there are several things that can happen: The person can be actually over the legal limit of .08 for people over the age of 21 years; the machine can be faulty, as 80% of the Florida machines were determined to be in 2007; the officer can determine that the person is intentionally attempting to defeat the machine by not blowing fully into it; the person can put something, like gum, into their mouths after being instructed not to; or the person can pretend to blow into the machine while not expelling any air. It is also possible that the person speaks a language other than English and does not understand the instructions that are given to him.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Defendant Charged with Class E Felonies based on Prior Misdemeanor Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Ono June 21, 2007, a man was apprehended and subsequently charged with driving while intoxicated per se and common law driving while intoxicated. These two charges in the indictment are class E felonies which are predicated on a previous misdemeanor conviction for driving while intoxicated in 2001.

After arraignment, a New York DWI Lawyer said the man asked the court to reduce the felony driving while intoxicated charges to misdemeanors. He claims that in 2001 when he was convicted of those two misdemeanors, his constitutional right to counsel and his right to remain silent was violated.

From the records it was established that on August 25, 2001, the man was arrested in Saranac Lake and he was charged with misdemeanor crime of driving while intoxicated. He was taken to the police station and there he learned that he was also being arrested for assault on a domestic violence charge.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Defendant Claims Officer did Not Have Probable Cause in DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer was patrolling along Route 404 on January 12, 2005 at 2am. He saw a car going very fast and it was heading toward him. The police officer’s radar unit registered the approaching vehicle to be going at 55 miles per hour when the speed limit in the area was only 40 miles per hour.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the police officer made a u-turn and followed the speeding vehicle. The car turned right on Shoecraft Road and took another left turn into the parking lot of a drugstore. The car did not immediately park. It took a while before the car came to a stop. The officer took out his gun and pointed it toward the direction of the man whom he ordered to get out of the vehicle.

The police officer patted him down to check for weapons. When he was sure that the man had no weapons on him, he put his gun back in its holster. It was then that he noticed the smell of alcohol on the man’s breath, his red bloodshot eyes and his slurred speech.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Defendant Challenges the Accuracy of Breathalyzer Instrument

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 11 March 2007 at 4:58 A.M., a police officer who was trained to estimate the speed of a moving vehicle observed defendant traveling at about 90 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway. The officer confirmed that estimate by a laser device and by his speedometer during the subsequent pursuit. The officer stopped defendant and noted that defendant exhibited several indicia of intoxication. Defendant admitted having had “one drink.” The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests, all of which defendant failed. The officer arrested defendant at 5:23 A.M. and transported defendant to the Nassau County Police Department’s Central Testing Unit, where defendant again failed a series of sobriety tests and consented to a chemical test of the alcohol content of his blood. The test, conducted at 7:24 A.M. by an Intoxilyzer 5000 EN breath test instrument, produced a reading of.11 per centum by weight.

Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and speeding under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant appeals the decision with the herein court.

Defendant sought to introduce expert testimony as to the range of individual variation within the general population from the 2, 100:1 “conversion” or “partition” ratio used in the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN to derive the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood from the quantity of alcohol vapor detected in a breath sample. A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant did not challenge the instrument’s reliability, but sought to lay the foundation for a jury argument that defendant’s individual ratio might differ so significantly from the mean as to diminish the evidentiary weight to be accorded the test results. The District Court precluded the evidence, apparently on relevancy grounds.