DWI / DUI

Published on: March 5, 2012

Defendant Refuses to Take Chemical Test

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested and was charged of Patronizing a Prostitute and Operating a Motor Vehicle While under the Influence of Alcohol or DUI which is also a misdemeanor. The accused man refused to submit to a chemical test and upon arraignment and his license was duly suspended. The accused moved for an order overturning any statements he made and any evidence of his refusal. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the hearing was ordered and was conducted before the Court. At the outset of the hearing, the specific nature of the accused man’s application was clarified. The accused moved on two grounds to overturn the evidence of the statements he made on videotape at the time he was given refusal warnings. The accused man asserted that he was arrested without credible cause and that his videotaped statements should be overturned as the fruit of his illegal arrest and its outcome. He also asserted that the same videotaped statements should also be overturned as evidence of a refusal to consent to a chemical test that was made only after inadequate refusal warnings were given.

At the hearing, the complainant presented the testimonies of the arresting officer and a police officer together with a videotape of the accused while the accused presented no evidence. The arresting officer’s testimony showed that shortly after midnight of the arrest date, the accused drove his car onto the set of an undercover police prostitution operation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused approached a female undercover officer who was posing as a prostitute and offered to pay her twenty dollars in return for a sex act. The undercover officer communicated to other police officers by pre-arranged signal that an offer had been made and the other officers moved in and stopped the accused within a few seconds after his offer. A police officer approached the accused who was still seated in the driver’s seat of his car with the car engine still running. The police officer conferred briefly by a walkie-talkie with the undercover officer who confirmed that the accused had offered her money for sex. The accused smelled strongly of alcohol and appeared to be very intoxicated in that his eyes were bloodshot and he was swaying and babbling. The police officer asked the accused to step out of his car and when the car door opened the accused fell face first into the street and had to be pulled to his feet by the police. A preliminary field test was administered and the accused man’s blood alcohol content measured a great apparent evidence of intoxication. The accused was arrested for the crimes of Patronizing a Prostitute and DWI and was taken to a police station. The police did not read the accused of his Miranda rights at any subsequent time.

The police attempted to give the accused his refusal warnings and the procedure was videotaped. The accused speaks Spanish and accordingly, the police officers properly decided to give the accused his refusal warnings in Spanish. The police had a pre-recorded videotape of a woman delivering refusal warnings in Spanish on hand. The accused was videotaped as he stood side by side with the police officer and another arresting officer and watched the Spanish language videotape version of the refusal warnings being played on a television set. The room was arranged in such a way that when a viewer watches the videotape of the accused, it is not apparent that the accused is looking at a television set or where the off-screen woman’s voice delivering the refusal warnings in Spanish is coming from.

Published on: February 29, 2012

Probable Cause Questioned in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with violation of traffic laws because he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court conducted a hearing to determine if the defendant’s three separate statements have any legal implication.

In this DWI case, there are three different statements being deliberated. In the first statement of the defendant, she had said that she had a fight with a male friend since she was too intoxicated to driver her vehicle. The statement also indicated that she had 2 drinks. The second statement was allegedly given by the defendant after she was arrested by the police. In that second statement, she claimed that she only took one drink at her friend’s house and was heading to another destination. The third statement said that the defendant had three drinks and was about to go to her friend’s house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the three statements are obviously in conflict with one another. The only witness to this case was the police officer who arrested the defendant. According to the officer’s statement, he and his partner were patrolling their usual route. The officers received a radio call and proceeded to respond to a dispute between drivers on the road. They went to the location of the dispute. When the police officers had arrived at the scene, the lead officer noticed the three people who seemed to be arguing. The woman, who was also the driver of the vehicle, was identified as the defendant.

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 23, 2012

DWI Case Decided Involving Head Trauma Patient

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, in January 16, 2004 a man crashed his car into a parked car. When a police officer arrived at the scene, the man in the driver’s seat was unconscious. The officer tried for a few minutes to wake him. And when he had already wakened him, the man’s eyes were bloodshot and his pupils were dilated. The officer also observed that there was vomit on the passenger seat. When he tried to get out of the car, he was very unsteady on his feet.

The officer asked the man if he wanted to take a urine test. The police officer had concluded by then that the driver was not under the influence of alcohol but under the influence of drugs as the officer did not smell alcohol on the driver’s breath.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, at the precinct, the officer asked the man once more if he wanted to take a urine test but the man refused. The officer filled out paper work that described the man as driving under the influence of drugs. The District Attorney indicted the driver with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.