The man had two prior DWI convictions over the past 10 years. Therefore, he was required to operate a vehicle only when an ignition interlock device had been installed. When he was picked up, an ignition interlock device had not been installed in his car. Accordingly, the prosecutor charged him with felony driving while intoxicated and first-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle. He was also charged for the misdemeanor of operating a car not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

If you’ve been convicted of driving while intoxicated or aggravated driving while intoxicated, you will need to install an ignition interlock device (IID) in any car or other vehicle you own or use. In most cases, this device needs to be installed for a minimum of 12 months.

An IID is around the size of a cell phone. When it’s part of your sentence, you will need to pay to have it installed and wired to your car’s ignition. To start the car, you need to exhale into the IID, and provide a clean breath sample. If an IID finds that your blood alcohol concentration is .025% or higher, it will block the engine of your car from starting.

Additionally, after an engine is running, the IID will require you to give more breath samples to ensure your breath is clean. If you don’t exhale into the device, the failure is recorded by the IID, and a warning will be given to you. An alarm will go off until you turn off the ignition or give the device an appropriate breath sample.

If you were convicted of driving while intoxicated, as the White Plains man mentioned above was, and your court order requires an IID, it is illegal to drive without one. This is a separate crime. Therefore, in addition to any further DWI charge you could face after getting picked up, you could be convicted by a Class A misdemeanor for failure to install the device. You could be sentenced to another year in jail.

Further, when it’s imposed, the restriction that you need to drive only those vehicles with ignition interlock devices will be added to your driver’s license record. That way, even if your license is revoked, the police will be able to tell that you were required to have the IID installed.

Consult a Seasoned White Plains DWI Lawyer

Call trustworthy White Plains DWI defense attorney Mark A. Siesel if you were charged with driving under the influence or failure to install an IID device. Mr. Siesel represents those charged with DWI or related offenses in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, along with Westchester, Putnam, Kings, Orange, Dutchess, Sullivan, Rockland, Bronx, New York, and Ulster Counties. Please contact us at (914) 428-7386 or complete our contact form.

The man’s son spoke out about the impact of drunk driving and accountability on the day that would have been the man’s 62^nd birthday. This was one of several DWI-related sentences issued in Upstate New York. One of these sentences was of an18-year-old who received 6 months in county jail after killing a classmate while drunk driving. In another DWI-sentence, the court examined a wrong-way crash that killed two and handed down a jail sentence of at least 8 years.

The state police have reported 1/3 of all fatal crashes in New York are alcohol-related. More than 11,000 were killed in alcohol-related accidents in 2020.

Driving while intoxicated is a charge that prosecutors take seriously. It is not always possible to negotiate a plea deal, but your odds are better when you’re represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney. Under VTL 1192-2, you could be convicted of a DWI if you drive while intoxicated with a .08 blood alcohol concentration or higher, or there is other evidence of impairment because of alcohol. If you were convicted of a DWI, and nobody was injured, you could still lose your driving privileges and face fines and jail time.

In some cases, an experienced attorney can negotiate a plea deal so that you plead guilty to driving while ability impaired (DWAI), which is a violation rather than a criminal offense. However, it can be harder to negotiate this type of deal if your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was found to be very high. If you have a BAC of .08 or more at the time of arrest and you’re charged with a DWI, your license will be suspended pending prosecution, though we may be able to argue for a hardship license that would allow you to drive to work or school.

Likewise, it can also be very difficult to negotiate a plea deal if someone was injured or killed as a result of your DWI. If you were found guilty of a DWI that results in injury or death, you could face a significant prison sentence for vehicular assault or manslaughter. Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, for example, carries a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison, plus license suspension and revocation.

While much is at stake with a DWI charge, including potential jail or prison time and large fines, you shouldn’t assume a conviction is assured; there may be significant defenses that apply to your situation, even if somebody was injured or killed. Additionally, some district attorneys may be willing to consider plea deals even if you’ve refused a chemical test; Westchester County’s policy changed in 2020 in that regard. In other cases, it may be appropriate to challenge the admissibility of the chemical test results.

If you or a loved one faces DWI charges, or other alcohol-related charges, you should call seasoned and tenacious White Plains DWI attorney Mark A. Siesel to seek legal representation. Mr. Siesel has represented clients for more than 30 years. He handles DWI cases in  Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Sullivan, Rockland, Orange, and Ulster Counties. Call us at (914) 428-7386 or fill out an online form for dedicated legal counsel.

One of the most successful defenses to a DWI case is a motion to suppress any evidence recovered as a result of an illegal stop. At almost every stage of a criminal investigation, police officers must possess some evidence that the person they are investigating committed a crime. For example, before a police officer can pull over a driver, they must have reasonable suspicion that the driver committed a crime or probable cause to believe they committed a traffic violation. In the context of a DWI, this is often some type of dangerous driving. Once a police officer pulls a driver over, however, they must respect the driver’s constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, it is only if the officer develops probable cause that the driver was under the influence that they can arrest the driver for DWI. Some of the factors that police rely upon when making this determination include:

• Red or bloodshot eyes,

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a hit and run took place between a van and a car in which the van drove off immediately following the accident. As the van was driving away, its license plate fell onto the ground, and a county sheriff picked it up to investigate. After identifying the van’s registered owner, another officer from the sheriff’s office decided to visit the owner at his nearby farm. During the visit, the van owner admitted to the officer that the van had been stolen. This admission, along with other incriminating statements, ended up being used against the van owner in court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer observed the defendant in his car stopped at a red light one evening. Once the light turned green, the defendant did not drive forward, and other cars began to honk for him to move. The officer approached the vehicle and observed that the defendant appeared to be sleeping in the driver’s seat. Once the officer banged on the window, the defendant awoke and the officer asked to see a license and registration. With bloodshot eyes, the defendant fumbled around in the car to look for his papers. In the meantime, another officer arrived at the scene, asked the defendant a few questions, then issued field sobriety tests. After failing all of the tests, the defendant was placed under arrest.

During the trial, the officer who conducted the field sobriety tests testified that he had received training at the police academy on how to recognize evidence of intoxication. Based on the officer’s training, he had reason to believe the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. The defendant had a “jerky pursuit”, swayed while trying to maintain balance, refused a breathalyzer, and smelled of alcohol. After the arrest, the officer found one bottle of vodka in the car.

The Decision

In his appeal, the defendant argued that statements he made during the interaction with the officer should not be used in court because he made the statements involuntarily. The court disagreed, saying an individual’s statements are only made “involuntarily” when that person is both in custody and is being interrogated by an officer. According to the court, the environment around the officer and the defendant at the time of the interaction did not equate to a “custodial” environment. Because a reasonable person would not have considered himself to be in custody during a stop on the side of the road, it was incorrect that the defendant was in custody in this specific instance.

Nor was the defendant being interrogated at the time of the stop, said the court. The officer asked only a few questions for the purpose of figuring out where the defendant had been and if he had been drinking alcohol. Because of the limited scope of these questions, the defendant was neither in custody nor interrogated; thus, his statements were not made involuntarily. Based on this conclusion, the court denied the defendant’s appeal, refusing to suppress the statements made at the scene.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI in New York?

Many defendants in New York who have been charged with driving while under the influence are not aware of the various defenses that might be available to them. At The Law Office of Mark A. Siesel, we stay up to date with New York DWI law so that we can keep a pulse on how to best advocate for your legal needs. To schedule a consultation for you or a loved one, call us at (914) 428-7386.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two officers pulled over the defendant while the defendant was driving his vehicle on a parkway. The officers allege that they observed the defendant’s vehicle swerving over into another lane multiple times and followed the vehicle for at least one-quarter of a mile before stopping the car. The defendant was in the driver’s seat while someone else was in the passenger seat. The officers observed the defendant with bloodshot and watery eyes and an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant’s breath. After an officer asked the defendant for his license, the defendant instead only produced a New Jersey identification card that was not a license. The officer asked if the defendant had anything to drink tonight, and the defendant responded, “not too much.” The officer directed the defendant to exit the vehicle and observed the defendant sagging side to side. The Portable Breath Test (PBT) was administered twice to the defendant, showing that the defendant blew over the legal limit. The officer observed the defendant for only two minutes before administering the test and did not look into the defendant’s mouth first.

While being transported to the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit, the officer asked about the defendant’s license, to which the defendant replied it was coming in the mail. After a long pause, the defendant stated that it “looks like I’m going to lose my license now.” The officers eventually gave the defendant his Miranda warnings and eventually concluded that the defendant had been driving while impaired by alcohol.

The defendant moved to suppress the statements he made on the grounds that they were made involuntarily and to also suppress the sobriety tests conducted, including the PBT tests.

The Decision

The court concluded that the routine traffic stop was permissible because of the officers’ observation of the defendant failing to maintain his traffic lane while operating the vehicle. Also, the officers had reasonable suspicion of intoxication and thus properly directed the defendant to exit the vehicle. Additionally, the officers’ observations of bloodshot and watery eyes and sagging while walking allowed the officers to properly conclude intoxication while driving.

Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant voluntarily made the statement “not too much” in response to the officers asking during the traffic stop if he had been drinking alcohol. The court explained that it was not in violation of the defendant’s fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures for the officers to ask the defendant if he had any alcoholic beverages even if the officers did not give Miranda warnings before doing so. Additionally, the court explained that the defendant’s statement that he was about to lose his license now was made after a long pause, not a direct response to the officer’s questioning, and thus the statements would not be suppressed.

Finally, the court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the PBT results because the officers only observed the defendant for 2 minutes before administering the test, which is not enough time to ensure the reliability of the test. As a result, the court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the PBT results while denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements made.

Have You Been Arrested in New York for a DWI Offense?

If you have been arrested for a New York DWI offense, contact the Law Office of Mark A. Siesel for immediate assistance. Attorney Siesel is experienced in effectively representing clients in matters including DWI offenses, criminal cases, and traffic violations. He has extensive experience successfully litigating motions to suppress, which can keep harmful evidence out of trial. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with Attorney Siesel today, call (914) 428-7386.

The campaign used a range of measures to stop drunk or reckless holiday driving. These measures included sobriety checkpoints, along with ticketing of distracted drivers and reckless driving. During the campaign, 648 crashes were investigated. In the course of these crashes, there were 2 deaths and 122 injured accident victims. State troopers arrested 195 drivers for driving while intoxicated. They arrested 3955 drivers for speeding violations and 202 drivers for distracted driving violations, such as looking at a phone while driving. There were 671 violations involving failure to wear a seatbelt. For comparison, 8214 tickets were issued in the 2020 Fourth of July holiday enforcement campaign with 180 arrests for DWI.

Types of traffic arrests over the holiday weekend can also be broken down by different troops in the Hudson Valley. For example, there were 1319 traffic tickets issued by Troop F. The same troop had 17 DWI violations and 425 speeding violations.

Sobriety checkpoints over a holiday are also lawful even though they impinge on your Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, you maintain certain constitutional and procedural rights regardless of the tactics of the campaign. For instance, the police must have probable cause you were committing a crime to legally pull you over. Often during holiday enforcement campaigns, police are particularly alert to the possibility of moving violations, such as speeding or aggressive driving, and use the stop to decide whether somebody is driving under the influence. If you are arrested for DWI or DWAI, you may face jail time and fines. And in the event of a serious accident or injuries in connection with DWI, you’ll face a chemical test, most likely a mandatory blood test.

Between a DWI and a DWAI, a DWI is considered the more severe offense. You will be assigned points for specific traffic violations. For instance, 3 points are assigned for speeding 1-10 miles per hour over the speed limit, but 11 points will be assigned if you were speeding 40 miles per hour or more over the limit. Five points are assessed for reckless driving. If you receive 11 points in an 18-month window, your driver’s license will be suspended. When you’re a driver under age 21, you can be given enhanced penalties for various violations.

The Driver’s Responsibility Assessment, started in 2004 by then-Governor Pataki, mandates a $300 fine for speeding and $500 for DWI. There is no path to reduction available and you cannot get out of this. If you don’t pay the fee, your license will be suspended.

There are specific guidelines that apply to sobriety checkpoints. When evidence of a DWI is obtained during a sobriety checkpoint, the prosecutor will bear the burden of showing:

• The primary purpose of the checkpoint was to address a valid law enforcement goal.
• The checkpoint was established as a program
• The checkpoint was effective at meeting the law enforcement goal.
• The checkpoint was administered according to a uniform procedure that involved explicit, neutral restrictions of the conduct of individual officers
• The procedures employed at the checkpoint didn’t impinge impermissibly on motorists’ privacy as they came to the checkpoint.
• The checkpoint implemented adequate safeguards regarding lighting, safety, and fair warning that a checkpoint exists.

If your rights were violated at a checkpoint or another stop in the course of a holiday campaign, the evidence obtained from the stop can be subject to a motion to suppress.

In some cases, drivers don’t understand their rights in connection with a driving while impaired charge. You should not be intimidated at a checkpoint or during a stop based on a traffic violation. Likewise, you shouldn’t be subject to an illegal search. If you believe you were and you were arrested, it is critical to retain counsel.

Mark Siesel is a tough, seasoned White Plains DWI defense lawyer with 35 years of litigation experience. He represents drivers in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, along with Westchester, Putnam, Kings, Orange, Dutchess, Sullivan, Rockland, and Ulster Counties. Call him at (914) 428-7386 or complete this online form.

The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, and the lower court denied the motion after finding that the officer had probable cause to stop the car since the defendant was driving 70 mph, and also told the officers that he had two beers and appeared to have slurred speech. During the trial, the defendant contested for the first time the voluntariness of his consent to the breath test and moved to suppress the results of the test. The defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The defendant appealed and argued that it was an error to deny his motion he made mid-trial to suppress the breath test results.

Under New York Law, a defendant may move to suppress the results of a breathalyzer by filing a motion within forty-five days after arraignment and before the trial starts. Also, the court must evaluate any pretrial motions filed outside of this 45-day time limit to determine whether the defendant could not reasonably have raised the issue within the time period. The appellate court explains that the defendant was aware of the facts surrounding the breath test but chose not to file the motion, even during a hearing where the trial court asked the defense counsel whether the defendant wanted to raise any suppression claims regarding the breath test. Additionally, the consent issue was to be determined by the court before trial and was not an issue that the defendant was entitled to litigate during the trial without previously making a motion to suppress. Thus, the appellate court denied the defendant’s appeal on the motion to suppress and affirmed the defendant’s conviction. This case highlights the importance of having an experienced criminal defense attorney who can help you navigate complicated New York laws to best  protect your rights at every stage of the process.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated. However, through his attorney, the defendant negotiated an agreement by which the defendant would plead guilty to the lesser offense of driving while ability impaired as well as aggravated driving while intoxicated. However, if the defendant refrained from drinking alcohol and successfully completed a treatment program the prosecution and the court would allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to the aggravated DWI charge. However, if the defendant failed to adhere to the conditions of the plea, he would be found guilty of aggravated driving while intoxicated and could be sentenced to up to one year in jail.

As it turns out, the defendant failed several alcohol tests and missed a few test appointments. He also failed to enroll in a qualifying treatment program for financial reasons. The defendant asked the court for another chance, which the court granted him. However, within a few months, the defendant had missed or failed several alcohol tests. As a result, the court sentenced him to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and revoked his license for one year.

Understanding that the jail sentence was an unavoidable result of his failure to complete the terms of the plea agreement, the defendant did not appeal that portion of his sentence. However, he did appeal the issuance of the $1,000 fine, arguing that it was not included in the agreement and that it was excessive. The court did ultimately reject the defendant’s appeal, noting that it was the minimum fine a judge may issue and that there was no evidence he could not afford to pay it.

This case goes to show that not all DWI cases need to end in a trial or a guilty plea to most serious charges. An experienced New York criminal defense attorney may be able to secure a favorable plea agreement to lesser charges. Of course, this only benefits a defendant if they are able to comply with the terms of the agreement.

Have You Been Arrested for a New York DWI Offense?

If you are facing New York drunk driving charges, reach out to the Law Office of Mark A. Siesel for immediate assistance. Attorney Siesel is a veteran criminal defense attorney with extensive experience representing clients in all types of criminal, traffic, and DWI cases. He commands an impressive knowledge of the relevant laws as well as the available ways to resolve a case without the need for a trial. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with Attorney Siesel today, call (914) 428-7386.

Blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.27% is exceptionally high — more than three times the legal limit. While prosecutors can charge you for being over the legal limit if you operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08 or higher, you can be charged with aggravated DWI if you drive with a BAC of 0.18% or higher. In this case, the chemical test showed the driver had a far higher blood alcohol content than the minimum used to charge aggravated DWI.

You should be aware that the penalties for aggravated DWI are harsh. If you are convicted of aggravated DWI, you could be jailed for one year and fined $1000-$2500. But jail time and fines aren’t the only potential consequences. Your driver’s license could be revoked for at least one year. You will be ordered to participate in a MADD victim impact panel. Additionally, the court will order substance abuse treatment through, among others, Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC), a state-run agency. Initially, TASC will ask questions to determine your treatment needs in connection with drug and alcohol use. You will then be referred to a program to be provided treatment.

In this case, the driver was asked to take a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC). New York has an implied consent law. It specifies that if you’re on a public road and there’s a reasonable suspicion you’re intoxicated, you have implicitly agreed to take a chemical test of your blood, urine, breath, or saliva.

Sentence for an aggravated DWI will likely include the requirement that you install an ignition interlock device (IID). The IID may need to be installed, at your expense, for a minimum of 12 months. An IID works by linking up to the ignition system in your vehicle; it measures your alcohol content before you start driving. To get the car started, you’ll need to exhale into the ignition interlock device, and if your BAC is .025% or higher, the ignition interlock device will stop the engine from starting. This device mandates that you provide more breath samples. When you don’t exhale into the device, it records this failure, and an alarm goes off until you turn off the ignition or provide a breath sample that clears. There are also sometimes built-in cameras in these devices. You have 10 days to install the device after sentencing.

It’s important to realize that driving without a court-ordered IID or helping someone else do so is a class A misdemeanor. If convicted, you could end up with additional penalties, potentially including another year in jail.

Aggravated DWI can be punished harshly. If you’ve been arrested and charged, it’s important to seek legal representation. Mark Siesel, an experienced and aggressive White Plains DWI lawyer, has protected the rights of the accused for 35 years. He also represents clients in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, along with Westchester, Putnam, Kings, Orange, Dutchess, Sullivan, Rockland, and Ulster Counties. For a free consultation, give the Law Office of Mark A. Siesel a call at (914) 428-7386.