Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

New York City DWI Lawyers

Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack: * robbery * drug trafficking * fraud * racketeering * criminal possession of a weapon * rape * assault * child endangerment * driving with a suspended license * public intoxication * DUI/DWI * mortgage fraud * false statement/false documentation
Perez, Benjamin: Drunk driving, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a very serious crime in New York State. The criminal and civil penalties for these crimes have increased throughout the years, making it even more important to hire a lawyer who is experienced in handling DWI/DUI criminal cases.
Sciarrino & Sciarrino: Assertion of Rights Officer, please understand: I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney, Raymond Sciarrino. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney, Mr. Sciarrino, by telephone. I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs. If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, including field sobriety tests or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer. If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you. If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured. If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.
Bienenfeld & Associates: Criminal Defense ĄThe New York City Police Have Left Word or are at the Door because they want to "talk" to you. The ultimate and easiest answer is of course to contact a criminal defense lawyer immediately," but here is why: The first and most important thing you need to come to grips with when the police have left word that they are looking for you to "speak" about something is that in all likelihood, they are not interested in coming to tea. The odds are they want to arrest you. In most cases, by the time law enforcement makes it personally known to you that they want to "speak" with you, the decision to arrest you has already been made. This bears repeating. The decision to arrest you has already been made. This bears repeating again. The decision to arrest you has already been made. I repeat myself because so many people have needlessly caused themselves so much misery because they could not accept that the decision to arrest them had already been made. Nobody wants to be arrested. People are afraid of being arrested (and justifiably so). Therefore, people will bend over backwards in their own minds to convince themselves that if only they can sit down and calmly discuss things with the police that everything could be straightened out. The police know this and so will go out of their way to take advantage of this. They will always use nice phrases like "straighten everything out", "get it out in the open", "cooperate" and a dozen other meaningless buzzwords when contacting people they already intend to arrest. They won't say, "Could you have your son contact us so that we can get him to admit to a B violent robbery for which he faces a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison." Instead they will say, "We would like to straighten out a little problem involving your son and another kid's lunch money". The desire to believe that you are not going to be arrested is so great, and the belief that if you are innocent you couldn't possibly get arrested is so great, that some people who read this very article, when personally faced with the prospect of police wanting to "talk" to them, will choose not to believe what I have written. Instead they will choose to "cooperate" with the investigation -- and most of them will severely damage their own situations and create a higher than necessary likelihood of bad things happening (including potential prison time). This should obviously not be taken to mean that anyone should ever flee when the police start leaving messages to contact them. Quite the opposite. Running from an investigation is never a real answer and inevitably causes untold greater difficulty. There is a difference, however, between running from an investigation and making uncounseled statements to the police in a matter in which you or a loved one could end up being wrongly accused of a crime. The most sensible course of action when you are being sought by the police is to contact a criminal defense lawyer immediately, if possible, so that the criminal defense lawyer can act as an intermediary between you and the police. A criminal defense lawyer can in many cases find out definitively whether or not you are the target of a criminal investigation or whether you are simply being sought as a potential witness to some criminal activity. The determination of whether you are being sought as a witness or as a target is nowhere near as clear and easy a determination as you might think. If you agree to speak to police officers on the theory that you are a "witness" you had better be extremely sure of yourself. Keep in mind that your idea of a "witness" as a non-lawyer may be different from the police's idea of a "witness". Non-lawyers tend to imagine that everyone is a potential witness who didn't actually do the obvious criminal act. For example, non-lawyers perceive the people who are watching two people fight as "witnesses". The police may (and frequently do) treat people who watch two people fight as "accomplices" to whoever wins the fight. If the police treat you as an accomplice and not a witness, then you can be arrested as if you threw the punches yourself under a theory called "acting in concert". People are often amazed to find themselves arrested under such circumstances when they thought (and may even were told) that they were talking to the police about the fight they "witnessed". To be sure they may have defenses to the charges, but that doesn't stop the police from arresting them and that doesn't stop the prosecution from prosecuting them and forcing a jury trial if necessary. Furthermore, once you have a criminal defense lawyer involved on your behalf, you save yourself the trouble of having to listen the enormous amount of complete nonsense you will likely have to listen to from the investigating officer or detective. Nothing the police say to you as a potential target in a criminal investigation can be trusted. Nothing. Lies, deception, and trickery are all time tested, legal, classic methods employed by police when attempting to get suspects to make statements or otherwise incriminate themselves. Many of the techniques employed by the police are quite powerful and tempting to believe. Therefore, the less you are subjected to it the better for you. In those rare cases in which you are contacted before the decision to arrest has been made, they are usually attempting to see if they can do or say something to you that will convince you to make their case for them. If there is a criminal defense attorney involved, then you will be insulated from such conversations. The police will not get any damaging information from you and you may actually never be arrested. One of the biggest dangers of speaking to the police is that you cannot know what they know already. They may know far less than you think going into the interview. Therefore, you may tell them things they didn't actually know and may never have known but for your own words. A classic example of this is when someone "cooperates" with the police, gives a statement that denies guilt, but still nevertheless ends up convicting him. The "I was there and saw the whole thing, but I didn't do it" statement is seemingly harmless because the upshot of it is that the defendant denies guilt. So what's the big deal? What if the identification evidence that the defendant was the person was very weak? What if the police had some doubt in their minds about whether or not the suspect was actually present? That doubt has been removed from the defendant himself who conceded that he "was there". Now the only thing that remains to be determined is the defendant's role. They may also know far more than you think they do. They may also lie to you about what they know or about what other people said. By the way this is considered perfectly legal and even encouraged as good police work. For example, a police officer may tell a suspect that the person he stabbed pulled through the surgery and is going to be all right. The suspect, worried about a murder case, may feel it "ok" then to admit to having actually stabbed the person. If in fact the victim had actually died in surgery, the police have a nice confession on a homicide case. The bottom line is that as a suspect in a criminal case, you have no idea whether any little thing you say will end up connecting you by some bizarre coincidence to a piece of evidence that just might get you wrongly convicted of a hideous crime. One thing not to worry about excessively is that your request for a lawyer or insistence on having a lawyer pre-arrest will somehow tip the scales and cause the police to "know" that you are guilty, and therefore cause them to arrest you when they might not have arrested you otherwise. Remember the first assumption when you are contacted by the police (or have you forgotten already?) -- THE DECISION TO ARREST YOU HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. They already think you are guilty. You are far less likely to be harmed by the assumption that the police want to arrest you because if you accept that assumption then you will immediately contact a criminal defense lawyer who will help you determine whether or not it is true. If it is not true, then great. You overreacted but you protected yourself. Finally, you need to contact a criminal defense lawyer. You don't need a real estate lawyer. You don't need the lawyer who wrote your will or the lawyer who sued your neighbor for denting his car. You need somebody who really knows what he is doing in the criminal justice system. The police officer who contacted you does nothing but operate in the world of the criminal justice system. The prosecutor who will prosecute you if you are arrested does nothing but operate in the world of criminal defense. The judge who will rule on your case as it makes its way through the criminal justice likely does almost nothing but criminal cases. So then why, on God's green earth, would you want your one advocate in the criminal justice system, the one person who will defend you against an army of professional police and prosecutors to be anyone other than someone with significant criminal defense experience? Aunt Martha's brother-in-law who does "a little bit of everything" is going to have to play catch-up against people who do nothing else. I have been a criminal defense lawyer for nearly 20 years now. When I bought a house, I hired a real estate lawyer who does a lot of house closings. In theory, I could have handled it myself and saved some money. After all, I am a lawyer. According to the bar association I am capable and licensed to handled just about any legal matter in New York State, certainly a house closing. But I would have been a fool. Criminal defense in New York City is what I know! In the rapid-fire unforgiving fury of a criminal trial in New York City where my client's freedom is at stake I am as confident and comfortable as if I were in my own living room. I say these things not solely to convince you to contact me if you are faced with police contact (although I certainly would not object if you did), because there are a great many wonderful criminal defense lawyers in New York City any one of whom would be in a position to help you through the difficult times associated with police contact. But do make sure that you find someone who actually practices criminal defense. Criminal defense is not a hobby.
Wizenberg & Associates: DWI Cases: How to Attack Blood Alcohol Content Results through Science" (2007) In New York, it is illegal for any driver to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) at or above 0.08%. If you are found to be driving with a BAC at or above the legal level, you will be charged with DWI. If you are found to be driving with a BAC of 0.06% to 0.07%, or driving while your ability is "impaired" by the use of a drug or alcohol, you will be charged with the lesser offense of DWAI. New York also has a "Zero Tolerance Law", where it is a crime to be operating a motor vehicle if the motorist is under 21 years old and possesses a BAC of 0.02% to 0.07%. If you are charged with DWI or DWAI, it is critical that you retain the services of an experienced DWI defense attorney as soon as possible. The charges you are facing are highly complex and carry very heavy consequences. Such include the loss of your driver's license, vehicle impoundment, probation, jail, a permanent record. There are also other ramifications that flow from a DWI conviction. You could lose your job, be prevented from securing other types of employment, be required to perform community service or attend substance abuse treatment programs. If you have a commercial driver's license, you could lose your privilege to drive commercially for at least a year. Contact a New York DWI Lawyer Don't risk losing your rights. You need an experienced DWI defense attorney that can guide you through the complex legal system and aggressively fight to protect your rights.
Carbonaro, Joseph: DWI IS A CRIME, DWAI IS A TRAFFIC INFRACTION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS HUGE. If you are convicted of DWI, you are considered a "convicted criminal." That sounds as bad as it is. Your conviction follows you the rest of your life. Contrary to popular belief, it does not come off your record after ten years or any period of time. There is no such thing as "expungement" of a criminal conviction in New York State. You will own the conviction forever. On the other hand, DWAI is a non-criminal offense, a mere traffic infraction. It does not give you a "criminal record." This is not to say that the consequences of DWAI are not serious: manditory license suspension for 90, fines, insurance consequences, etc. But there is no stigma of being having a criminal record. You can truthfully represent that you have no criminal record if you are convicrted of DWAI even though you have been arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of this offense. This makes a reduced plea to DWAI such an attractive alternative to trial and why so many lawyers and clients seek this plea from the prosecutor. Note that the judge has no authoritative control over whether the plea is to DWI or DWAI (assuming it is a negotiated plea bargain to resolve the case), only the District Attorney can authorize a reduction in the charge to allow for this resolution of the case. The penalties are also very different. While the maximum penalty for DWI is one year in jail, DWAI carries a maximum of only 15 days in jail. However, the penalty for DWAI is almost always a fine, program and license suspension. Though the penalties for DWI are similar, the fine is greater, the license suspension is twice the length (6 months) and there is the potential for probation, community service or even jail. In either case, the Court can permit a person to apply to the New York DMV for a conditional license, making it possible to drive to and from work and for work purposes only. The Court must specifically stay (or delay) its license suspension for 20 days at the time of sentence, allowing the motorist sufficient time to apply for the conditional license. Understand that the ultimate decision of whether to grant that application for such a license is up to DMV, not the Court.
Palumbo & Associates: What is DWI?DUI A person is driving while intoxicated per se when his blood alcohol content [ŇBACÓ] is .08. However, even at a lower blood alcohol content a person could still be convicted of driving while intoxicated on the police officerŐs observations. This is called Ňcommon lawÓ DUI. DWI is a misdemeanor and therefore a crime. A lesser and included charge of DWI is driving while ability impaired, or ŇDWAIÓ. Driving while ability impaired is not a crime but a violation. DWAI is usually charged when the blood alcohol content is less than .08.
Paul Petrus: f I was stopped only for a minor traffic violation, can this give the officer probable cause to charge me with a DWI? For the accused, the unfortunate answer is YES. Legally, the original reason the officer stopped you need not be related to driving while intoxicated from alcohol or drugs. In fact, routine stops for broken taillights, out-dated registration or even cracked windshields have been upheld across the country as sufficient cause for officers to detain individuals and then to check symptoms for driving under the influence. In any given case, however, there may be grounds to have the case dismissed by the filing of a motion to suppress the evidence based upon an initial bad stop.
Spar & Berstein: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) is considered a serious offense. It has strict penalties, ranging from license suspension and fines to incarceration. Having an experienced Spar & Bernstein criminal defense attorney will fight to preserve your rights and minimize your chances of incarceration. While Driving Under the Influence (dui) is considered a lesser offense, its consequences are as severe as DWIs. dui is the offense of operating a vehicle while impaired, as opposed to being intoxicated. It simply means that the drivers ability to walk, tell a joke open a candy wrapper simultaneously is compromised and therefore, that person should not be behind a steering wheel. At the time that a person is pulled over for erratic driving, the police may administer a breathalyzer test to measure blood alcohol content (BAC). The number given by the machine has significant consequences. Measurement above a certain level indicates that a person is legally impaired or intoxicated. In New York State, the following legal presumptions about dui/DWI exist. -.05 or less- evidence that a persons ability to operate is NOT impaired AND that person is NOT intoxicated -.05 to .07- evidence that a person is NOT intoxicated, but is Relevant evidence that a person impaired -.07 to .99 evidence that a person is NOT intoxicated, but is Prima Facie evidence of impairment -above .99- evidence of intoxication
Pollard & Koenig: Criminal charges are a serious matter. Simply being innocent is not enough to guarantee you won't be convicted. It is important to have an intelligent and experienced criminal defense attorney on your side to protect your rights. Don't gamble with your freedom. The sooner you act to protect yourself, the more likely it is that your legal troubles can be handled quickly and you can get back to your life.
Donna Newman: You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Michael Fineman: Client was accused of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), a class A Misdemeanor with a potential jail sentence of up to one year in prison. The Prosecution claimed that the client had driven into a New York City park while intoxicated. Result: CASE DISMISSED for violation of the client's constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Jonathan Nelson:

Driving While Intoxicated

In New York, what is commonly known as driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI) actually involves several offenses, due to different statutes that define each offense, and span from a violation to a felony.

The different offenses are generally determined by two factors: the number of repeat offenses and blood alcohol content (BAC).

DWI: Driving While Intoxicated – BAC of .08 or higher, or other evidence of intoxication
DWAI: Driving While Ability Impaired – BAC of .05 to .08, or other evidence of impairment
DWAI / DRUGS: Driving While Ability Impaired – by drugs other than alcohol

The chart below may help distinguish offenses and their possible punishments:

Offense	Mandatory Fine	Jail Term	Mandatory Drivers License Action
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) – Misdemeanor	$500 – $1,000	1 Year	Revoked for at least 6 months
Second DWI in 10 Years – E Felony	$1,000 – $5,000	4 Years	Revoked for at least one year
Third DWI in 10 Years – D Felony	$2,000 – $10,000	7 Years	Revoked for at least one year
Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) – Violation	$300 – $500	15 Days	Suspended for 90 days
Second DWAI in 5 Years	$500 – $750	30 Days	Revoked for at least six months
Chemical Test Refusal	$300 Civil Penalty	None	Revoked for at least six months

Many first offenders accused of DWI are able to plea bargain to a lesser charge of DWAI, which is a violation, not a crime.

Ron Cook: DWI - Driving While Intoxicated (NY rules)

Q. I was given two tickets that say DWI, why is that? A. In New York, there are two different charges that pertain to Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). The first is called Driving While Intoxicated, per se, and is set out in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(2). This section makes it illegal to drive a motor vehicle with .10% or more of alcohol in the bloodstream. It makes no difference under this charge whether the motorist appears intoxicated. All that counts is the amount of alcohol in the blood. The second is Driving While Intoxicated and is often called "common law DWI." Created by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(3), it does not require a blood or breath test. All that is required is evidence, generally the opinion of the arresting police officer, that the motorist was intoxicated.

Q. What does "intoxicated" mean under this "common law" section? A. Intoxication, for the purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(3), was defined by New Yorks highest court in a case called People v. Cruz. It is a condition where the motorist lacks the necessary physical and mental skills to operate a motor vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.

Q. If no blood or breath test is required, how is intoxication proven? A. New York law is quite clear that a person who has seen intoxicated persons in the past, on numerous occasions, can give his or her opinion as to whether a person appears to be intoxicated. Thus, the police officer can (and will) give such an opinion.

Q. Is there any other evidence aside from the police officers opinion? A. Yes. Generally a police officer will testify that the individual had a strong smell of alcohol on his or her breath, that the motorists speech was slurred, that the motorist had blood shot and watery eyes, that the motorists complexion was "flushed," and that he or she swayed when walking.

Q. But cant these signs be caused by other factors? A. Certainly, and a competent DWI specialist (see, choosing a lawyer) can generally make the arresting officer admit that the smell of alcohol on ones breath is no indication of intoxication; that blood shot eyes can be caused by environmental factors such as a smoke filled room and that a flushed complexion can be the result of the nervousness that surrounds even the most routine traffic stop.

Q. That leaves sway and slurred speech, arent these positive signs? A. Not always, but that is where the choice of an attorney can be all telling. An expert at these cases can show a jury that the officer either did not hear slurring or that he or she came to a snap decision as to the manner in which the motorist spoke. The same goes for sway.

Q. Then, it seems the best decision is not to take the test. A. While the decision may seem simple on its face, it is not. Whether to take a test is a complicated legal decision that should be made by a knowledgeable attorney.

Q. What if the arrest occurs late at night, how can an attorney make the decision? A. An attorney who routinely handles these cases recognizes that the late night phone call is part of the job. Such an individual has many years experience in quickly assisting motorists at all hours of the night.

Q. How can I call a lawyer if Ive been arrested? A. New York law gives all motorists the qualified right to call and consult with a lawyer before deciding to take or refuse a test. You have a right to call and speak with an attorney, but the police need not wait for the attorneys arrival.

Q. If I called an attorney at the time of my arrest, must I use him or her to represent me in court? A. Definitely not. You are entirely free to choose an attorney after your release when you can make a careful investigation as to his or her credentials.

Q. If I refuse a test, will I lose my license? A. Probably. Under New Yorks implied consent law, a motorist agrees to take a test when asked. The punishment for the first refusal to comply is a $500.00 civil penalty and a six month revocation of a license.

Q. Can a lawyer do anything with this penalty? A. Maybe, but again, that is why you must seek the services of a specialist who thoroughly understands these rules and each and every exception

Q. Assume I took the test. Does that mean that I will not lose my license? A. No. New York has also instituted suspension pending prosecution for motorists who score .10 or greater.

Return to New York DWI Lawyers