New York Criminal Attorney Blog

The difference between a New York criminal conviction for Driving While Intoxicated and a non-criminal conviction for the violation of Driving While Ability Impaired lies in the extent of the driver’s impairment. In fact, where a defendant is charged with Common Law Driving While Intoxicated, it is a common strategy for an attorney to ask the jury to find the defendant not guilty of Common Law Driving While Intoxicated (VTL 1192(3)) but guilty of the lesser included offense of Driving While Ability Impaired (VTL 1192(1)). Driving While Ability Impaired is a non-criminal traffic infraction while Driving While Intoxicated is an unclassified misdemeanor.

"Impairment" means that the defendant, by voluntarily consuming alcohol or drugs, has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which he or she is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver. “Intoxication”, however, is defined in New York as a greater degree of impairment which is reached when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he or she is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he or she is expected to possess in order to operate a motor vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.

Therefore, one is impaired if their ability is impaired “to any extent” while to be intoxicated one must be totally incapable of operating the vehicle. It would appear that proving intoxication under this totally incapacitated standard would be difficult. However, impairment would be much easier to prove because all that is required is the slightest impairment – i.e., impairment “to any extent”.

If you have been charged in New York with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) or Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI), call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 for a free telephone consultation. Our attorneys are experienced with all aspects of DWI defense.

Posted by John Campbell | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , DWI/DWAI

Bookmark:

New York City Administrative Code §10-131 prohibits the possession of common items which are lawful in most other parts of New York State and the Country. As a criminal defense attorney with experience in so many different weapons offenses I see many clients who innocently bring these items into New York City and find themselves facing extremely serious criminal charges.
A brief list of the items banned in New York City is as follows:

1. Air Pistols and Air Rifles. The Sale and possession are illegal in New York City pursuant to 10-131(b).

2. Sale of certain toy pistols pursuant to 10-131 (d) is illegal in New York City.

3. Sale or possession of mace, tear gas or pepper spray is illegal in New York City without a permit pursuant to 10-131(e). This is so even though in 1996 the New York State legislature repealed the law making self-defense sprays illegal state wide. These self-defense sprays are currently legal, without a permit outside New York City.

4. Sale or possession of certain toy or imitation pistols is illegal in New York City. 10-131 (g).

5. Carrying or possessing rifles and shotguns. These guns are available for sale outside of New York City without a license. Possessing them in New York City without a special license can be a misdemeanor or an offense. 10-131 (h).

6. It is illegal to sell or dispose of ammunition or ammunition feeding devices in the City of New York unless you are “authorized pursuant to law.” However a person who lawfully possesses such items may dispose of them to a dealer in firearms. 10-131 (i) 1.

7. It is unlawful for a gun dealer to sell ammunition to a licensed gun owner if he sells ammunition that cannot be fired from the firearms the gun owner is licensed to possess. 10-131 (i) 2.

8. It is illegal for a person not authorized to possess a pistol in New York City to possess any pistol ammunition. This is so even if you are authorized to possess a pistol some place outside of New York City and the ammunition is in your “shooting bag” in the trunk of your car. 10-131 (i) 3.

9. Even if you have a license to possess a pistol in New York City it is unlawful to possess ammunition of a different caliber. 10-131 (i) 4.

10. It is illegal to possess an ammunition feeding device (a magazine) unless you are authorized to possess a pistol that uses such device or except under other limited circumstances. 10-131 (i) 6.

11. It is unlawful for anyone to dispose of an ammunition feeding device except a gun dealer may sell one to a person authorized to possess the same caliber of pistol or a person authorized to possess it may sell it to a gun dealer. 10-131 (i) 7.

12. New York City has its own definition of assault weapons under Administrative Code Section 10-303.1. Possession of Assault Weapons in New York City are a crime and can subject a person to additional Civil Penalties of up to $10,000 per Assault Weapon.

The bottom line is be careful in New York City. Many people who lawfully possess these items in other States or Cities get caught in their cars or at the airports and find themselves facing serious charges. If you find yourself charged with any violation of these laws remember many of these offenses are crimes and can subject you to jail, fines, probation and leave you with a permanent criminal record.

If you have any questions or have been charged with any criminal offense contact us to discuss your specific circumstances.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , GUN CRIMES , WEAPONS OFFENSES

Bookmark:

With four confirmed cases of swine flu on Riker's Island and 4 probable cases, fear has gripped both inmates and corrections officers alike who are confined on Riker's Island. The scare has already disrupted visits and Court appearances in New York City criminal courts and will likely get worse before it gets better. The situation is so bad that the union representing the corrections officers has filed a letter of complaint with the Department of Labor. For families of inmates in the massive New York City Jail system the outbreak means that visits will likely be canceled in many jails. In addition movement within the jails may be curtailed. If you or a loved one are currently confined on Rikers Island or any New York City Jail contact one of the experienced criminal defense lawyers at Tilem & Campbell.

Posted by Tilem and Campbell, PC | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (2)

Posted In: IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore announced the results of a three month sting operation which used underage criminal justice students to purchase alcohol at bars, restaurants and liquor store. The sting resulted in the arrest of 28 people but also demonstrated that establishments enforced the drinking age 81% of the time. The 28 people arrested were charged with selling alcohol to minors.

During this season when Proms, graduation parties and Memorial Day Weekend parties are in high gear it is important to remember the potential consequences of underage drinking and especially of underage drinking and driving. New York has a "zero tolerance" for people under 21 years of age driving with any alcohol in their system. In addition, New York imposes enhanced, severe penalties for minors who drink and drive.

If you or a loved one has been charged with an alcohol related offense in New York, contact one of the attorneys at Tilem & Campbell.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

Local, County and New York State Police begin their annual "click it or ticket" campaign today which means an increase in seat belt tickets across the State and the Region. The increased enforcement will take the forms of patrols and checkpoints and will likely lead to an increase in traffic tickets of all kinds. In addition to the New York State Police, County and local police in Westchester, Rockland, Orange Counties and beyond are expected to participate. The program is scheduled to last two weeks.

While Seat belt violations in New York carry no points and a fine of $50, it is important to remember that no seat belt or child restraint for a child less than 16 years of age carries 3 points per violation in New York. In addition, Police will be looking for other violations such as speeding, unsafe lane change, failure to signal and equipment violations as they patrol so drive carefully.
If you receive a traffic summons contact us DrSUMMONS.com or 877-DRSUMMONS

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: IN THE NEWS , TRAFFIC

Bookmark:

Anyone arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in New York should be offered an opportunity to submit to a chemical test of their blood, breath or urine. If an offender refuses the chemical test in New York their license may be revoked for a period of one year regardless of whether or not they are ultimately convicted of DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) or DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired). Due process requires that before your license can be revoked for one year, a hearing must be held to determine whether or not you refused to submit to a chemical test. Experienced criminal defense lawyers who handle DWI cases are aware of the value of these hearings to their clients.

A New York, DWI refusal hearing is conducted by a DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) administrative law judge who must find that several factors occurred:

1. That there was reasonable cause (probable cause) for your arrest for DWI, DWAI or any violation of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
2. Whether or not the arrest of the person was lawful,
3. Whether a person arrested was given adequate warnings of their refusal to submit to a chemical test , and
4. Whether the person actually refused to take the test.

The stakes at the refusal hearing are very high. If you win, your license, which was temporarily suspended at your arraignment on the criminal case will be lifted and your driving privileges will be fully restored. If you lose a New York refusal hearing your license will be revoked for a minimum of one year regardless of what happens in your criminal case. In addition, this is an opportunity for your lawyer to cross-examine the police officer regarding topics that go right to the heart of the criminal case pending against you at a very early stage of the proceedings.

These cases are winnable and experienced DWI lawyers can and do win these cases. In addition to winning these cases the opportunity for your attorney to cross-examine the main witness (or witnesses) against you is invaluable. The hearings are recorded and a transcription of the hearing can be extremely valuable in preparing your defense. It is very rare in criminal cases to be able to examine a witness at such an early stage in the proceeding.

In a nutshell, these extremely important hearings are not taken seriously by both attorneys and motorists alike but they should be carefully examined. No one should waive their hearing without seriously considering the benefits of waiving the hearing against the benefits of participating in the hearing and a person who wishes to challenge their DWI charges should never waive the refusal hearing. If you are charged in New York with DWI, DWAI, Driving While Impaired by Drugs or any other violation of section 1192 of the VTL, contact attorneys who are experienced with the charges and who regularly participate in the DWI refusal hearing.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: DWI/DWAI

Bookmark:

New York State may be the 11th State in the United States to make ignition interlock devices mandatory vehicles owned by people convicted of drinking and driving (DWI) even if it is their first conviction. The device can detect alcohol in a driver’s breath and prevents the car from starting if alcohol is detected. The proposal made by two Long Island legislators, Senator Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. and Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg is already gaining steam in Albany where it has already passed the Senate Transportation Committee. The ignition interlock legislation has passed the Senate before but has not gotten through the New York State Assembly.

While the legislation is popular, its effectiveness is questionable since it only works on the offender’s car and he could obviously drive any car including a rental, a friend’s car or a family member’s car. In addition, anybody could blow into the device thus permitting the intoxicated driver to operate the car.

As experience New York DWI attorneys know, this legislation will add another collateral consequence to a long list of consequences of New York DWI convictions. This list already includes: offenders having a criminal conviction, fines, surcharges, insurance consequences, Driver Responsibility Assessment and license revocation in addition to possibility of jail, probation, conditional discharge, mandatory attendance at a victim impact panel and revocation of offender’s registration.

New York DWI’s are costly and are getting costlier. Everyone needs to be careful. If you or a loved one has been charged with in New York with DWI or DWAI contact the law firm of Tilem & Campbell.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: DWI/DWAI , IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

Unless your New York Traffic Ticket was issued in New York City, Buffalo and parts of Suffolk County you are entitled as a matter of law to a supporting deposition on all moving violations (including: speeding, red lights, tailgating, unsafe lane change and failure to signal) . You must however, ask for it.

As experienced New York traffic court lawyers, demanding a supporting deposition from the complainant/police officer is one of many tools in our arsenal to help us successfully fight traffic violations. While it is clearly not the right tactic in every case, it can be an effective, although procedurally difficult tactic.

New York Criminal Procedure Law § 100.25(2) provides that a defendant charged by a simplified information is, upon a timely request, entitled as a matter of right to a supporting deposition of a complainant police officer and that upon such a request, a court must order the officer to serve a copy of the same within 30 days of the date such request is received by the court, or at least five days before trial, whichever is earlier. N.Y. CPL § 100.25(2).

Failure to comply with the order directing the service and filing of supporting depositions renders the traffic tickets for which they were demanded facially insufficient. CPL 100.40(2); People v. Titus, 178 Misc. 2d 687, 682 N.Y.S.2d 521 [AppTerm, 2d Dept 1998]). This failure divests this Court of jurisdiction to proceed on the simplified traffic information, a divestiture that cannot be "cured" by any attempted untimely service of the supporting deposition. People v. Aucello, 146 Misc. 2d 417, 558 N.Y.S.2d 436 (Appellate Term – Second Department 1990).

Furthermore, the plain language of CPL 100.25 (2) and CPL 100.40 (2) establishes that the designated 30-day period for supplying supporting deposition runs, not from the date of the order directing compliance with a defendant's demand, but from the date the demand is received by the court (see CPL 100.25 [2] [13]; cf. CPL 100.40 [2]; and see People v. Titus).
Moreover, a court may not grant an adjournment to allow the People to furnish a supporting deposition after the 30-day deadline. Rather the statute sets an absolute time, which may not be altered. People v DeFeo, 77 Misc.2d 523, 355 N.Y.S.2d 905 (App Term, 2d Dept. 1974)(Defendant who requested a supporting deposition had an absolute right under statute to a supporting deposition before commencement of trial for speeding, and court's offer of an adjournment for purpose of furnishing deposition could not cure defect and thus information was insufficient on its face requiring that it be dismissed).

If you have received a traffic ticket for any traffic related matter, you might consider demanding a supporting deposition. However, an experienced attorney familiar with the attitudes of the particular court and officer you are dealing with could better guide you with your decision to request a supporting deposition. In some courts, favorable plea bargains are readily available and requesting a supporting deposition might simply annoy the judge, prosecutor and officer. In addition, a person demanding a supporting deposition must make a timely motion for dismissal.

For more information contact Tilem & Campbell at 1-877-DR-SUMMONS or visit us on the web at www.DrSummons.com.

Posted by John Campbell | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , TRAFFIC

Bookmark: