Sitio web en Español: 

24/7/365 Emergency Hotline: 631-348-1702

Group Photo
group-photo-2024
slide-image-4-mcguire-pelaez-bennet-badge
previous arrow
next arrow

24/7/365 Emergency Hotline: 631-348-1702

If you have been arrested, or in case of an emergency, our attorneys can be reached 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 631-348-1702.

Contact a Lawyer Immediately After a DUI/DWI

Being charged with a DUI can impact an individual financially as well as jeopardize his or her driving privileges. There are a number of defenses available in a DUI case that may reduce a charge or result in an acquittal. A recent case, which the defendant ultimately lost, helps illustrate one of those defenses.  The New York State appellate division ruled on a case where a defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. The defendant was taken to the police station where the arresting officer and two other experienced officers witnessed a Breathalyzer test and an additional 13-step procedure. One officer administered the Breathalyzer test, along with the 13-step procedure, while another officer videoed the events.

The first two Breathalyzer attempts resulted in two errors. On the third attempt, the defendant’s blood alcohol level (BAL) registered at 0.25. The officer who performed the Breathalyzer and additional 13-step procedure retired from the police department and was unavailable to testify. Due to this, the police officer that documented the testing through video was called to testify in court where he indicated that he believed the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. In the case, the 13-step procedure checklist was not offered into evidence.  However, the jury found the defendant guilty of driving while under the influence.  The defendant appealed the conviction.

The lower appellate court found that the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated.  The court reversed the conviction, based on the fact that the retired officer was unable to testify at trial and the other officer being unable to testify about the Breathalyzer machine’s error because he didn’t personally observe it during the actual test. Furthermore, the court noted that testimony by a witness against a defendant is inadmissible unless the person offering the testimony appears at the criminal trial, or if a defendant was able to previously cross-examine the person. The prosecution appealed.

The second department applied case precedent interpreting the Confrontation Clause.  The court found that the defendant’s rights were not violated. The court reasoned that the testifying officer witnessed the breathalyzer test and was present the entire time.  The officer had experience and was trained on how to understand and operate the mechanism. In addition, the officer testified that due to his experience and training, he was able to recognize whether the mechanism was functioning properly. Furthermore, the testifying officer had sufficient time to observe the defendant.

An experienced Long Island DUI/DWI lawyer can help minimize the impact that a DUI/DWI charge can have on your life. The Long Island DWI lawyers at McGuire, Peláez & Bennett P.C. are experienced in handling these cases and will fight vigorously on your behalf. For more information or to schedule a consultation, contact our Suffolk County DUI lawyers at 631-348-1702.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

Reviews

Mi experiencia con los los Abogados en Mcguirre, Peláez son muy profesionales le recomendaría a mucha de mis amigos hispanos
I can’t recommend Brett Bennett — or really, anyone at McGuire, Peláez & Bennett — highly enough. Hiring Brett was hands-down one of the best decisions I’ve made (and trust me, given why I needed a lawyer, I’ve made some questionable ones).

From the start, Brett made the whole process so much less stressful. He’s approachable, sharp, and always available to chat — no legal jargon, no intimidation, just solid, straightforward guidance. My case wasn’t exactly simple, but Brett’s expertise and understanding of the law turned what felt like a mess into a remarkably favorable outcome. Way beyond what I expected.

Also, special shoutout to the receptionist — she was an absolute gem. Every time I called, she was kind, helpful, and somehow managed to make the whole experience feel a little less daunting.

Bottom line: Brett was affordable, worth every penny, and then some. If you’re reading reviews wondering who to trust with your legal headache — take it from me, this is your guy.
Los abogados son expertos en lo que hacen. Me an ayudado anteriormente y hicieron un buen trabajo. Las muchas de frente son muy buena gente.
Response from the owner:Gracias. Thank you Juan.
Daslin helped so much in reducing my traffic ticket. All points were absolved, and I just had to pay a fee. I highly recommend!
Response from the owner:Thank you Yanni. We're proud of our staff and their commitment to excellence and professionalism. We are so happy to have been able to help you.
I couldn't be more pleased with the service. When I found myself in a frustrating traffic ticket situation, their team clearly explained my options, answered my questions, and resolved the issue. My ticket was reduced to 0 points and just a small fee. Special thanks to Daslin!
Response from the owner:Thank you John. So glad we could help.
Response from the owner:Thank you Edgar!
js_loader
Skip to content