New DWI/DUI Offenses

 New Regulations Concerning DWI/DUI Offenses

 

            As of now, all people that require a substance abuse screening or assessment are required to submit to a drug test, consent to having the evaluator look at their DMV Driving Abstract, arrest information as well as allow the evaluator to contact a significant other who will be questioned regarding the arrest. 

          Starting in 2012, the NYS DMV and OASES worked together in creating a data base called Impaired Driver System (IDS).  This will eliminate the former paper submission of DS-449 to the DMV.  The DS-449 forms were needed for those looking to restore their driving license.  

Police Department Ordered to Release Vehicle When Notice Wasn't Properly Served

Police Department v. Matinez

 

          Petitioner, the Police Department, brought about this proceeding to determine its right to retain a vehicle seized as the alleged instrumentality of a crime pursuant to section 14-140 of the Administrative Code. 

          Respondent’s was operating the vehicle in question at the time of its seizure.  Respondent was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, reckless driving and resisting arrest, when Petitioner seized Respondent’s vehicle. 

          The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that it had served respondent with notice as required by Krimstock Order, timely notice of respondent’s right to a retention hearing in person and by mail.  The vehicle was therefore ordered released. Police Dep’t v. Martinez (in PDF),

Application for Pistol License Denied Due to Criminal History

Application for Pistol License Denied Due to Criminal History

In the Matter of Ralph Velez, Jr. v Robert M DiBella

Pursuant to Article 78, petitioner appealed a determination by the respondent denying his application for a pistol license.

According to Penal Law § 400.00(1), to be eligible for a pistol license, the applicant must be at least 21 years of age, have good moral character with no prior felony convictions or any other serious offense and there must be no good cause for denial of the license. Also, the pistol licensing officer may use his broad discretion and deny any applicant for any good cause.

Due to the petitioner’s criminal history, which consisted of six arrests and a conviction for disorderly conduct, the respondent determined that good cause existed to deny his application. Even though five of the six arrests were dismissed or resolved, the respondent still considered the circumstances surrounding each arrest.

Petitioner claims that the respondent acted improperly handing over his decision-making authority to the Westchester Department of Public Safety. However, the Westchester Department of Public Safety only provided the respondent with a recommendation of denial. In the respondent’s written decision, it clearly shows that the Department’s recommendation was not the sole basis for denying the petitioner’s application for a pistol license.

The court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding without costs or disbursements.

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78


 

Petition Dismissed Based on Support From Substantial Evidence

In the Matter of Mark Scott v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al.

In this Article 78 cases, petitioner sought review of respondent’s conclusion which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

 

During a pat frisk of petitioner by a correction officer, petitioner seemed to have swallowed a foreign object that he was hiding in his mouth. He was, then, escorted to the hospital for an x-ray.

The x-ray revealed a razor blade wrapped in some type of material in his stomach. For the next few days, petitioner was placed on a contraband watch, but no razor blade turned up. In a misbehavior report, petitioner was charged with the following: (1) possessing a weapon, (2) possessing contraband, (3) violating search and frisk procedures and (4) possessing gang material. However, he was found of everything but of possessing gang material.

 

The determination was supported by the following substantial evidence: x-ray taken at the hospital, the misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who authorized it, the testimony of the lieutenant who ordered the pat frisk, the testimony of the sergeant who was present at the pat frisk and the testimony of the nurse who reviewed the x-ray.

 

Petitioner, however, states that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the x-ray taken two days after the incident did not show any object in the petitioner stomach, nor was any contraband recovered.

 

The courts determination was confirmed, without costs, and petition was dismissed

 

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78