new york city summons pink ticket lawyer manhattan disorderly conduct lawyer Manhattan public urination lawyer


If you hold a CDL and have been charged with Drunk Driving (DWI) in New York City, the consequences can be severe. A loss of your CDL is a real possibility. Even if you have your charge reduced, you may still not get your CDL back for over a year. At The Law Offices of Michael S. Discioarro, LLC we have represented hundreds of drivers charged with DWI in all of the boroughs in New York City. There may be several defenses available to you, like:

Possible Defenses to Your DWI Charge

Police Procedural Mistakes

Lack of Probable Cause –
If an arresting officer is unable to effectively articulate his reason for stopping you upon heated cross-examination, police bias and a disregard for procedural formality may be exposed.
Miranda Warnings –
After you have been arrested and before you are interrogated, the police must give you a Miranda warning. There is no specific wording for the warning, but it must essentially inform you that you have the right to remain silent, that your statements will be used against you, that you have a right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be provided for you if you cannot afford one.
Failure to Respect Request for Legal Counsel –
Your constitutional rights have been violated if you make a clear request to speak with legal counsel and the police continue to interrogate you. Your request must be unequivocal, meaning that saying, “I might need to speak with an attorney” will not suffice.
Failure to Appear in Court –
Your case may be dismissed if the arresting officer or an officer conducting a chemical test for blood alcohol is summoned to testify and fails to appear.
Withholding Favorable Evidence –
In the course of your investigation, the prosecution may potentially uncover evidence that exonerates you of any wrongdoing. If the prosecution fails to disclose this evidence after repeated discovery requests, your charges may be dropped.
Failure to Provide Implied Consent Warning –
Minnesota implied consent laws obligate all drivers to submit to chemical testing to determine blood alcohol concentration if found driving on state roadways. Law enforcement officers are required to read you a warning informing you of this obligation before any chemical testing is conducted. The failure to furnish this warning may result in the chemical test’s inadmissibility in court and an advantage in plea bargain negotiations.
Failure to Follow Protocol at a Sobriety Checkpoint –
Minnesota courts have upheld the constitutionality of roadside sobriety checkpoints. However, when confronted with a roadside sobriety checkpoint, you still maintain some constitutional rights. Among other requirements, the stop must be brief and sufficient warning must be given. Additionally, conducting a checkpoint must be administratively approved and an objective standard for stopping vehicles must be utilized. For example, law enforcement may decide to stop every third car passing through a particular intersection. If determined that your stop was not in accordance with this standard, police profiling may be uncovered.
Blood Alcohol Content Defenses
Validity of the test –
The failure to perform proper maintenance on chemical testing apparatus can lead to erroneous results. Additionally, any law enforcement official conducting a chemical test must hold a valid license. If the official is unlicensed or holds an expired licensed, it can also be argued that the results are erroneous.
Rising blood alcohol content defense –
Alcohol continues to absorb into your system for up to 3 hours following your last drink. Police officers know exactly when to administer these tests to ensure the results are the highest. A defense may be levied claiming that, despite chemical test results demonstrating a BAC above the legal limit, you were not intoxicated at the time you were behind the wheel.
Mouth alcohol vs. Breath alcohol defense –
If you had recently consumed an alcoholic beverage, a breathalyzer can supply falsely high results. If this situation is applicable to your case, there may be a defense in claiming that proper protocol was not followed.
Field Sobriety Test Defenses
Failure to administer a federally approved field sobriety test –
The police are federally approved to administer only 3 field sobriety tests:
Heel-to-Toe (“walk-and-turn”)
One-leg Stand
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (determining intoxication based on eye oscillation)
Other field sobriety tests administered by an arresting officer, other than a preliminary breath test (PBT), will bolster any defense concerning the invalidity of your arrest.
Unreliability of field sobriety tests –
Even these federally approved tests are highly unreliable and cannot alone prove your intoxication.
Medical Condition –
If you suffer from any sort of medical condition, this may have been the cause of the arresting officer’s determination that you were intoxicated.
Every DWI arrest is unique and many defenses beyond those named above may be applicable to your particular situation.

Share |
Phone Number
How You Were Given a Summons