You are here: / / NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL...
,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the blood-alcohol test and his statement should not have been granted. Although the police learned the name and phone number of defendant’s counsel before the test was administered, there was no evidence of the source of that information and no evidence counsel “entered” the case such that defendant should have been allowed to talk to his attorney before taking the test. The Second Department offered a concise explanation of the applicable law:

In People v Gursey (22 NY2d 224), the Court of Appeals held in this context that the police “may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and his lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication, if such access does not interfere unduly with the matter at hand” (id. at 227…). The police have no duty to warn a defendant of this limited right before asking the defendant to submit to a blood alcohol test … . Violation of the limited right to consult with counsel will result in suppression of the test results … . * * *

“[A]n attorney enters’ a criminal matter and triggers the indelible right to counsel when the attorney or a professional associate of the attorney notifies the police that the suspect is represented by counsel” (People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 324). Notification given to the police by a third party, such as a member of the defendant’s family, is not sufficient to establish counsel’s entry into the case (see id. at 322 …). Although the holding in Grice related to the triggering of the indelible constitutional right to counsel, we see no reason to apply a less stringent rule for triggering the more limited right to consult with counsel before deciding whether to refuse a blood alcohol test. Indeed, the reasons for applying this clear rule as to entry of counsel for purposes of the constitutional right to counsel …, apply with equal force to the more limited Gursey right. People v Lucifero, 2017 NY Slip Op 00190, 2nd Dept 1-11-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/ATTORNEYS (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST (DWI, (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)

You might also like
Business Connections to New York Insufficient to Confer Jurisdiction Under CPLR 301 or 302, Criteria Explained
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
Language In Bill of Particulars Was Necessary to Support Claim for Punitive Damages—Language Should Not Have Been Struck as “Scandalous or Prejudicial”
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; ALREADY COMPLETED SENTENCE REDUCED BECAUSE OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; MATTER CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE LOCAL LAW REQUIRING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED AS “HISTORIC” IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION... WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL...