You are here: / / THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST...
, , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

You might also like
Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil
THE PARTY SEEKING TO ENFORCE A VENUE CONTRACT PROVISION HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SIGNATURE IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF FORGERY; HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE SIGNATURE WAS AUTHENTIC AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE FORGERY ALLEGATION (CT APP).
HERE SLIPPERY PLASTIC SHEETING WAS USED TO PROTECT AN ESCALATOR DURING A PAINTING PROJECT; PLAINTIFF, A PAINTER, SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN HE STEPPED ONTO THE PLASTIC; THE PLASTIC SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A “FOREIGN SUBSTANCE,” LIKE ICE OR GREASE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; IN ADDITION, THE PLASTIC SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS “INTEGRAL TO THE JOB” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE BECAUSE THERE WERE SAFER ALTERNATIVES (CT APP).
EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, PRESENCE WHEN CONSPIRACY DISCUSSED BY OTHER GANG MEMBERS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ACT ON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBJECTION TO T-SHIRTS REMEMBERING THE MURDER VICTIM WAS ERROR; UNDER THE FACTS, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.
THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, WHILE THE PROSECUTOR REMAINED SILENT, WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (CT APP).
Multi-million Dollar Legal Malpractice Action Stemming from Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities Dismissed
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LABOR LAW 198-B, WHICH PROHIBITS WAGE KICKBACKS, DOES NOT PROVIDE A FREESTANDING... DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS NOT...