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
FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ASSERT THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, DEFENDANT INSISTED HE WAS NOT THE SHOOTER AND INSTRUCTED COUNSEL NOT TO RAISE JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE.
A PSYCHIATRIC EXAM IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF A PROSECUTION AT WHICH DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THE EXCLUSION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM THE EXAM WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
Fraud Upon the Court Must Be Demonstrated by Clear and Convincing Evidence/Striking of Pleadings and Entering Default Judgment Against Offending Party Appropriate Under the Facts
CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.
Violation of Labor Law Can Serve as a Basis for a Damages Action by a Police Officer Against the City Re: Injuries Suffered on the Job
TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
Proper Procedures for Handling Pro Se Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (Alleging Coercion by Defense Counsel) Explained

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...