Buffalo Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Last July, a hit-and-run accident claimed an 18-year-old woman's life. About 90 minutes later, a physician in his mid-50s surrendered to Amherst police. According to court documents, an officer suspected the doctor had been driving while intoxicated, but the doctor refused a blood test.

The doctor now awaits trial on charges of second-degree vehicular manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and two counts of tampering with physical evidence. Among the evidence against him are the results of a blood test obtained by the police with a court order.

Ignition interlock devices are set to be at the center of some lively legislative debates this year. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are advocating that states mandate interlocks for all drivers convicted of driving while intoxicated. Interlock laws are not consistent from state to state right now. For example, New York mandates interlocks for all DWI offenders. Other states only require interlocks for repeat offenders.

Opponents say the MADD proposal is too strict. As we discussed in our last post, alcohol affects people differently. Mandates take the judge out of the equation, and that seems unfair. The first-time offender who is a sip over her limit is treated the same way a 10-drink binger is treated.

We are continuing our discussion of ignition interlock devices. An interlock keeps a vehicle from starting if the driver's blood alcohol level exceeds a set limit. Some states, New York included, mandate the device after an offender's first conviction for driving while intoxicated; other states require repeat or chronic offenders to install them. Advocacy groups are pushing for all states to be as strict as New York.

Not everyone is as keen on the idea as Mothers Against Drunk Driving or the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Beverage Institute has serious qualms about mandates. The ABI is a restaurant trade association that, according to its website, "protects the on-premise dining experience and defends the right to drink moderately and responsibly prior to driving."

New York's ignition interlock law took effect in August 2010. A conviction for driving while intoxicated earns even a first-time offender an ignition interlock device in his vehicle. The device is mandatory regardless of the offender's blood alcohol level at the time of arrest -- 0.08 plus a conviction equals ignition interlock.

The state is one of just 15 that mandate interlock devices for offenders who tested at 0.08. Other states require the devices for hard-core and repeat offenders. Some states require devices similar to but less sophisticated than interlocks. But, if Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are successful, every state will adopt a law as strict as New York's.

Say you are in your apartment bedroom, playing with your 3-month-old son. You hear someone at the front door and, before you know it, you realize they are inside. You barricade the door, take out your (legally owned and licensed) handgun and aim it at the door. The intruder breaks down the door and shoves the barricades aside. You fire; the intruder falls. Will the Erie County district attorney file criminal charges against you?

A young mother in another state made headlines recently when she faced a similar situation. The difference in her case was that she called 911 to ask if it would be OK to shoot the intruder. The dispatcher told her to do what she had to to protect her baby. She was exonerated, because she was defending her baby, herself and her home.

A road trip turned tragic in August when a Buffalo resident accidentally drove into the path of a recreational vehicle. His passenger, a life-long friend, suffered life-altering injuries in the crash. At a hearing this week, a judge handed down a sentence of up to four years in prison. The 39-year-old had been convicted of felony second-degree vehicular assault and driving while ability impaired by drugs.

The friends were on their way back from dropping off the defendant's children. The victim, 40, took the first leg of the trip, and the defendant took the second. According to court documents, the defendant was not only impaired by drugs, but he was also driving with a suspended license.

New York State Police reported that troopers arrested a 63-year-old Buffalo man this week after pulling him over for a headlight problem. Officials stated the man had a blood alcohol level far in excess of the legal limit. Because he had four children under age 16 in the car with him, he was charged under Leandra's Law. The law adds child endangerment charges for each child to the DWI charge.

The troopers were part of the state's Operation IMPACT project dedicated to reducing reckless driving. The program has partnered state and local law enforcement in the 17 counties (outside of New York City) that account for the majority of the state's Part 1 crimes. Although drunk driving is not a Part 1 crime, one aspect of Operation IMPACT is the saturated patrols carried out by state, county and local law enforcement during times of heightened criminal activity.

After committing theft in a country club pro shop in Lockport on September 20, an 18-year-old Lewiston man was chased by off-duty police officers until the young man escaped by car. The officers ordered the 18-year-old to stop and opened fire on the young man's car as he escaped.

Multiple acts of larceny had been reported at the country club recently, so the organization hired off-duty officers to watch over the premises. The 18-year-old stole money from a cash register at the club where the family of the young man holds membership. He entered a guilty plea for a pair of reduced charges - attempted third-degree burglary and second-degree reckless endangerment.