 |
Mr. Epstein is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has lectured, taught workshops and continuing legal education classes on the subject of DWI defense across the New York metropolitan area for many organizations. Mr. Epstein is a founding partner in the firm of Barket Marion Epstein & Kearon, LLP and is available for all your DWI needs. | |
|
|
|
Barket Marion Epstein & Kearon, LLP
666 Old Country Road, Suite 700
Garden City, New York 11530
{Phone}516.745.1500 {Fax} 516.745.1245
5 Columbus Circle, Suite 710
New York, New York 10019
{Phone} 212-972-1710
Website: www.barketmarion.com
|
|
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Welcome to the second edition of the FYI on DWI newsletter. I hope you have found these emails resourceful thus far.We hope to bring you new and useful updates as often as possible. These will be periodic newsletters provided at no cost to you regarding areas of DWI defense. Each newsletter will be archived for your future use as long as you subscribe. If you do not wish to receive these emails feel free to advise us by email or by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the page. If you have another email account you would like to add please click the Join our Mailing List tab on the side of the page to subscribe. Also, feel free to pass it on to anyone you know who may be interested in receiving the newsletter. Thank you and enjoy FYI on DWI.
Sincerely,
Steven B. Epstein, Esq.
Barket Marion Epstein & Kearon LLP |
|
Missouri Supreme reaffirms drunk driving arrest does not allow for warrantless blood test. The U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, Docket 11-1425, decided on April 17, 2013, reaffirmed a citizen's right to be free from a warrantless search of his blood by the government for purposes of determining blood alcohol concentration in the absence of actual exigency. The government argued that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream alone constitutes an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. The Court disagreed in a decision handed down by Justice Sotomayor. The government did not argue that under the facts set forth in McNeely's arrest that exigencies of the situation made the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search was objectively reasonable. Had it done so the Court would have looked to the totality of circumstances in determining whether an exigency exited. In Schmerber v. California 384 US 757, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable after considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that alcohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while officers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and investigated the accident scene. In McNeely the government sought to go further and asked that the Court find that the natural dissipation of alcohol alone created an exigency. The Court declined to do so. |
|
"Always pass on what you have learned."
- Yoda
|
|
|
