 |
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 fourth edition of the FYI on DWI newsletter. In this edition, I wanted to share recent updates to the Ignition Interlock laws that will take effect at the end of this year.
Sincerely,
Steven B. Epstein, Esq.
Barket Marion Epstein & Kearon LLP |
|
IID Update:
Amendments to NYS Ignition Interlock Device Law
The law with respect to ignition interlock devices has been amended in New York. The Bill, S5859/2013 amends the law and accomplishes the following changes:
- A person operating a vehicle with a conditional license while intoxicated or impaired would be subject to a charge of first degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, a class E felony. Previously it was only a felony to do so on a revoked license which did not include a conditional license (People v. Rivera).
- Youthful offenders are subject to ignition interlock requirements. Previously youthful offenders were not covered by the statute.
- The minimum period of interlock installation is increased to 12 months, but reduced to six months upon submission of proof that the defendant installed and maintained an interlock device for at least six months, unless the court orders a longer interlock period. Previously the minimum was 6 months. This seems to be a compromise of earlier drafts which would have required either ignition interlocks to be installed or ankle bracelets to be worn.
- The interlock period would commence from the earlier of the date of sentencing, or the date that an interlock device was installed in advance of sentencing. Previously if installed before sentencing no credit was given.
- Good cause for the lack of installation of an interlock device may now include a finding that the person is not the owner of a motor vehicle if the person asserts, under oath, that he or she is not a vehicle owner and will not operate a vehicle during the period of interlock restriction. This will impose an obligation for the court to make a record at sentencing.
- Owner of a vehicle is clarified to include the person possessing the title.
This statute is in response to published reports stating that the actual installation rate of ignition interlock devices is less than one third. Many offenders are selling or transferring ownership of their vehicles in order to avoid installation of an interlock device, thus the increase to the minimum period of interlock installation absent proof of such installation. The Bill takes effect on November 1, 2013.
|
|
"Always pass on what you have learned."
- Yoda
|
|
|
