DWI Defense Attorney, Andrew Proto, recently had all DWI and felony suspended license charges dismissed in the Town of Rye after the prosecution was unable to oppose defense motions to dismiss the case. The client, a resident of the State of New York, was arrested for the DWI charges and felony suspended license charges. The client failed to appear in the Rye Town Court as directed. Although a bench warrant was issued, defense attorney Andrew Proto successfully argued via a motion to dismiss, that the prosecution violated the client’s speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, CPL 30.20, and the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.
Violation of Speedy Trial Rights: A Cornerstone of Defense
A skilled DWI lawyer must be vigilant in identifying and pursuing any violation of a client’s rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial.
Legal Precedents and Due Diligence
In a speedy trial motion, the legislative history and unambiguous language of CPL 30.30(4)(c) point inexorably to the conclusion that prosecutorial diligence in locating the defendant and/or securing his presence must be shown in order to invoke the exclusion for any period of time when the defendant was 'absent' or 'unavailable', and a bench warrant for his apprehension was outstanding. (People v. Bolden, 81 N.Y.2d 146).
The People cannot obtain the benefit of excluding that lengthy period without satisfactorily demonstrating the requisite due diligence. Absent such showing, these cases must by law be dismissed.
Once the defendant has alleged an unexcused delay greater than the statutory maximum, as has been alleged here, the prosecution must demonstrate that there is sufficient excludable time (see, People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2D 333). The due diligence question comes into play when the People seek to exclude delay resulting from the defendant's absence or unavailability. Due diligence means to exhaust all reasonable investigative leads. (People v. Petrianni, 24 AD2d 1224, People v. Grey, 259 AD2d 246).
Failure to exercise the requisite due diligence requires dismissal.
Constitutional Protections and New York Law
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution provide a defendant with the right to a speedy trial. U.S. Const. amend VI; U.S. Const. amend XIV. As the New York State Constitution does not explicitly contain a speedy trial guarantee, New York has incorporated the constitutional right into CPL 30.20 and Civil Rights Law § 12. See, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231 (1985).
Where a constitutional right to speedy trial has been violated, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the charge. People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 (N.Y. 1975); People v. Staley, 41 N.Y.2d 789, 396 N.Y.S.2d 339, 364 N.E.2d 1111 (N.Y. 1977).
Due Process and Post-Arrest Rights
Assuming that a Court does not find speedy trial, rights were violated under the Sixth Amendment, an accused also has a right to a speedy trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is also incorporated into CPL 30.20 and Civil rights Law § 12. Under a due process analysis, “[o]nce an arrest has been made, the criminal proceeding is deemed to have started, and the defendant is entitled, constitutionally, to a speedy trial.” People v. Staley, 41 N.Y.2d 789, 791 (N.Y. 1977); Dillingham v. United States, 423 US 64, 64-65 (1975).
In People v. Staley, the New York Court of Appeals held that “once a person stands accused of a crime, he must be prosecuted promptly. Sheer neglect or trifling… is not permissible.” Staley, 41 N.Y.2d at 791. In accordance with People v. Staley, the prosecution’s conduct in failing to produce the defendant client for a year after having been accused of the crime was impermissible under a due process analysis.
The Verdict: Charges Dismissed
After presenting the violation of speedy rights arguments to the prosecution and Court the District Attorney’s office could not respond and did not oppose DWI attorney Andrew Proto’s motion to dismiss all the charges.
Sealing the Arrest Record: Protecting the Client's Future
Upon the dismissal, Attorney Proto, made a motion to the Court to have the arrest sealed under New York State law, thereby preventing disclosure of the arrest, all insurance companies, licensing agencies, and potential employers. The motion to seal the arrest was granted by the Court.
The Best DWI Defense: Preparation and Expertise
With over 25 years of experience, Andrew Proto knows the best defense is proper preparation. Each case is an individual fact and circumstance and the best defense lies with preserving evidence, interviewing witnesses, attacking the District Attorney’s proof and witnesses to fight for the best result for each client.
Hire an Experienced Westchester County DWI Lawyer
Attorney Andrew Proto and Attorney David Sachs have the required experience to defend you in Westchester County in cases involving DWI and all criminal arrests. Their goal is to fight to have the DWI charges dismissed entirely or to arrive at the best possible plea bargain agreement. Should that option not be available, Andrew and David will compile the evidence and witnesses you will need to go to trial.
The team at our firm will make sure you are kept informed at all times regarding the status of your case and are always available to answer all your questions. They make sure you have all the evidence against you from the District Attorney, including 911 calls, police reports and police body camera videos, expert reports, BAC calibration records and any professional complaints made against the arresting officers prior to your arrest.
Andrew and David are well known for always going the extra mile for their DWI clients. Call Proto, Sachs & Brown, LLP for your free initial consultation (914) 946-4808. Our offices are conveniently located in White Plains and Cortlandt Manor, New York.