Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
DWI Law Update: IIDs, Portable Breath Tests and Driving – What We Need to Know. What is "Leandra's Law"?.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Leandra's Law was signed into law on November 18, 2009 in honor of Leandra Rosado. Leandra was an 11-year old killed while she rode in a vehicle with the intoxicated mother of one of her friends. In response to this tragedy, the NYS Legislature made several changes to the Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL).
Term of the Ignition Interlock (IID) condition - here there is discretion. The minimum must be at least 6 months, but it can be up to the duration of the revocable sentence imposed (i.e. one year for a c.d. and 3 years for probation.)
The current National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) model specifications for breath alcohol ignition interlock devices were published in 1992. See 57 Fed Reg 11772 (1992). In 2006, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register asking for comments regarding the 1992 specifications. See 71 Fed Reg 8047 (Feb. 15, 2006) (available through GPO Access [www.gpoaccess.gov]). The 1992 specifications appear as an appendix to the 2006 notice.
The majority reversed the motion court's decision to grant the Defendant's motion to suppress. The appellate court found probable cause based on the Defendant's "class signs of intoxication," including bloodshot, watery eyes; alcohol on his breath; and unsteadiness. The court noted:
while the suppression court found that the officer's testimony was "at times" not credible, the court made no specific finding that the officer's testimony regarding his observations of defendant (or defendant's pre-arrest admission) was not credible.
Justice Schoenfeld, in dissent, analyzed the officer's testimony in depth to show inconsistencies. "The self-contradictory and confusing testimony of the arresting officer entitled the trial judge to find that there was no probable cause for [the] arrest." The dissent also makes a reference to the officer's possible testifying—using the "'magic' words to establish probable cause."