Nieves
was charged with, among other things, driving while under the influence of
alcohol. He was pulled over after an officer observed that Nieves' vehicle did
not have any lights lit anywhere, and was overtaking other, slower cars from
the left side. The officer noticed Nieves had bloodshot, blurry eyes and
slurred speech. A portable breath test indicated a 0.1 BAC. When Nieves was
asked at the precinct if he would consent to a breath test, he indicated not
until he spoke to a lawyer. The court found the stop of the vehicle was
justified for Nieves' violation of not having car lights on after dark, and the
officer had probable cause, based on observations, to arrest Nieves for DWI.
The court opined if suppression of the refusal to take a blood alcohol test was
warranted if Nieves was denied his right to counsel. It ruled Nieves was never
afforded the opportunity to provide the officer with complete sentences, as the
officer consistently cut-off Nieves nearly after every question posed. The
court found Nieves specifically and unequivocally requested counsel before
refusing to the chemical test, finding the officer never took steps to enable
Nieves to attempt to promptly reach an attorney. Thus, suppression of the
refusal was granted.
The
full story can be found here: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202763336095
No comments:
Post a Comment