Thursday, October 04, 2012

New DMV Rules for Repeat DWI: A Phony Emergency

The New York DMV has issued a new set of proposed rules affecting repeat DWI cases. This received a brief splash of coverage in the media, such as Casey Seiler's article in the Times Union. This has an impact on anyone convicted of a DWI offense who has a prior offense within the past 25 years.*
Update: A number of people have called me asking what they can do about their situation. A friend of mine, Eric Sills, is working on challenging the new regulations. His office phone is 518-456-6456.
So far we have yet to see a thorough analysis of the proposal, or discussion of the DMV's decision to impose the rules before public comment as an "emergency." In this post I discuss the phony emergency and abuse of the regulatory process. In the next I'll discuss the details of the rules. --Update - link is here: NY DWI Repeat Offender New DMV Rules --

DMV describes this as about "Dangerous Repeat Alcohol or Drug Offenders" on the DMV's Proposed Rules page, with the following note:
Emergency Rule
Effective September 25, 2012
Comments accepted until
November 26, 2012
DMV Commissioner Fiala
The emergency designation puts the rule into effect immediately, before public comment.  The idea is that something has happened (an emergency) that makes this urgent and something that must be done.

What's the emergency? New York State was one of the first to make drunk driving illegal, back in 1910 (per Wikipedia on history of drunk driving laws). The legislature has made changes to the law over the years, such as adding Aggravated DWI back in 2006, and the new ignition interlock law in 2010. The laws already address repeat offenders in a variety of ways.

Here's a common definition of emergency:
A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
The repeat DWI problem may be serious and dangerous, but the "unexpected" is missing. There is no emergency. There is no need for immediate action either. Using the emergency approach is an end run around the normal regulatory process.

The regulatory approach is also an end run around the legislative process. DMV is making new and substantial rules affecting people accused of drunk driving offenses. This is really the legislature's job, and something they have not hesitated to do in the past.

For example, Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1196 sets rules regarding the Drinking Driver Program (which includes eligibility for a conditional license) and subsection 4 bars repeat offenders if their prior offense was within five years. VTL 1193 makes an offense a felony if there is a prior offense within ten years.

If there is a need for further rules regarding repeat offenders, the legislature has demonstrated a willingness to do something about it. The proper path in a representative democracy is for our elected representatives to make such rules through the legislative process. Instead the DMV decided to skip that and create its own rules.

One real consequence of this is that it blindsides people dealing with DWI cases right now because it is retroactive. An attorney friend contacted me about a case where he already negotiated a plea agreement in early September. His client will now be affected by a rule that did not exist when he committed his offense. Thanks to the "emergency" trick, they did not have notice of the rule when he made his plea deal. If this were done through the legislative process or at least not used the phony emergency designation there would have been some public notice of what was going on.

In my next post I'll provide a detailed analysis of the changes in the new rules.


*One of the proposed rules amends Regulation 134.10(b) to prohibit those with 2 convictions within the past 25 years from early termination of suspension/revocation after completion of the Drinking Driver Program.

21 comments:

mjbro said...

so how are you going to stop this injustice? it does need to be challenged.

Unknown said...

How am "I" going to stop this? Sorry, but that's not for me to do. Perhaps someone will challenge this via an Article 78 proceeding.

mjbro said...

article 78 is an option but rarely work. what are your thoughts on a 440 motions? someone could argue that 5 years ago when they plead guilty and received a permanent revoke with a waiver after 5 or 8 years that they would have plead differently if a law was going to be retroactive some 5yrs later. also what happens to this so called waiver? does it not exist anymore?

Unknown said...

I don't know. Certainly another idea worth trying.

Anonymous said...

I had a dwai in 1992-dwi 2000and one 2010 with a vehicular assult.I paid my dues.I applied for my licence in may.DMV held the application until the new law came out.Now there saying that what i agree on in 2010 dosn't matter.I fall into the new law.I would of fought it if i new i was going to lose my licence for life.WHAT CAN I DO?Will the attorney general help me?One more question.Does my dwi and vehicular assult count as two incidents?

Unknown said...

Great to hear from you Anonymous. Excellent questions. You should discuss with your lawyer from your 2010 case. I'm not sure this means you've lost it for life.

You may want to challenge the new rules via what's called an Article 78 proceeding. Our firm would consider doing this for you, but it would be expensive.

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe this law is going to be passed. If you really break it down and understand this law then you would see that it is not only unfair it is impractical. How can this be passed? This commissioner is ridiculous. After reading this briefly I started to research the issue a little further. For the average person this is hard to understand by just reading this blog. Basically, this commissioner has the authority to change constitution rights of the people. I am shocked that this law is even being entertained. DWI cases should be on a case to case basis if you ask me. I mean pretty soon we will have to give a blood sample before we are able to turn a car on for a speeding ticket. I don’t have any traffic violations so please don’t mistake me for an angry DWI driver. However, I did meet a person who had two DUAI charges in his distant distant past and on his way home from a work party two years ago rear ended someone lightly. The cops who pulled him over said he was drunk but didn’t give him a breathalyzer test. I can certainly vouch that this person was not drunk and probably not even buzzed but he was hit with a DWI. Because of his distant past, fighting this charge (his word against the cops) was impossible. He plead guilty and there was no question he was slapped with house arrest and probation. He has paid over $25,000 dollars in fines and legal fees. He pays $24 dollars every day to get back and forth to work and has done everything he was supposed to do. He finally got permission to get his license, buy a car and put the ignition interlock in. So he did. When he went to DMV the Commissioner put him in this Emergency Rule and dated his paperwork for September 25, 2012. However, he has been waiting since April. Fiala has been putting his request on hold for months and is trying to wait for when this bill is passed. MY POINT : If he knew this rule two years ago when he was convicted he would have fought tooth and nail no matter how much the cost and he would have plead NOT GUILTY!!!! So I looked further into this issue and I am surprised there is so little comments on this blog. Fiala is putting a hold on thousands of cases until her law is passed. She is a woman with a huge power trip issue. I am surprised there is not a civil suit against her. I wish I could share this blog on face book so more people know what is really going on!

Unknown said...

Thank you for your comment. You are certainly welcome to share this on facebook. Just post this link: http://albany-lawyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-dmv-rules-for-repeat-dwi-phony.html

But I understand those with a DWI past may not want to be so public about it.

Anonymous said...

What site can you read the public comment and write one?Now you say this is retroactive.If so why not make every new law retroactive.So its like they can make another law say 2 years down the road with new provisions that would affect the people from the previous one and by that time nobody will ever get there license,Ex:2 years you get your license back with a interlock and 3 years you lose it for good.And so on and so on.Basically plea bargins are obsolete.

Unknown said...

The proposed rules page says how to submit comments.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion this law does not seem to be about justice for the sake of public safety. I am a repeat offender myself & I agree with extreme consequences for all offenders. However, the way this law has been processed is very disturbing and a poor example to the general public in terms of our faith in the law overall. For one example, with todays technology such as a breathalyzer, wouldn't it make more sense to institute more strict rules requiring offenders new & repeaters to have to have one of these devices in their car for life before deciding someone should never drive again? people do change, and genuinely overcome their issues with alcohol as I have. I can honestly tell you I will never drink and drive again as I have learned through treatment & personal growth regarding my mistakes and behavior. And I will tell you, had we had such a law of a lifetime breathalyzer in affect I wouldn't be writing you this letter today because I would never have been arrested for a DWI as I was 2 years ago. This law regarding retroactivity is appalling not only in the nature in which it was created, but also an insult to our faith in our system. I understand lives have been lost. Fortunately, I have never hurt anyone or had an accident as a result of my DWI. I have been sober & happy and have changed my life. And now I'm faced with difficult changes as I will have to vacate my suburban apartment and face the more expensive costs of an urban life, uproot my child, and have great concerns for my future adjusting to an urban atmosphere for my entire future? I did not see this as a possibility for my destiny when i began my court process two years ago and that is wrong. I pray the creator of this law will one day personally realize the flip side of the coin and the lives she is negatively affecting by her decision making, which is clearly morally & ethically questionable.

Anonymous said...

This is a sham! There are people who might not live in a bus accessible area that still would like the chance to be successful adults. Maybe the government wants more people on welfare because there aren't enough receiving benefits as it is...right? This is an injustice to any and almost every single person in this state. Maybe 1 in 10 people can honestly say they have never driven under the influence. They should be considered the minority not the majority in this situation. People make mistakes that is the essence of human nature. I am not saying that drunk driving is okay in any sense. I am saying that rules have already been put in place to punish people that have been found guilty of this so why double punish people who have already paid their dues to society. Why make it impossible for people to lead successful lives ever again?

mjbro said...

wouldnt ex post facto apply here? can we sue the governor for due process? everyone that was promised a waiver after five years to drive again if approved were lied to and dmv held drivers in limbo until a law was passed, how is this legal? why couldnt they apply the law that was on the books, 5 year revoke with a waiver after 5. also please submit comments on dmv page.

Anonymous said...

i submitted comment on dmv page; also sent them an email stating i wanted to argue this new law. they said i couldn't do anything until i received something in writing regarding my case. i was approved for my license in february- went to dmv- took my permit- got 100 went back up to window to pick up my permit and was told it's on 'HOLD'. don't think this should be retroactive when i received an approval for my license.

Anonymous said...

I can relate to the difficult emotions discovering you will lose your license for longer or permanently. Drinking and driving is a serious issue, and as we know, driving is a privilege & not a right. For me the source of discontent is not necessarily about the penalty itself, but about the way this law was passed and applied retroactively to those who have already been sentenced through court. I was eligible to get my license back in May of this year, and it was placed on hold until this new law was passed. This is quite a leap in terms of the penalties that were in place when I was originally sentenced. I fully accept whatever penalties the DMV would like to enforce as I personally would never commit this crime again. I was never required to complete any alcohol treatment program by the requirements of DMV as a result of my most recent conviction providing the evaluation counselor agreed I didn't need it if that be the case. But I did complete an intensive substance abuse program at my own will. And the experience along with months of psycho therapy changed me in many positive ways. Creating this law and making it retroactive upon the group of us with pending applications is wrong and abuses our civil rights. Perhaps we would have made better choices had this law been in place for us prior to our conviction. And perhaps we would have handled our cases in court differently had we been notified of new regulations. It seems reasonable that an interlock would be more successful at preventing drinking and driving rather than permanently dismissing a persons license. Our most severe of DWI offenders will likely drive anyway whether they have a license or not. And they will be driving without being monitored with such a device. There must be some monetary reason why an interlock is not an acceptable alternative to permanent license revocations? The retroactive aspect of this law should be challenged and recognized as an abuse of the system and our rights under the law.

mjbro said...

any new information or updates on this? i have called driver improvement and get no where. they are clueless and useless. should not even have a number to call because they are of no help. not sure what to do since they dont know the law and no lawyer that i have contacted understand it.
the wording is vague and evasive.

Unknown said...

@mjbro - There is an update at the top of the post, about a lawyer friend who is working on a lawsuit. Please read that update and call him.

Anonymous said...

What is your cost for a article 78 proceeding?

Unknown said...

I'd charge a minimum of $10K and I don't really recommend hiring me. Contact Eric Sills - mentioned in the post.

Anonymous said...

I got two DUI and in DWI within 10 years. I accumulated a lot of points thought the years as well. I was told if I completed in patient and probation for 5 years I could apply for my license again. I just applied and got denied and told I may never drive again. Is there any hope of getting my license back even if its conditional so I can drive myself to work? I am the sole provider for my family and this is very stressful.

Unknown said...

I suggest calling Eric Sills.