Abolish The Prompt Suspension Law: A Pringle Hearing Lament

The prompt suspension law in New York gives a judge the power to immediately suspend the license of a person charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). It is this writer's hope that one day, this terrible law will be repealed and replaced with a policy that makes sense. The legislature believed that the prompt suspension law would save lives by removing dangerous drivers from the road. This notion is disingenuous at best, and simply absurd at most. Because almost every person charged with DWI can keep driving by simply showing up to court and pleading guilty. Thus, an admission of guilt is rewarded with the keys to the car.

As an attorney who concentrates some of my criminal practice on DWI defense, I have to counsel people charged with DWI about making some very difficult decisions. I have a case now where my client's alleged BAC is .08% which is the statutory minimum in New York. It is my opinion, and I bet many prosecutors would agree, a .08% case will never make it to a jury trial because breath testing devices are unreliable and will not overcome the reasonable doubt standard at such low BAC readings (among other problems). The fact of the matter is, a breath testing device is half machine with moving parts and half computer with secret software. They are prone to interference from all kinds of chemicals and interference from radio waves. A breath testing device assumes every person's chemical and physical attributes are the same. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture. Machines make mistakes. People make mistakes. When the BAC reading is .16% or over, it may not matter that there is strong possibility the reading is off a percentage or two (which most BAC measurements generally are). However, when the BAC is .08% there exists a strong probability the defendant is innocent which becomes a reasonable doubt. In my experience, it makes sense to fight a .08% case because the worst case scenario would be a bench trial on the lesser included DWI offense, Driving While Ability impaired (DWAI). The standard plea bargain in a low BAC DWI case is generally an offer to reduce the charge to DWAI. By rejecting the offer and preparing for trial, a prosecutor may be encouraged to reduce the charge to a DWAI which does not get tried in front of a jury, but rather a single Judge which is a far simpler matter to handle for a prosecutor than a jury trial. In other words, you have nothing to lose by fighting other than you have to pay a lawyer like me.

So my client decided to contest the charges and the Judge is suspending his license after a hearing next week (assuming we lose, which we will). This hearing is called a Pringle Hearing. Judges' hate these hearings and I don't blame them. Criminal defense attorneys love them because it gives them an opportunity to question the police and generally prosecutors do not participate. I've heard stories about a legendary NY DWI lawyer who has kept Town Justices on the bench for five hours late into night while conducting a Pringle Hearing.

The purpose of the Pringle Hearing is to give a DWI defendant the opportunity to rebut the court's finding that a valid chemical test result was obtained and that there was reasonable cause to arrest the defendant for DWI. After the court makes these findings, the defendant is given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the findings of the court. Well how do you rebut the finding that the chemical test was valid? You subpoena the chemical test operator to court for the hearing. You have him bring maintenance records, calibration records, test logs, etc. You question the operator about his experience and make sure he or she knows what they are doing. How do you rebut the finding by the court that there was reasonable cause for the arrest? You put the arresting officer on the stand. He arrested your client because he allegedly observed indicia of intoxication such as glassy eyes, impaired motor coordination, slurred speech, etc. Then he made your client perform the so called Field Sobriety Tests (which are designed to produce failing results for sober people). Interestingly, the Field Sobriety test were designed to be accurate something like 80% of the time to detect BAC's in excess of .10%. In the case I have been discussing here, my client who blew a .08% allegedly failed the Field Sobriety Tests. This fact suggests there was something wrong with either the breath test machine, or the Field Sobriety Tests themselves.

So you can see why Judges generally find Pringle Hearings to be a major pain in the ass. The defense attorney is going to try to get as much testimony from the State's witnesses as possible. Pringle Hearings are simply another bump in the very long and winding road of DWI litigation. Well Judge Richard P. Tarantino of the City Court of the City of Glens Falls decided he had enough of the Pringle Hearing charade and put a stop to it by preventing a very prominent DWI lawyer by the name of Eric Sills from questioning a cop about any of the issues I went over in the above paragraph, which all bear directly on evidence that has the tendency to rebut the findings of the court. Eric Sills filed for declaratory relief and the Appellate Division upheld Judge Tarantino's ruling that severely limits the scope of the Pringle Hearing. You can read the decision here:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/504307.pdf

For those of you practicing in the 3rd Department or for those of you arrested for DWI around here, the Pringle game is changing:

"We are not persuaded by petitioner's contention that his
due process rights were violated by respondent's rulings. While
issues pertaining to the lawfulness of the police stop, probable
cause for arrest, and whether the breath test device was working
properly at the time of the test are relevant to the
admissibility of breath test results at a criminal trial (see
People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700 [1986]), and may ultimately
bear on the determination of criminal culpability, they are
beyond the scope of a Pringle hearing."

Vanderminden v. Tarantino

I've got a Pringle Hearing on my calendar for next week. I was in court last night for the arraignment on my case and the Judge informed me he is aware of the above case and advised me to keep it in mind. The court is trying to foreclose the ability of a defendant to rebut the findings of the court by eliminating the only source of evidence. I can't help but feeling my client's Constitutional rights are in jeopardy.

The New York prompt suspension law that spawned the Pringle Hearing and its legacy of confusion and bad case law should be repealed as soon as possible. In this day and age, when government is digging deeper and deeper in to the taxpayers' pockets, idiotic policy like the prompt suspension law should be repealed. A conspiracy theorist might suggest the prompt suspension law and DWI laws in general were inspired by the criminal defense bar. Even though I make a living doing the work resulting from the prompt suspension law, I want it to end. This law causes true despair in the hearts and minds of ordinary people who didn't hurt anyone or anything. And most importantly, the Prompt Suspension law does not work at all. Its supposed to keep dangerous drivers off the road, if only until they plead guilty or win their case.

If you do not agree with me I will conclude with this fact: After all this trouble, the hearings, the subpoenas, the stenographers, the lawsuits, the deprivation of liberty, the assault on due process rights, etc., guess what? Almost every driver can be driving immediately after the Judge suspends their license by asking the court for what is called a "hardship" license. It's a restricted license, but the defendant can drive and he or she is right back on the road.

For another great discussion of this problem check out Warren Redlich's post here: http://albany-lawyer.blogspot.com/2008/12/pringle-hearing-and-dwi-prompt.html