Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1987–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kylesgreen2 sentences2023The two hour limitation contained in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 "does not apply where the defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to the administration of the breath test" ( People v Marietta , 61 AD3d 997, 998 [2009]). 2023The two hour limitation contained in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 "does not apply where the defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to the administration of the breath test" ( People v Marietta , 61 AD3d 997, 998 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Atkinsgreen2 sentences2024The holdings in People v Odum, 31 NY3d 344 (2018) (Refusal that occurs outside two hour period under the deemed consent provision of VTL § 1194[2][a] is inadmissible), and in People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007 (1995) (the two hour limitation in VTL § 1194 (2) has no application when the defendant has expressly and voluntarily consented to the administration of the breath test) on which the defendant also [*6]relies, are inapposite to the facts of this case. 2009The two-hour limitation does not apply where the defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to the administration of the breath test (see People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007, 1008-1009 [1995]; cf. People v Casimiro, 308 AD2d 456, 456 [2003]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Odumgreen2 sentences2024The holdings in People v Odum, 31 NY3d 344 (2018) (Refusal that occurs outside two hour period under the deemed consent provision of VTL § 1194[2][a] is inadmissible), and in People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007 (1995) (the two hour limitation in VTL § 1194 (2) has no application when the defendant has expressly and voluntarily consented to the administration of the breath test) on which the defendant also [*6]relies, are inapposite to the facts of this case. 2023Any warning that police gave defendant - that his license would be suspended if he refused the test - "was correct ... [and] [p]roviding that warning to [defendant] even after expiration of the two hour period, does not constitute coercion, and does not render [his] subsequent consent involuntarily given" ( People v Odum , 31 NY3d 344, 354 [2018 Wilson, J., concurring]; see Matter of Endara-Caicedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles , 38 NY3d 20 [2022]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ameighgreen1 sentence2024If, on the other hand, the defendant contends that the ER nurse who took his blood sample did so without his consent, it is also settled that a seizure by a private person without governmental involvement is not a proper subject for a motion to suppress the evidence obtained thereby. (see People v Ameigh , 95 AD2d 367, 369 [1983] ["Thus, the entire statutory framework simply does not address itself to evidence of blood-alcohol levels derived as a result of bona fide medical procedures in diagnosing or treating an injured driver. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dobsongreen1 sentence2009We find that the defendant’s consent to this test was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances (see generally People v Dobson, 285 AD2d 737, 738 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Casimirogreen1 sentence2009The two-hour limitation does not apply where the defendant expressly and voluntarily consents to the administration of the breath test (see People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007, 1008-1009 [1995]; cf. People v Casimiro, 308 AD2d 456, 456 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pompiliogreen1 sentence2001Next, the People cite People v Pompilio ( 137 Misc 2d 997, 999 [1987]) in that it holds “Calibration of the breathalyzer instrument within six months of the administration of the breath test to the defendant is one means the prosecution has for meeting this burden, but it is not the only means.” The Pompilio court (at 999) cited Gower, Freeland, and Todd in holding that “No precise or even general guidelines can be laid down in advance; necessarily the requirements in each case will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Manino
green
1 sentence2001Consequently, the so-called ‘six-month rule’ no longer exists, if it ever did.” Lastly, the People cite People v Manino ( 147 AD2d 926 [4th Dept 1989]) in which the court allowed the admission of the breath test results when the instrument had been calibrated 11 months before. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Ayala
green
1 sentence2001The defendant alleged that the police officer who administered the breathalyzer did not adequately follow a departmental operational checklist, and that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial Ayala hearing to examine the facts and circumstances attendant to the administration of the breath test (see, People v Ayala, 89 NY2d 874 [1996]). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Todd
green
1 sentence1987(People v Todd, supra.) Calibration of the breathalyzer instrument within six months of the administration of the breath test to the defendant is one means the prosecution has for meeting this burden, but it is not the only means. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.