The answer is "forever." However, no lawyer can advise you that you should continue to run from this problem. You could be picked up in any other state and extradicted back to NY. While you may be in a lot of trouble now, running will only make it worse. No judge will be happy about the fact that you absconded from justice to a period of time. My advice, contact a competent NY attorney and address this matter before it comes back to haunt you.
4 lawyers agreed with this answer
I agree with Mr. Blair that the terms of your probation should have been made clear to you. Since this is probably a District or Municipal Court matter, "active" probation, in many jurisdictions, is typically ordered when treatment of some sort still needs to be monitored. But like many of the other answers indicate, you should contact your attorney immeidately and get to the bottom of this. You certainly don't want to be missing any probation appointments.
2 lawyers agreed with this answer
To reiterate the sentiments of my good friend Mr. Wagnild, there is nothing illegal about that so long as the ages are correct. The morality and/or safety of it is for another discussion, but so long as no money is exchanged, and they're all consenting adults, you are probably good to go.
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
You definatley need competent legal counsel. This could be a difficult case due to the high breath test, however breath testing is far from an exact science. "Tolerance" is not at issue due to the fact that being over the legal limit is a "per se" violation of the law. It would not be proper to argue that since you have a high tolerance, the numbers are meaningless. However, if the breath machine (DataMaster) indicates a very high number, and you do not exhibit signs of impairment, that...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
Most correctional facilities in Washington have a "good time" clause which is really done due to jail overcrowding. If this applies in this situation, and it will depend on where the time is being served, inmates will serve 2/3 of the time in custody. So, if you've been told that he will only serve 20 days on a 30 day sentence, that makes sense. He will be released from jail on the date that he is expected to be released and then must report to EHM on the date that the court ordered him to...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
Unfortunatley, the answer is usually no. FSTs are non-testimonial in nature and therefore, not protected by Miranda. There is a case directly on point: Heinemann v. Whitman County. However, if there has been a more enhanced restriction of movement, other than what's usually associated with a traffic stop, you may be able to argue a "constructive arrest." But that argument would be very fact specific.
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
Police officers and the Court has very limited liability that you can pursue a civil action on. It typically requires a blatant violation of your civil liberties. Negligence or sloppiness in the investigation typically does not create a cause of action. In fact, their negligence and sloppiness appears to have benefitted you by the dismissal of the action. I agree with my colleagues here that you should contact a civil attorney for a more thorough review of your case.
2 lawyers agreed with this answer
I agree with the previous posts that if you win on appeal its free, and if you lose, you owe money. That is not how the system works. I would consult with an independent appellate counsel to first find out if what you have been told is the true state of the law. In essence they're saying that we know you can't afford a lawyer, but we'll give you one for free. And if you win, its still free, but if you lose, you'll have to pay. Where does that money come from if you were already found to...
The evidentiary breath test, conducted on a BAC DataMaster, will be conducted after you have been arrested at the station. A lawful arrest is a prerequisite to a request for an evidentiary breath test under RCW 46.20.308. While there is the "two hour rule" which states that a test must be conducted within 2 hours of driving, a test taken after two hours can still be used as "other competent evidence of impairment" under RCW 46.61.506 and RCW 46.61.502. Typically, a test is conducted at a...
I agree with Mr. Lawrence that you should seek legal advice on this. Essentially, the officer was asking for a "consent" search but gained that consent through threats. The "inevitable discovery" doctrine will be in play here. In Washington, the Hammond opinion states that the odor of marijuana from the car is probable cause to arrest the driver for possession. There are many layers of complexity to this issue.