You may not need an attorney since if there is nothing in your blood, they will have a tough time charging you with anything. That being said, you should take advantage of any free consultation that an attorney might offer you in the event that you do get charged later. No matter how bad your field tests are, they still have to prove that there was some substance in your system at the time of driving that caused what was perceived as impairment.
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...
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.
Nearly all jurisdictions have stiffer penalties for higher BACs. I know off hand that California does so and also will slot you into a treatment program, not necessarily based on clinical needs, but instead through a cookie-cutter format that takes your BAC into account. I highly recommend you contact a local attorney immediately.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Unfortunately, the answer is usually "NO." FSTs are non-testimonial in nature and therefore not subject to the protections of Miranda. There is case directly on point called Heinemann v. Whitman County. However, if your freedom of movement, has been curtailed to that associated with a formal arrest, you may be able to argue and "constructive arrest." However that would require very specific and favorable facts.
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.