LocationsTroy, Latham & Saratoga OfficesLocations

(Main Office and Mailing Address)

Call(518) 274-5820

View MapThe Jones Building
28 Second Street
Troy, NY


Call(518) 783-3843

View MapLatham Office
7 Airport Park Boulevard
Latham, NY


Call(518) 584-8886

View MapThe West Building
511 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY


GEICO Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Over Its Use of Biased Medical Opinions

In a 5-0 decision issued on December 14, 2017, the New York State Appellate Division, Third Department, re-instated claims against GEICO Insurance Company for deceptive business practices related to its use of so-called “independent” medical doctors.

The precedent setting case of Brown v. Government Employees Insurance Company (available at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2017/524696.pdf ) now makes clear that insurance companies cannot simply deny claims based upon biased medical reports.  The case alleges that GEICO’s “independent” medical examiners have a strong financial motive to systematically issue reports that deny benefits whenever an argument can be made that the injuries are pre-existing or degenerative in nature.  It is further alleged that GEICO hires only experts who will go along with its scheme to defraud applicants out of benefits. It is alleged that the “independent” experts have a financial incentive to give GEICO what it wants: medical opinions that support denial of benefits.

Ryan M. Finn, a Partner with E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP (https://joneshacker.com/), represents Brown in the action, and stated as follows “this Decision should be a wake-up call for the insurance industry.  Attorneys representing injured victims have been referring to these exams as defense medical exams for a long time and for good reason:  there is nothing independent about the process and many of these doctors make millions of dollars issuing reports to deny lost wages and medical expenses to injured victims who most need the help.”  For more information please contact Ryan Finn, Esq.  at rfinn@joneshacker.com or 518-274-5820.

Your Personal Injury Claim and the Auto Insurance Company’s Bag of Dirty Tricks

personal injury settlement

When you are hurt in an auto accident caused by someone else, you can become very
dependent on an auto insurance company that you may have never even heard of.
That’s OK, don’t they insist on what good neighbors they are? The harsh reality,
however, is that insurance companies are in business to make money – and they
don’t make money paying out claims.

That fact puts you and the insurance company at odds with each other: it is in your
interest to obtain every dime of compensation you are entitled to, and it is in
their interest to pay as little as possible. It is this adversarial relationship, in addition to their extensive experience negotiating claims like yours, that puts you at a disadvantage at the negotiating table.

It is best to simply hire an experienced Albany personal injury lawyer to handle the claim – just so you will know what you are up against. However, the following are some time-tested auto insurance company tricks that you are bound to run into if you elect to negotiate your own claim:  

Gerrymandering the Scope of Coverage

The best way to reduce their payout to zero is to convince you that the policy you are
claiming against (typically the at-fault driver’s policy) doesn’t cover your injuries at all. Sometimes, the insurance company claims that the accident you are involved in is not covered in the policy. They may do this by over-interpreting the language of the policy to try to open up a manufactured loophole in coverage.

Monitoring Your Social Network Accounts

If the amount of your claim is large, do not assume the insurance company won’t put an investigator on your case to monitor your social media account for information they can use to suggest that you are exaggerating your injuries (a photo of you standing and smiling, for example). Beware of friend requests from people you don’t know while your claim is

“You Don’t Really Need That Operation”

Insurance adjusters are not doctors, and they are not qualified to determine what type of medical treatment you do or do not need.

The Runaround

Insurance companies have endless ways to delay your claim. It can be difficult to contact the person in charge of your case, for example, and they are masters of endless bureaucratic delay. In extreme cases, they might attempt to lull you to sleep with promises that never materialize and cause you to miss the statute of limitations deadline.

Blaming You for the Accident

You can be almost sure that the insurance company is going to try to pull this one at some
point. Under New York personal injury law, if they can pin even 10 percent of the accident on you, their payout is reduced by 10 percent. If they can pin most of the fault on you, you might even end up with a net loss if the other driver sues you.

Asking for a Recorded Statement

The insurance company is likely to ask you to give a recorded statement about the
accident. Don’t give it to them unless your lawyer approves it, because their tricks are endless. If you even answer “fine” to the question “How are you?”, the insurance company may try to use it against you. And that’s just the beginning.

“You Don’t Need to Retain a Lawyer for this Type of Claim”    

When they tell you this, you can be almost certain that the truth is that they are the ones who
don’t need you to retain a lawyer for “this type of claim.” If your lawyer happens to be E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, we can assure you that this is true – the insurance company definitely could do without us. But can you?

Demanding Unfettered Access to Your Medical Records

In a manner of speaking, you could say that insurance adjusters are trained fisherman. For
them, complete access to your medical records is like a lake they can fish in to find an excuse not to honor your claim (by blaming your injury on a pre-existing condition, for example).

“Sign Here Please…”

Don’t sign anything without the advice of your lawyer, even after reading it. Insurance
companies are bureaucracies, and they have all sorts of forms they would just love you to sign. Be especially careful with checks written for less than the full amount of your claim – they are often bait. The fine print on the other side may release the insurance company from any further responsibility for your injuries.

Signing such a check before your condition has stabilized is especially dangerous because you don’t yet know the full value of your claim. If you sign a check today, have surgery tomorrow, and suffer unexpected complications the next day, you wouldn’t want to have signed away your right to further compensation.

“Nickel and Diming” You to Death

The insurance company may take the strategy of defending every inch of ground by
disputing every medical expense – claiming they are only liable for part of one, the other one was “unnecessary,” etc. Each objection may seem small, but they add up quickly.

Shortchanging You on Pain and Suffering Damages

Pain and suffering damages are naturally more difficult to quantify than medical expenses. An insurance company would love to take advantage of this ambiguity to exploit a fact that you might not be aware of: when they apply, pain and suffering damages typically amount to several times the amount of medical expenses. Your pain matters, and don’t let anyone tell you anything different.

Take Decisive Action Today

You have been injured by a careless driver. That fact cannot be undone. Don’t add to the
tragedy, however, by allowing a stingy insurance company to smooth-talk you out of the personal injury compensation you deserve. And don’t try to handle your claim without a lawyer. Don’t worry, you can afford us. We charge nothing unless we win, and our fee will not come due until your money actually arrives.

At E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, you can expect to be treated with respect, empathy, and consummate professionalism. If you have been injured in an accident that may have been someone else’s fault,contact us today to schedule a free initial consultation by phone, at our office in Albany, or even at your home or in the hospital.

Local Attorneys Recognized as “Super Lawyers”

Twelve attorneys from the Capital Region law firm E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy LLP were recently selected as 2018 Upstate New York “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” honorees.

E. Stewart Jones, Jr., Founding Partner, was ranked number one in Upstate New York. Managing Partner, James E. Hacker was ranked in the Top 10. John F. Harwick, Partner, was ranked within the Top 25 in the Hudson Valley for Personal Injury.

Partner James C. Knox and Associates David I. Iversen and Brett T. Williams were also recognized as “Rising Stars” by Super Lawyers.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, and each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement.

The following E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy LLP lawyers, who practice in Upstate New York, were selected for inclusion in the 2018 New York Super Lawyers list:

SITTING left to right:
James E. Hacker – Personal Injury: Plaintiff
E. Stewart Jones, Jr. – Personal Injury / Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff
David R. Murphy – Property Tax Litigation and Disputes

STANDING left to right:
Ryan M. Finn – Employment Litigation: Plaintiff
John F. Harwick – Personal Injury: Plaintiff
Michael W. Kessler – Personal Injury / Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff
Thomas J. Higgs – Business Litigation
Meghan R. Keenholts – Personal Injury: Plaintiff
James C. Knox – Criminal Defense
Patrick L. Seely, Jr. – Real Estate Litigation
David I. Iversen – Personal Injury: Plaintiff
Brett T. Williams – Real Estate Litigation

The firm has offices in Albany, Latham, Saratoga and Troy.

Victim of Police Hit-and-Run and Cover-up Files Notice of Claim Against Montgomery County and Sheriff’s Department

sheriff badge hit and run


For Immediate Release: Oct. 22, 2018

Victim of Police Hit-and-Run and Cover-up Files Notice of Claim Against Montgomery County and Sheriff’s Department

AMSTERDAM, N.Y. — The teenage victim of a hit-and-run accident involving a Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department investigator and of the subsequent attempt to cover up the crime has filed a notice of claim that he intends to file a federal lawsuit.

Julian Louscher, 18, was skateboarding on Northern Boulevard in the Town of Amsterdam on the evening of July 11, 2018, when he was struck from behind by a personal car driven by Sheriff’s Department Investigator Roberto Gracia. Mr. Louscher was thrown across the hood of the car, shattering the windshield.  He suffered head, shoulder, arm and other injuries.

Investigator Gracia left the scene of the personal injury accident without calling an ambulance or notifying police, according to Mr. Louscher’s Notice of Claim. Another Sheriff’s Deputy allegedly learned of the hit-and-run and, with Investigator Gracia, conspired to conceal the crime.

The following day the Sheriff’s Department was alerted when it received a call from a third-party asking that it check on the well-being of a person who may have been hit by a car the night before. A subsequent investigation revealed the involvement of the two law enforcement officers.

The law firm E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy is representing Mr. Louscher. The case will be filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department announced in August that Investigator Gracia and Deputy Theresa Pingitore had been arrested. Investigator Gracia is charged with leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, a misdemeanor; tampering with physical evidence, a Class E felony; and official misconduct, a Class A misdemeanor, for failing to report the accident. Deputy Pingitore is charged with official misconduct. The Schenectady County District Attorney has been named the special prosecutor in the case. The criminal investigation is continuing.

“Mr. Louscher suffered personal injuries and violations of his civil rights when he was struck by a car driven by a law enforcement officer who then conspired with another law enforcement officer to cover up the crime,” said attorney John F. Harwick, a partner in E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy. “Two individuals sworn to uphold the law not only broke the law but engaged in conduct designed to thwart an investigation and impede justice.”

The lawsuit will allege that Investigator Gracia inflicted personal injuries on Mr. Louscher and violated his civil rights and, with Deputy Pingitore, attempted to cover up the crime in the course of their employment with the Sheriff’s Department.  The lawsuit will also allege that the Sheriff’s Department and the County failed to properly hire, train and supervise the two employees.

For Further Information:

John F. Harwick

Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy
(518) 274-5820
Bill Richmond
Behan Communications Inc.
(518) 792-3856

Proposed New Campus Sexual Misconduct Guidelines Would Strengthen Protections for the Accused

sexual misconduct guidelines

Campus sexual misconduct has long been a concern of university administrators, social activists, and politicians alike. This concern sparked a movement to strengthen the protection of victims of campus sexual misconduct. The zenith of this movement was probably reached in 2011 when the federal government’s “Dear Colleague” letter was delivered to over 4,600 schools.

The “Dear Colleague” letter advised colleges and universities of strengthened sexual misconduct standards that they would have to meet to remain eligible for federal aid. Although it was hailed by many as a landmark policy decision for the protection of victims of sexual misconduct, within a few years, many people had concluded that the pendulum had swung too far the other way. That men were being deprived of the right to defend themselves against sexual misconduct allegations.

Title IX: Both a Sword and a Shield

Title IX of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964 reads as follows:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Originally understood as a protection against overt gender discrimination, Title IX has come to be understood as a means to protect college women from sexual assault. Title IX has been asserted as the legal basis for the “Dear Colleague” letter, which is thought to have triggered a wave of expulsions of college men found guilty by campus tribunals applying lax standards of due process against defendants.

Defendants have been fighting back: Since 2011, over 150 federal lawsuits have been filed by male college students who were expelled for sexual assault. Many of these lawsuits have been successful. These students have been using Title IX on their own behalf, arguing that the school exhibited gender bias against them because they were male.   

Change Is in the Air…

Despite successes in federal courts, defendants continue to complain that campus tribunals do not offer them a fair chance to defend themselves against sexual misconduct accusations. The current administration has responded by proposing the modification of the existing higher education sexual misconduct policy in a manner that strengthens protections for the defendant.

In particular, Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos (after having already made some significant changes), is preparing new rules that would not require Congressional approval to go into effect. Strictly speaking, these rules are not mandatory. Instead, the federal government would condition its educational funding on a school’s compliance with them. The following features stand out:

  • The definition of sexual harassment would be modified to equivalence with the definition currently used by the U.S. Supreme Court: “…unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” Under the previous administration’s definition, sexual harassment did not have to be pervasive or severe; in fact, it theoretically could be triggered by a single comment of a sexual nature directed towards the complainant.
  • The new rules allow schools to choose which of two possible standards of proof they will use: “preponderance of evidence” (which means something like “more likely than not”), or “clear and convincing evidence.” “Dear Colleague” rules require schools to use the “preponderance of evidence” standard.

Although both standards make it easier to prove a sexual misconduct allegation than the far more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is a significantly higher bar to jump over.  

  • Schools will be able to decide for themselves whether to allow an appeals process (the appeals process was encouraged by the previous administration). Schools that now allow appeals allow either party to appeal the result of a sexual misconduct investigation.
  • University jurisdiction over sexual misconduct cases will be limited to misconduct that was alleged to have occurred on campus. It will not include off-campus housing or anywhere else outside of campus boundaries. Local police and prosecutors will exercise exclusive jurisdiction to pursue off-campus complaints.
  • Schools will be responsible for investigating sexual misconduct only to the extent that a  complaint has been filed or they have “actual knowledge” of the misconduct. Schools have been complaining that, up until now, they have been held liable for failure to investigate sexual assault claims they didn’t even know about.
  • Both parties (the accused and the accuser) would be entitled to all of the evidence gathered by the other side, regardless of whether the other side intends to actually use it.
  • Mediation between the two parties will continue to be an option, as it has been since 2017 (mediation was forbidden prior to 2017).
  • Both parties are allowed to question each other during disciplinary proceedings. This practice was formerly discouraged if not outright forbidden.

Regardless of whether these regulations end up going into effect as they are currently written, it remains a virtual certainty that the current administration will restore at least some of the protections for the accused that had been lost.

We Are Ready to Fight for You

At E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, fighting for justice for the wrongfully accused is what we went to law school for. There is nothing more satisfying to us than to watch justice prevail due to our efforts, and we absolutely will not allow any of our clients to be bullied by the educational system.  

The following is a list of only some of the local area colleges and universities whose students we have or are ready to serve:

  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
  • Siena College
  • Skidmore College
  • College of Saint Rose
  • Sage Colleges
  • Russell Sage College
  • Union College
  • Albany Law School
  • State University of New York at Albany
  • State University of New York at Binghamton
  • State University of New York at Plattsburgh
  • State University of New York at Potsdam
  • State University of New York at Oneonta
  • Clarkson University
  • Colgate University
  • Columbia-Greene Community College
  • Cornell University
  • Bard College
  • Vassar College
  • Syracuse University
  • Hartwick College
  • Utica College
  • Hamilton College
  • New York Law School

Contact Us Today

If you have been accused of campus sexual harassment or sexual assault, it’s not a good idea to wait until a tribuna has already been scheduled before you seek legal help. Contact us online, or call one of our offices (in Albany, Saratoga, Troy, and Latham) to schedule a free case consultation so we can discuss your options.

When Character Evidence Can and Can’t be Used in a Federal Criminal Prosecution

character evidenceWhen is it OK to defend yourself against a federal criminal charge using evidence of your good character? When is it OK to use character evidence against your accuser? The Federal Rules of Evidence strictly limit the use of character evidence. There are exceptions, however, as well as loopholes that sneaky prosecutors can slip through.  

What Is “Character” Anyway?

Although there is no formal legal definition of “character,” in practice, courts have treated it as any pattern of behavior and is not limited to morally significant behavior – shyness or fastidiousness, for example. It is not the same as reputation, although it is related. Character is also not habit; character is thought to be deeper than habit.

Rule 404

Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence establishes a general prohibition against character evidence, subject to certain exceptions:

  • The defendant may introduce evidence of his own good character, even to the point of calling character witnesses.
  • The defendant may introduce evidence of the accuser’s bad character, subject to certain exceptions.
  • In a homicide case, if the defendant asserts that the victim was the aggressor in the encounter that provoked the homicide, the prosecutor may introduce character evidence (about the accuser’s character, not the defendant’s character) to rebut the defendant’s assertion.  

The Mercy Rule

The “mercy rule” allows the defendant to introduce evidence of his own good character, as stated above. It can easily operate as a trap. Once the defendant introduces evidence of his own good character, the prosecutor becomes entitled to rebut the defendant by introducing evidence of his bad character. For this reason, criminal defense attorneys are reluctant to invoke the mercy rule.

Types of Character Evidence

The defendant may call witnesses to establish good character in the form of:

  • His reputation in his community;
  • The witnesses’ personal opinion of his character; and
  • The witnesses’ recounting of specific acts performed by the defendant (that are within his personal knowledge).

The Prosecution’s Rebuttal during Cross-Examination

The prosecutor can do great damage to the defendant’s standing with the jury by using the defendant’s own character witnesses against him during cross-examination. For example:

Witness: “Paul is an honest person. I’ve never known him to steal anything from anybody.”

Prosecutor: “Would your opinion change if it were proven that the defendant was arrested for shoplifting in 2007 and again in 2013?”

At this point, it doesn’t matter if the witness doesn’t change his mind. The jury now knows of the two previous convictions and will likely hold it against the defendant. Note that the prosecutor could not ask the witness about the defendant’s previous conviction for disorderly conduct, since that is not a crime of dishonesty.

The Relevance Loophole (and Limitation)

One of the ways a prosecutor can slip in character evidence against the defendant, in the absence of a formal exception, is to establish its relevance to a matter other than the defendant’s character. A prosecutor might, for example, seek to introduce evidence of past crimes committed by the defendant as a way of establishing that his “M.O.” was similar to the crime at issue.

The relevance loophole is limited by the facts of the case. If the defendant is accused of embezzlement, the prosecutor cannot introduce evidence of the defendant’s violent past, even if the defendant calls character witnesses. This is because violence is not relevant to embezzlement. The prosecutor cannot attempt to prove that the defendant is a “generally bad person” – he must be specific.

Affirmative Defenses

Certain affirmative defenses can open the door for a prosecutor to introduce character evidence. For example, in an entrapment defense (where the defendant argues that the police encouraged him to commit the crime so they could arrest him for it) the prosecutor is entitled to prove, through past bad acts, that the defendant was already predisposed to commit the crime.  

Likewise, a defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity invites the prosecutor to try to prove that the defendant is evil or degenerate rather than insane. Depending on the number of skeletons in the defendant’s closet, this could devastate the defendant’s standing in the eyes of the jury.

Character of the Accuser

The defendant is entitled to try to prove the bad character of the accuser in a manner relevant to the case. Except in certain homicide cases, however, this entitles the prosecutor to introduce both (i) evidence of the accuser’s good character in the same trait and (ii) evidence of the defendant’s bad character in the same trait.

If the defendant asserted that “It was the accuser who started the fight, not me” and then introduced evidence of the accusers violent tendencies, the prosecutor can respond by (i) introducing evidence of the accuser’s peaceful tendencies and (ii) introducing evidence of the defendant’s violent tendencies.

The Federal “Rape Shield” Rule

An exception, known as the “rape shield rule,” prevents the defendant from trying to prove the bad character of the defendant when the defendant is accused of sexual misconduct and the defense wishes to prove that the accuser was sexually promiscuous.

Several exceptions exist to this rule, however. Moreover, the rape shield rule would not prevent the defendant from trying to attack the accuser’s credibility on the witness stand by proving that the accuser is dishonest.


By swearing to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and anything but the truth,” every witness automatically places his credibility at issue, regardless of whether the witness is the accuser. For this reason, either side may try to prove that the witnesses’ testimony is not to be trusted, as long as the proof itself is relevant to credibility.

Don’t Let Passivity and Procrastination Determine Your Fate

A federal criminal prosecution is serious business. U.S. criminal law is based on an adversarial system, and that means the prosecutor is not your friend. Make no mistake about it, a criminal prosecution is a war, whether it takes place in open court or during plea bargaining. E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy can help you fight that war with every weapon in our legal arsenal.

If you have been arrested for or charged with a federal crime in Latham, NY, or if the police have questioned you, you need to speak with an experienced Latham criminal attorney right away. Contact us today for a free initial consultation by phone, at our Latham office on Airport Park Boulevard, or even in jail. Act quickly – you have no time to lose.

When You Should “Just Say No” to the Police – and When You Can’t

false imprisonment

The Latham, New York, criminal justice system, like the criminal justice systems elsewhere, is essentially adversarial. This means that if you have been charged with a crime or are being investigated for one, the police are not your friend. In fact, it might even be appropriate to go so far as to say that in criminal law, nice guys finish last.

Your most effective ally in a criminal investigation, other than your criminal defense lawyer, is your own understanding of your rights and your willingness to exercise them. Cooperating with the police is not your best option in every instance, even if you are innocent. Sometimes you should cooperate while other times it is best to “just say no.” The following is a brief discussion.

“You Have the Right to Remain Silent…”

The federal case, Miranda v. Arizona, established that the police are required to “read you your rights” once they have placed you in custody. You are in custody if a reasonable person under your circumstances would not feel free to leave. If the police have told you that you are free to leave (and they mean it), you are not in custody and they don’t have to read you your rights.

Your Miranda rights, of course, belong to you whether you are notified of them or not. They include:

  • The right to remain silent
  • The right to consult with a lawyer
  • The right to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned
  • The right to terminate police questioning at any time
  • The right to a government-appointed lawyer, free of charge, if you cannot afford a lawyer but request one anyway

The general rule is to refuse to answer police questions outside the presence of your lawyer, even if you are innocent of the crime (the police are full of tricks!). Remember, “…anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” The government is forbidden from using your silence as evidence against you in court.

What happens if the police fail to read you your rights? This is not necessarily a “get out of jail free card.” All it means is that nothing you say can be used as evidence against you in court until you are advised of your rights. If the prosecutor has enough evidence to convict you without relying on your own statements, you could be convicted of a crime anyway.

Search and Seizure: Your Constitutional Rights

The Fourth Amendment protects you against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  It also includes a warrant requirement for a search, which in turn requires “probable cause” that the search will yield evidence. Exceptions apply to the warrant requirement. But even where the requirement applies, the  police can still search if you give consent. Police can sometimes infer consent from your non-verbal actions.

The following are some of the exceptions to the warrant requirement for a search. These are occasions when the police can conduct a search without a warrant even if you do not consent to the search. Never consent to a search. If the police can search without a warrant, they will do so. But if they do so without your consent, you can always challenge the search later.

  • Search incident to a lawful arrest: If you are lawfully arrested, the police can search your person and your immediate surroundings without a warrant to locate weapons, evidence in danger of immediate destruction, and means of possible escape.
  • Plain view: Evidence in plain view can be seized without a warrant as long as the officer is where he has a right to be when he sees the evidence.
  • Stop and frisk: An officer can frisk you if he has “reasonable suspicion” that you are engaging in or are about to engage in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence than probable cause does.
  • Automobile exception: The police can search a vehicle (even a boat) if they have probable cause that they will find evidence of a crime there.
  • Hot pursuit: The police can search for or enter private property to seek evidence when they are in hot pursuit of you and circumstances indicate that you might destroy evidence before they can obtain a warrant.
  • Exigent circumstances: The police can enter your property, or even break in, under emergency circumstances such as screaming indicating that a violent crime is in progress. At that point, the plain view doctrine can take over to allow them to seize evidence and you cannot object.

Refusing a Breathalyser Test

If you are pulled over in Latham on suspicion of DWI, you are technically entitled to refuse a breathalyser test in most cases, even if you are clearly intoxicated. We say “technically,” because even though, under most circumstances, an officer cannot force you to take the test, the consequences of refusing to do so are serious enough to make you think twice before refusing.

Refusing a breathalyser test (or other chemical tests such as a blood test) will result in a one-year suspension of your driver’s license and a $500 fine for the first offense. Penalties increase for subsequent offenses. Moreover, the prosecutor can use your refusal as evidence in a DWI trial, which means you could end up being convicted of DWI anyway.

A Top-Tier Albany Law Firm

  1. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy has been named a Tier 1 Albany law firm every year since 2011 – and we don’t plan on allowing this winning streak to end any time soon. Moreover, our individual attorneys have been showered with honors such as:
  • Stellar rankings on AVVO, the preeminent attorney rating service
  • The coveted “AV Preeminent” ranking by the Martindale Hubbell Peer Reviews
  • Induction into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers
  • Listing among “America’s Top 100 Attorneys”

You Need an Ally on Your Side Immediately

If you have been arrested or charged with a criminal offense, if you are under criminal investigation, have been questioned by police, or if you anticipate any of the foregoing events, contact us today to schedule a free initial consultation by phone at our Latham office or even in jail. Time will not be on your side until we are.