DUI Attorney Staten Island Not Guilty Borderline Bac Case

The client had finished work late in the evening and consumed alcohol shortly before entering the vehicle to drive home.

Law enforcement initiated a traffic stop after observing a minor traffic infraction unrelated to impaired driving, such as a brief lane deviation or equipment issue.

A breath test administered at the station approximately forty to fifty minutes after the stop recorded a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent, placing the case at the outer edge of New York’s per se DUI threshold under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2).

After consulting with a DUI attorney Staten Island, the client chose to reject any negotiated disposition and exercise the constitutional right to a full criminal trial.

Defense counsel identified that the prosecution’s case relied almost entirely on the breath test number, without adequately accounting for alcohol absorption dynamics.

This strategic decision forced the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the client was legally intoxicated at the time of vehicle operation, not merely at the time of testing.

Defense counsel demonstrated that the client had consumed alcohol shortly before driving and that the chemical test was administered after a significant delay.

Expert supported analysis established that the client’s blood alcohol concentration may have been rising, rather than falling, at the time the breath test was taken.

Under this theory, the BAC at the moment of driving could have been below the per se threshold, undermining the prosecution’s reliance on the later test result.

Relying on New York appellate authority governing DUI proof standards, defense counsel argued that speculation cannot substitute for evidence.

The court was urged to reject the assumption that a borderline test result automatically reflected intoxication during vehicle operation.

Because the prosecution failed to present corroborating evidence such as erratic driving, failed field sobriety tests, or credible observations of intoxication, reasonable doubt remained as a matter of law.

The not guilty verdict preserved the client’s criminal record and driving privileges without restriction.

No mandatory ignition interlock, fines, or administrative penalties were imposed.

The case demonstrates how a DUI attorney Staten Island can expose scientific and evidentiary weaknesses that fundamentally alter the trajectory of a DUI prosecution.