DUI Property Damage New York Non Charging Decision

The client had attempted to arrange alternate transportation but was unable to secure a ride. 

Choosing to drive, the client inadvertently collided with a legally parked car, a form of property damage often investigated under DUI related statutes. 

The following day, the client voluntarily disclosed the incident to the vehicle owner and reported the event to police. 

This voluntary admission became a critical factor in how law enforcement later assessed intent, responsibility, and willingness to cooperate. 

The client then sought legal counsel to understand potential DUI consequences and to map out defense strategies.

When breath testing is not performed at the time of police response, New York authorities may rely on blood testing or retroactive calculation methods. 

Breath analysis is the standard method, but when delayed or impractical, blood sampling at a medical facility may be used. 

In rare cases, when no direct test exists, investigators may apply retroactive metabolic calculations to estimate BAC, but these estimates are heavily scrutinized because they rely on assumptions about alcohol absorption and elimination.

Given the client reported the incident hours later, no contemporaneous testing existed. 

As a result, the attorney prepared to challenge any speculative retroactive assessments and to highlight the absence of scientifically reliable evidence establishing impairment at the time of collision.

• No breath or blood test was performed at the time of the incident.

• The client voluntarily reported the collision, supporting the argument that there was no attempt to evade responsibility.

• The vehicle damage was property only and caused no injuries, reducing prosecutorial urgency.

• Insurance coverage and prompt restitution to the vehicle owner mitigated the property loss.

These elements weakened the argument for criminal impairment and strengthened the defense position.

One of the strongest mitigating facts was the client’s immediate acknowledgment of the incident. 

Self reporting demonstrated responsibility and negated any inference that the client attempted to flee, conceal facts, or evade liability. 

Law enforcement generally views voluntary cooperation favorably, and the attorney emphasized this conduct to minimize any perception of intentional wrongdoing during the police review.

Because no chemical test was administered, the attorney argued that the state could not prove impairment beyond speculation. 

Retroactive estimations are not favored without corroborating data. 

The attorney provided a structured analysis of the client’s timeline, which suggested that any attempt to assert impairment would be scientifically unsupported and legally insufficient.

The non charging decision prevented a criminal record, license suspension, fines, or mandated alcohol education programs. 

For individuals facing similar allegations, this case illustrates that legal representation plays a significant role when impairment cannot be reliably established. 

It also shows that cooperation, restitution, and absence of aggravating factors substantially influence prosecutorial discretion in New York.