Justin Timberlake has always captured the public’s attention ever since his days with the uber-popular boy band N*Sync, but his most recent publicity hasn’t been too flattering. Recent reports suggest the singer was arrested in a driving while intoxicated incident. Since being arrested, Timberlake has told reporters that he is hoping to put the experience behind him by learning from it and moving on.

The arrest occurred back on June 18th in the early hours when Timberlake was spotted ignoring a stop sign in Long Island. Timberlake confirmed that he had been partying at The American Hotel just prior to getting pulled over.

The officer initiated a field sobriety test at the traffic stop, which Timberlake failed. He was arrested and charged with a DWI.

Timberlake expressed his extreme concern about his arrest to both the officer during the traffic stop and later to his fans. Right now, the star is playing shows in Poland as a part of the Forget Tomorrow World Tour. Initially, at the traffic stop, he plead with the officer not to “ruin the tour” by taking him to jail, but thankfully, the criminal justice system is offering Timberlake plenty of leeway.

Justin won’t have to be in person for his court appearances, so he can be free to perform his shows. Despite this leniency, Timberlake has expressed remorse over the incident and says he is prepared to face whatever consequences for his wrongful actions.

DWI Charges in New York: What to Expect

Drinking while impaired in New York is defined as getting behind the wheel after voluntarily consuming alcohol to the extent that the person isn’t able to operate a vehicle reasonably. A first-time DWI offense is considered a misdemeanor, but that doesn’t mean the penalties aren’t substantial. Here’s what to expect if you get convicted:

• Fines ranging from $500-$1,000
• Up to one year in jail
• 2-3 Years of probation
• License revocation for at least 6 months
• Ignition Interlock Device in any motor vehicle you own or operate during probation

Courts will be much more lenient when a DWI is your first criminal charge, but if you’ve already been charged with DWIs in the past, then your penalties will be much more serious. A second-time DWI that happens within ten years of the first one can be charged as a felony. You’ll have your license revoked for a minimum of one year and could also go to jail for up to a year.

Your charges will also be more serious if your blood alcohol concentration was extremely high, you injured someone, or you were being extremely reckless. In these cases, you can be charged with an aggravated DWI. Typically, an aggravated DWI is going to result in up to one year in jail and a license revocation that could last up to a year.

Here at Bukh Law Firm, schedule a consultation with our team of DWI legal experts now to talk more about your arrest, legal options, and rights.

The post Justin Timberlake Prepares for DWI Court appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

At around 12:50 A.M. on June 2nd, authorities discovered a vehicle stopped at a light with an unresponsive driver. Police walked up to the car, only to discover the commanding officer of a Brooklyn NYPD precinct asleep at the wheel. Even worse, there was clearly a half-empty bottle of vodka in the backseat of the car.

Authorities noticed those two obvious signs of intoxication, so they asked Captain Jared Badillo to step out of the car. The officers reported that Badillo was unstable and wobbly as he emerged from the vehicle. He was also slurring his words, and his breath smelled like alcohol. Badillo’s eyes were bloodshot, and his face was flushed.

One of the officers had his body camera turned on as they began to question the Captain. On the footage, you can clearly hear Badillo confess, “I had three or four beers.” Due to all these facts, Badillo was taken in to submit to a breathalyzer test. He blew a blood alcohol level of .18, which is far above the legal driving limit of .08 or below.

Badillo was promptly arrested and charged with driving while under the influence. Considering the circumstances, he was also suspended without pay. Later on in the day, Badillo was released from jail without bail.

When a New York Police Officer Gets a DUI

DUIs and DWIs are serious traffic offenses, even though they happen more often than we’d all like to admit. Like Captain Badillo, it’s not uncommon for intoxicated drivers to fall asleep at the wheel or experience very slow response times. Since alcohol impairs a person’s judgment, driving while drunk is very dangerous.

When a police officer gets arrested for a DUI or DWI offense, they have to suffer the legal and criminal consequences of their actions just like any other citizen. That means they also get arrested, booked into jail, and then sentenced.

In New York, a first-time DUI offense can result in a jail sentence of up to one year. The guilty party might also be subject to fines of up to $1,000, a license suspension that could last up to six months, and a probationary period where they have to install an Ignition Interlock Device in the vehicle.

If you thought those penalties were harsh, then you’ll be surprised to learn the penalties associated with any subsequent DUIs. These offenses will come with longer jail terms, bigger fines, longer license suspensions, and other consequences.

When the accused individual is also a police officer, they will experience professional consequences as a result of their arrest or conviction. Their behavior could result In problems when it comes to finding a new job in law enforcement, and it could even put their current position at risk depending on the severity of the charge and whether the person ultimately gets convicted or not. If the officer gets charged with a felony DUI, then there’s a great chance that they won’t be able to work in any police department again. Very few departments accept applicants with felony records.

If you’ve recently been arrested for an alcohol-related charge, then it’s in your best interest to talk to a criminal defense attorney about what happened. Schedule a consultation with our office now to learn more about how we can help.

The post Police Captain Arrested for DUI appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

Brandon L Woodard was killed in broad daylight in Manhattan in 2012. However, it seems his case is far from over. For the past two months, his mother, Sandra Wellington, has been attending the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, diligently taking notes while the case tries to reach some conclusion.

The accused for the murder include Lloyd T. McKenzie and four men. So far, the identity of the hooded gunman who shot Brandon in the back of the head as he walked on West 58th street near Broadway has not bee revealed. The actual day and time of the murder was caught on a school’s security camera.

Mr. McKenzie, 39, is the only one of the defendants accused of the murder. The other four men -Lature Irvin Sr, Darryl Mason, Michael Wilson and Pedro Deloitte have only been charged with conspiracy to smuggle 11 kilos of cocaine from Los Angeles to New York City over 12 weeks. During the trial, prosecutors have presented evidence that Mr. McKenzie planned the murder of Mr. Woodard on Dec 11, 2012. The reason behind the killing apparently is that he did not want to pay the $161,000 he owed for the 5 kilos of cocaine that he had already received earlier.

It is alleged that Mr. McKenzie’s plan was to meet Mr. Woodard close to a piano store so he could give him the money. But there was another simultaneous plan since Mr. McKenzie was also accompanied by a gunman in a rented sedan. The gunman walked behind Mr. Woodard and shot him in the head while Mr. McKenzie remained seated in his car. So far the gunman has not been identified. At the closing, lead prosecutor Christopher Prevost said that this was a brutal cold and calculated murder.

Unfortunately there were no eyewitnesses who could identify Mr. McKenzie as the car driver. But Quran Pender, a former actor, who was also part of the smuggling ring and now cooperating with law enforcement, mentioned at the trial that he arranged the meeting between Mr. Woodard and Mr. McKenzie. He further stated that Mr. Mackenzie asked him to tell Mr. Woodard to meet him at the piano store on 58th street.

The entire case is based on Mr. Penders credibility and the defense lawyers as always have tried to undermine his character saying that he has a long history of petty crime and is an untrustworthy character. In fact, the defense has also stated that Mr. Pender orchestrated the murder because he wanted to take over Mr. Woodard’s drug business.

Law enforcement also has phone records showing that Mr. McKenzie was calling Mr. Pender a few minutes before the shooting. For Mr. Woodard’s mother, the trial has revealed some painful stories from his past. Now she waits for the verdict.

The post Trial Brings No Solace to Mother after Son’s Death appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to ensure that law enforcement cannot conduct unjustified searches of a person or his home. Your house is particularly sacrosanct, as you have the ultimate expectation of privacy when you are in your own home.  This is why it is so unbelievable that a federal judge recently ruled that a SWAT raid was justified based on shopping at a gardening store and drinking tea.

If you have police show up at your home, you must act quickly so you can protect your rights.  You should call a lawyer right away so you can find out how to respond to the search that was conducted. If any evidence was obtained, your attorney can also challenge the constitutionality of the search and try Washington Post to help you keep evidence from being used against you. Bukh Law Firm, PLLC can provide you with the legal advice you need to respond to a search warrant and any criminal charges which result from a search of your vehicle or premises.

Federal Judge Says SWAT Raid Justified

  reported on a troubling case in which a private home was searched as a result of a visit to a garden store and drinking tea.  The private home actually belonged to former CIA-analysts and the raid occurred in April of 2012 when the family of four (the two CIA analysts and their two children) awoke to pounding on their door.  SWAT agents flooded the home, and the family of four was held at gunpoint for more than two hours as their home was searched.

The agents were reportedly looking for evidence of a marijuana growing operation, but the police stayed for two hours despite later acknowledging that they became aware within 20 minutes that they wouldn’t find such an operation.  They found no evidence that any criminal activity had occurred, but they justified the lengthy search by saying they had switched to looking for evidence of personal marijuana use.

The agents obtained the search warrant after an investigation that had occurred seven months before the SWAT raid. A state trooper was staked out outside of a garden store to collect the license plate numbers of customers and to send those plate numbers to the local sheriff’s department for further investigation. The family visited the garden store during the stakeout, which was part of an operation called Operation Constant Gardener, and their license plate was recorded.

The sheriff’s department subsequently sent deputies out to sort through the garbage of the family and claimed that this search turned up saturated plant material, which they said could potentially be marijuana.  Drug tests were conducted on the saturated plant material, which was actually tea leaves, and the tests inexplicably turned up evidence of THC.  It was these tests that justified the SWAT raid.

Unfortunately, investigations have showed that the lab tests performed on the saturated plant material are very unreliable and tend to come up positive in any situation where police need them to, including in situations where the tested materials include chocolate chip cookies, spearmint, dough, deodorant, breath mints, and flour.

After the raid on the private home, which turned up nothing, police held a press conference touting their success in targeting drug grow houses. Police even claimed they had turned up drug activity in good neighborhoods, and included in the neighborhood of the CIA-analysts.

The couple sought information on what had occurred, but found the sheriff department wouldn’t turn over much information. They ended up having to hire a lawyer and incurred more than $25,000 in legal fees.  After they found out what happened, they sued- but their case was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge who found the search was justified.

This case is an egregious example of how law enforcement is increasingly looking for ways to limit the Fourth Amendment protections to conduct unlawful searches. Defendants need to make sure they do everything they can to protect themselves when they are suspected of a crime or when a search is conducted. Contacting a New York City criminal defense lawyer at Bukh Law Firm, PLLC is the first step towards protecting your rights.

The post You Won’t Believe What is Considered Justified Grounds for a SWAT Raid on Your Home appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

Two of the witnesses who were supposed to testify about racial profiling in Georgia’s notorious Operation Meth Merchant sting campaign have decided instead to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent, leaving the ACLU without much evidence in its legal challenge to Meth Merchant arrests.

A third witness who apparently also has knowledge of racial profiling used in the sting is scheduled to testify today. Update: a news account of that testimony, which doesn’t seem to help the ACLU’s case all that much.

Operation Meth Merchant was a 2003 sting operation that resulted in the arrest of more than 40 convenience store clerks in the Northwest Georgia area for selling everyday ingredients — such as matchbooks and Sudafed — that can be used to make methamphetamine. Almost everyone who was arrested was South Asian, and many spoke only very basic English, a factor that the ACLU says contributed to confusion on the clerks’ part about the intentions of the government informants who purchased the meth supplies from them. The ACLU also alleges that Operation Meth Merchant actively targeted South Asians in small mom-and-pop shops rather than going after employees of larger stores such as Wal-Mart. Prior posts on this blog have described the DEA’s efforts, post-Operation Meth Merchant, to educate store clerks in the area about the problem of methamphetamine and the breakdown of what was to be a collaboration between the DEA and the North American South Asian Bar Association over that education campaign.

The post ACLU’s Operation Meth Merchant Case Hits a Snag appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

The U.S. v. Leon rule allowing officers to rely in “good faith” on what turns out to be an inadequate warrant does not apply when it was not objectively reasonable in the first place for the officers to believe that the warrant was supported by probable cause, a Ninth Circuit panel held today in U.S. v. Luong, No. 05-50090.

In this case, the DEA and LAPD searched Luong’s home based on a warrant affidavit that merely (1) repeated an anonymous tip that somebody who was coming to Los Angeles from Hong Kong might be involved in making methamphetamine, and (2)described an observation of Luong, together with a companion who had come to Los Angeles from Hong Kong, buying a high-pressure hose at Home Depot.  These allegations, by themselves, did not constitute probable cause for the search, a point the government conceded on appeal. But more critically, the court said it was not reasonable for the officers to believe in good faith that probable cause existed or for other factors to be figured in after the fact in an effort to cure the deficiencies that existed in the warrant at the time.

In a little dose of sanity, the court rejected the argument that the inadequacy of the warrant should be chalked up to “exigent circumstances” because law enforcement was concerned that a meth lab might start up and thereby “threaten the community with a chemical explosion or fire.” (If the court had accepted that argument, it would have essentially meant that police dealing with meth labs could disregard the 4th Amendment as a matter of course on “exigent circumstances” grounds.) The court also rejected the notion that evidence extrinsic to the affidavit (such as comments made by the officers to the judge over the telephone) should be considered in determining whether probable cause existed.

Judge Callahan dissented, noting that “a police officer generally should be able to rely on a judge’s probable cause determination.” To my mind, this is actually an interesting point. Even if the warrant was based on flimsy evidence, the judge approved it. Why would a reasonable officer second guess that determination? On this issue, the majority says: “Leon clearly and unequivocally states that when the affidavit itself is entirely lacking in indicia of probable cause, it cannot be said that the officer acted in good faith in relying on a warrant that issues. That is the precise situation we have in this case.” So it seems that the rule is that an officer can rely in good faith on a defective warrant, as long as the warrant isn’t so manifestly defective that good faith reliance is simply not possible.

The post Ninth Circuit on ‘Good Faith’ Exception When Warrant Clearly Unsupported By Probable Cause appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

A police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by conducting a traffic stop of a car that has no license plates, even if that car has valid temporary registration papers properly displayed, if the officer does not see those registration papers before conducting the stop. That’s the holding of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal in In re Raymond C., G035822, published 12/20/06.

The minor petitioner in this case ended up getting dinged with a DUI after being pulled over (at 1 a.m.) for failure to display a rear license plate. But the car was a brand new Acura, and like most brand new cars it didn’t have a license plate because the plates hadn’t arrived from the DMV. The officer who stopped the car saw no registration papers attached to rear window.

The Acura had valid temporary registration papers displayed on its front windshield, which is where I’ve seen most people display these kinds of documents. The DMV regulation on this subject, however, says that the “preferred” location for these papers is on the rear window. And wherever the papers were or should have been, the court’s analysis doesn’t turn on compliance with the regulation: it turns on whether it reasonable for the officer, objectively speaking, to have made the stop in the first  place. The bottom line, the court says, is that “an officer does not act unreasonably in making a stop for the limited purpose of determining whether there was in fact a legitimate reason for driving without a rear license plate.”

I understand that argument, but there are two things I find troubling about this decision. First, and most critically, it effectively declares it per se reasonable for an officer to stop any car that is not displaying a license plate, whether or not it is displaying valid temporary registration papers. In a footnote, the court discounts the breadth of its holding, saying that “a different conclusion may result where the officer sees the temporary tags on the windshield before stopping the vehicle.” But in the real world, all an officer will need to do, should a suppression motion be filed later, is lie and say that s/he did not see the registration papers or did not recognize them as such.

Second, my understanding of investigative detentions is that the scope of the officer’s inquiry is supposed to be tied to the suspicion that allows the stop to begin in the first place. Here, therefore, even if you accept that the initial stop was valid, the appropriate initial investigation for the officer would have required looking at the registration document that was clearly displayed on the front windshield. And once that was done, the stop should have ended. I don’t see why there was any justification at all for asking the driver anything.

In any case, it’s an interesting decision!

The post CA 4th District on Traffic Stop of Vehicle Without License Plates appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

According to a recent report by the Wall Street Journal, the US Justice Department has been gathering and storing records of hundreds of American motorists. The report claims that this database can track the movements of vehicles across the country.

The news has been confirmed through government documents as well as by former and current government officials. It is believed that the license plate-tracking program was initially used by the Drug Enforcement Administration to curtail drug trafficking by seizing cars, money and other assets. Today, the use of this database has expanded into other crimes including kidnapping, rape and murder.

There has been criticism about the legitimacy of this data gathering but according to a spokesperson for the Justice Department, the program complies with federal law. He said, “It is not new that the DEA uses the license-plate readers program to arrest criminals and stop the flow of drugs in areas of high trafficking intensity.”

However, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of license plate readers is a matter of concern as it violates privacy. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Charles E. Grassley have also signed a joint letter to Attorney General Eric Holder in which they have complained about privacy breaches through the use of radar technology.

“Privacy of the home is at the core of the Fourth Amendment,” the two wrote. “More than a decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided that the use without a warrant of thermal imaging equipment that could detect activity inside a home violated the Fourth Amendment.”

Grassley and Leahey have also raised concerns about other technology that law enforcement agencies have been using on the grounds that they have serious privacy implications.

The US constitution clearly states that it protects the citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. However, government and law enforcement surveillance programs for US residents do not completely live by this claim.
There have been concerns about the lack of public discussion about the use of surveillance technology. It is also being questioned whether agencies using these programs have fulfilled any legal processes.

The post US Justice Department Tracking American Motorists appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

The trial of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin begins today in Brooklyn, as reported by Bloomberg. A jury will be selected today.

Cioffi and Tannin are charged with allegedly causing losses of $1.4 billion to investors by misleading investors regarding the health of two Bear Stearns hedge funds, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced. (“Enhanced Fund”). and the Bear Stearns High- Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. (“Master Fund”). Cioffi was a hedge fund manager and Tannin was an attorney who served as chief operating officer. They are charged with alleged conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. Cioffi is also charged with alleged insider trading.

Cioffi’s and Tannin’s attorneys have argued that the collapse of Bear Stearns was actually the result of the failure of two other Bear Stearns hedge funds a year prior to the failure of the Enhanced Fund and the Master Fund.

U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell, a former member of the Justice Department’s Enron Corp. Task Force, and Assistant U.S. Attorney James McGovern, are leading the prosecution of Cioffi and Tannin. The prosecution alleges that Cioffi and Tannin were promoting the funds to investors while knowing that the health of the funds was in serious risk. The government has listed 38 witnesses and 532 exhibits which it intends to present at trial, however, the centerpiece of the government’s evidence is expected to be Cioffi’s and Tannin’s own words in e-mails.Cioffi allegedly sent one e-mail on March 15, 2007, with the subject-line “Fear,” stating that he was fearful of what the markets were going to do. In another e-mail, Tannin allegedly stated that if AAA bonds were downgraded, there would be no way for the funds to make money. Google released additional private e-mails to the government last week. Prosecutors allege that e-mails show Cioffi and Tannin allegedly boasting of how they were luring investors to invest more money in the funds at the same time they knew that the funds were in trouble. Witnesses for the government are expected to include Bear Stearns employees and investors in the hedge funds.

Cioffi is defended by attorney Brendan Sullivan, who won reversal of the charges against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, as well as Margaret Keeley and Dane Butswinkas, all of Williams & Connolly LLP. Tannin is being represented by Susan Brune and Nina Beattie of Brune & Richard LLP. Commentators have observed that the e-mails by Cioffi and Tannin can be read in “many” ways.

A year following the failure of the funds, Bear Stearns itself failed and was purchased by JP Morgan Chase & Co. The failure of Bear Stearns was accompanied by failures of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and AIG. Losses from U.S. banks and mortgage companies in the financial collapse total at least $396 billion.

The post Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Managers’ Trial Begins Today appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.

Driving under the Influence (DUI) is one the most serious and potentially life-threatening offence. Different terms are in place for DUI in different jurisdictions. These include Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Operating While Intoxicated (OWOI) and Operating a Motor Vehicle Intoxicated (OMVI). In the eyes of the law, they are all one and the same thing and are usually dealt with in a similar fashion.

DUI is also one of the most commonly found offence that many celebrities and high profile individuals have been known to be charged with. Among some of the leading celebrities in history that have been pulled over or charged with DUI include:

George W. Bush – the former President of United States and very well-known for the role he has played in taking American to war with Iraq. Bush was arrested for DUI in Maine in 1976. He plead guilty and was charged with a fine of $150. His driving privileges in Maine were also temporarily revoked.

Paris Hilton – In September 2006, Paris Hilton as pulled over for erratic driving. She was charged with DUI and received a sentence of three years’ probation subject to attending an alcohol abuse awareness programs. She was also charged fines and her license was suspended. She was pulled over a second time for driving on a suspended license. She also went to court for probation violation and was sentenced to 45 days in jail. She was released after a few days because of medical issues but then was sent back to jail and stayed there for 23 days.

Dick Cheney – The former Vice President of United States was arrested twice for driving under the influence within an eight month period back in the 1960s. He also had to pay fines and his driver’s license was suspended for a brief period of time.

Lindsay Lohan – the actress and singer has been in the media quite a few times for driving under the influence and car crashes. In May 2007, Lohan was charged with DUI and was also suspected of having cocaine in her car. Despite a few stints in rehab, she was again charged for DUI in July of 2007. A woman called 911 stating that she was being chased by Lohan. When the officers pulled her over, she was tested for alcohol and her blood level was found to be between 0.12 and 0.13. She was also found with a small amount of cocaine in her pants pocket.

Nick Nolte – famous actor of some classic action films was arrested for drinking and driving in September 2002. The California Highway Patrol found him totally out of it and drooling. Nolte pleaded no contest and was fined $500. He also had to undergo a 90 day treatment program and three years of probation.

Mel Gibson – was arrested for DUI in July 2006. He was pulled over for speeding and was also found to be making a slew of anti-semantic comments. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, 90-day alcohol-abuse program, 12 months of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, a fine of $1300 and a 90 day license restriction. Gibson has to endure a great deal of negative publicity after this incident but volunteered to do several public-service announcements on the hazards of drinking and driving. He also entered rehab voluntarily.

Nicole Richie – arrested for DUI in December 2006. She was driving the wrong way on the 134 Freeway and was pulled over. She was also found to be under the influence of Vicodin and marijuana. Richie was sentenced to four days in jail, a fine of $2048, three years’ probation and an alcohol education course.

Busta Rhymes – the popular rap artist was pulled over for tinted windows in May 2007 and was found to be drunk.

Jennifer Lynn Jackson – the 38 year old former Playboy Playmate was pulled over in June 2007 and was caught with a large amount of beer bottles, marijuana and rolling papers in her car. She failed her breath analysis test but still pleaded not guilty. The field tests were on police video camera and thus her not guilty plea did not work.

EVE – the female pop-rap super star was arrested for DUI in April 2007 and was sentenced to 36 months informal probation, ordered to wear a SCRAM alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet for 45 days and had to enrol in a three month first-offender alcohol education program and to attend 10 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

Vivica A. Fox – the African American actress was pulled over for speeding in 2007 and subsequently found to be over the legal limit of alcohol in her system. She was quite vocal during the time of her arrest and accused the officer in charge of being a racist.

Haley Joel Osment – was arrested for DUI at the age of 18. He was found to be driving with a .05 percent blood alcohol content which is illegal for anyone under the age of 21. He was also charged for possession of marijuana. He got a plea deal with a three years’ probation, 60 hours of alcohol rehab, six months of AA meetings and a fine of $1500.

Tracy Morgan – comedian and actor was arrested in December 2005 for a blood alcohol level of 0.13 percent. He plead no contest and received 3 years of probation.

Rip Toron – was arrested in 2004 for drunk driving after he hit a taxi. He was later acquitted. Then in December 2006 he was in an accident and was charged with drunk driving. He pleaded guilty and had to pay a fine of $389 and a license suspension for 90 days.

Diana Ross – was clocked in at over triple the legal limit after being pulled over in December 2002. She pleaded no contest and was given a 2 day jail sentence and a one year of unsupervised probation.

Michelle Rodriguez – arrested in December 2005 for DUI. She received a 5 day jail sentence and a $500 fine.

Cynthia Watros – was pulled over for DUI and pleaded guilty. She had to pay a fine of $312 and had to undergo an alcohol assessment seminar and 14 hours of counseling. Her license was suspected for 90 days.

Please contact New York City Criminal Defense for DUI Cases and more legal assisatance.

The post Celebrities and DUI appeared first on New York Criminal Attorney: NY Criminal Defense - Bukh Law Firm.