[regrettingit]

Hello,

First of all let me say that I have been regretting this since I was arrested for DWI a few days ago. Now that I have had some time to reflect on what all happened that day one thing stands out. The officer who arrested me searched my car and pulled out an old cellphone from the center console of my car and asked me whether I needed it. The cellphone is not active and I was already carrying my current cellphone on me. The officer did not ask me whether he could search my car. He asked me where the car keys were and I told him that they were in the car. Can he do that without a search warrant based on just suspicion? And was I giving him permission to search the car when I told him the keys were in it?
If not, then can the evidence collected after the arrest be admissible in the court? This happened in New York State.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
regrettingit

[ScottGem]

If he stopped you on suspicion of DWI, he has the right to search your car for alcohol or illegal intoxicants. This would, obviously not inclde an old cellphone, but I don't understsand what that has to do with your case.

[JudyKayTee]

If he stopped you on suspicion of DWI, he has the right to search your car for alcohol or illegal intoxicants. This would, obviously not inclde an old cellphone, but I don't understsand what that has to do with your case.

I agree - it was a legal search and what does the old cellphone have to do with the arrest or your defense?

[regrettingit]

I agree - it was a legal search and what does the old cellphone have to do with the arrest or your defense?

I don't think it has anything to do with the case. I was just wondering whether the officer has a legal right to search my car after the arrest or does he need a search warrant for that. By mentioning the fact that he found the cellphone in the car I was just trying to say that he searched my car without my consent.
This is anyway my first offense and I hope the DA is a bit lenient on me. I have had a clean driving record since I got my first license with no criminal history and not even one single traffic infraction. Hope it helps my case.

Thanks for your responses.

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE=regrettingit]I don't think it has anything to do with the case. I was just wondering whether the officer has a legal right to search my car after the arrest or does he need a search warrant for that. By mentioning the fact that he found the cellphone in the car I was just trying to say that he searched my car without my consent.
This is anyway my first offense and I hope the DA is a bit lenient on me. I have had a clean driving record since I got my first license with no criminal history and not even one single traffic infraction. Hope it helps my case.



OK - yes, he has the legal right. I've seen DWI's when the argument was that there was no reason to search, no consent, and the answer is, "He/she was intoxicated, gave consent, doesn't remember."

NYS can be tough depending on the reading so I trust you have an Attorney. Hopefully they'll reduce it, you learned a lesson, that's it!

[regrettingit]

OK - yes, he has the legal right. I've seen DWI's when the argument was that there was no reason to search, no consent, and the answer is, "He/she was intoxicated, gave consent, doesn't remember."

NYS can be tough depending on the reading so I trust you have an Attorney. Hopefully they'll reduce it, you learned a lesson, that's it!

Thanks for your response. I haven't yet consulted an Attorney. I was charged with DWI, not Aggravated DWI which is more harsher I believe. Is it recommended to do so even on your first offense? There were some websites that I looked at where the Attorneys themselves mentioned that if your are pleading guilty for a first offense with no prior history there is no *need* for an Attorney. I will probably get an Attorney to be on the safe side, but then again I don't want the prosecutor or the judge to get any wrong impression.

[JudyKayTee]

Thanks for your response. I haven't yet consulted an Attorney. I was charged with DWI, not Aggravated DWI which is more harsher I believe. Is it recommended to do so even on your first offense? There were some websites that I looked at where the Attorneys themselves mentioned that if your are pleading guilty for a first offense with no prior history there is no *need* for an Attorney. I will probably get an Attorney to be on the safe side, but then again I don't want the prosecutor or the judge to get any wrong impression.

Didn't realize you were willing to take the guilty plea - if so, go without an Attorney. Usually people who post are fighting the ticket or trying to get it reduced to something else.

[regrettingit]

Didn't realize you were willing to take the guilty plea - if so, go without an Attorney. Usually people who post are fighting the ticket or trying to get it reduced to something else.

Ohh! Well does pleading guilty mean that I accept the charge as is with no consideration from the prosecutor to reduce it if I do so? With no prior history I was hoping that the prosecutor might get me a reduced sentence. Is that a big chance to take? If that is the case then I definitely will go with an attorney because I can in no case afford a criminal record. So I would rather get a DWAI (which is an infraction) rather than a DWI (which is misdemeanor)

[ScottGem]

If you plead guilty you might get a break on sentencing but little else. If you initially plead not guilty, then they may offer a deal to avoid going to trial.