One night, in the Town of Newburgh, New York, a State Trooper came upon a one-car accident scene. The officer observed an overturned car and a person walking towards him. The man, Dylan Peck, immediately identified himself as the vehicle's driver.
The Trooper noted that Peck reeked of alcohol, had glassy eyes, and suffered from slurred speech. A blood test further showed a blood alcohol level of .16% -- twice the legal limit.
On April 18, 2006, after a non-jury trial, Peck was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) per se, driving while ability impaired, and leaving the scene of the accident. Peck appealed to the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Department, which overturned the "DWI per se" and "leaving the scene of the accident" convictions.
The AT found that the evidence did not establish Peck attempted to flee the scene, particularly since he quickly identified himself to the Trooper.
The Court also overturned his conviction of DWI per se -- which means that he was driving with a blood alcohol level of at least .08% -- because the blood test on which the prosecution relied was inadmissible. In violation of New York State Department of Health Regulations, the blood sample was not preserved with the proper amount of anticoagulants, thus rendering the test unreliable.
Even though the blood test was unusable, the prosecution still offered sufficient evidence -- the scent of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and the accident itself -- which established that Peck's driving ability had been impaired.
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: People v. Peck