St. John's Law Review

Clarifying the Admissibility of DWI Chemical Test Refusals in New York: The “Two-Hour Rule” Does Not Apply

By Joseph McCormack and Timothy C. Stone

On May 5, 2006, a driver was stopped at the guard station while exiting the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point.  The military guards approached, noticing that the driver appeared to be intoxicated.  When they tried to speak to him, the driver sped off with one of the guards clinging to the car door, the vehicle swerving into the oncoming lane of traffic.  The man was eventually stopped by the Kings Point Police and arrested; he was later brought to a Nassau County drunk driver testing location and, two hours and five minutes after his arrest, refused to provide a breath sample to the police.  The legal question implicated by this case is whether a defendant’s refusal to consent to a Breathalyzer test, when such refusal transpires longer than two hours after his arrest, is admissible as evidence against that defendant in a subsequent criminal trial for a drunk-driving offense. 
Today, evidence of a suspect’s refusal that came more than two hours after his arrest would almost certainly be admissible at trial.  In fact, over the past fourteen years virtually every New York court has held that no such time limit exists, a conclusion supported by legislative history, statutory plain meaning, and binding New York caselaw.  Yet recently this issue has arisen once again as an unlikely bone of judicial contention.

The genesis of the present disagreement was a pair of aberrant 2005 trial court decisions, the holdings of which seemingly turned back the clock and found that a two hour lapse between arrest and refusal renders such refusal inadmissible.  These cases relied on an overly broad conception of the so-called “two-hour rule” once prevalent in New York decisional law.  This Essay examines the language and history of the statutory provision at issue, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, in the context of nearly two decades of New York caselaw.  It concludes that application of the two-hour rule to chemical test refusals is simply not the law in New York . . . nor should it be.