« "Beyond Problem-Solving Courts" | Main | "Plea Agreements and Suspending Disbelief" »
September 14, 2024
Did Justin Timberlake get a "sweetheart plea deal in drunk driving case"?
The question in the title of this post is prompted by the headline of this New York Post article discussing pop icon Justin Timberlake sentencing on Long Island yesterday. Here are excerpts from the piece:
Justin Timberlake issued a groveling, court-ordered apology Friday for getting behind the wheel after downing drinks in the Hamptons. “This is a mistake that I made but I’m hoping that whoever is watching and listening right now can learn from this mistake,” said the former boy band heartthrob — who was ordered to deliver the public statement as part of a plea deal to a lesser violation in the case. “Even one drink — don’t get behind the wheel of the car.”
The “SexyBack” singer talked after pleading guilty in a Sag Harbor courtroom Friday to driving while alcohol impaired, which was a lesser charge than the DWI count he faced. The deal with prosecutors orignially only involved him making his public apology, but Justice Carl Irace said that was not enough and decided on his own to also sentence Timberlake to 25 to 40 hours of community service.
While its not clear when the work sentence will begin, the former NSYNC star delivered comments outside the courthouse after the hearing. During the three-minute address to the media, Timberlake admitted that while “I try to hold myself to a very high standard — this was not that.”...
Timberlake then emphasized a second time, that no one should drive even after having just one drink, urging people to look for any other transportation option after imbibing. “There’s so many alternatives,” he said. “Call a friend, take an Uber. There are so many travel apps. Take a taxi.”
In some sense, the local sentencing judge's decision to add a week's worth of community service to the sentence sugests he viewed the plea deal here as too lenient. But I have no knowledge of what the sentencing norms are in New York courts for a drunk driving offense for a first offender. This CBS News piece has a local lawyer asserting Timberlake did not het any special treatment:
Long Island defense attorney David Schwartz says with the plea agreement, Timberlake got treated like every other first-time offender. "The 90-day suspension is by statute, the $500 fine is by statute, and the judge threw on 25 hours of community service, which is completely normal," he said.
That CBS piece also has notable comments from the DA and a notable observer:
"Mr. Timberlake received the same treatment as any other defendant. Justice should be applied equally to all individuals, regardless of their wealth or celebrity status. Drunk and drugged driving is an extremely serious nationwide public safety issue," DA Ray Tierney said. "These drivers threaten the lives of random and innocent roadway users of every age, gender, ethnicity, and economic status. In 2024, with the prevalence and convenience of public transit and ride-shares, there is no excuse to get behind the wheel when you are impaired in any way."
The family of Boy Scout Andrew McMorris, who was killed by a drunk driver on Long Island in 2018, was inside the courtroom. "I do feel he was sincere, and I can only hope that his platform with everyone here will make a significant change," mom Alisa McMorris said. "This gives me hope that maybe the next generation will be the generation that ends drunk and impaired driving."
As I have articulated in the past in conjunction with other celebrity DUI sentencings, I think society's strong interest in educating and deterring potential drunk drivers might call for subjecting these offenders to more significant and/or creative alternative sanctions. Adding community service is a start, but why not require Timberlake, who is in the middle of a word tour, to make certain announcements discussing the dangers of DUI at his upcoming concerts? I strongly share the hope that the "next generation will be the generation that ends drunk and impaired driving," but advancing that cause likely requires a lot more than a " groveling, court-ordered apology" from a societal icon.
September 14, 2024 at 11:19 AM | Permalink
Comments
I am a practicing attorney in Western NY. This is a standard plea agreement where there are no personal injuries, the accused has a "clean" driving record, and accepts responsibility. Much of the confusion, consternation, and criticism about this plea deal is based upon erroneous factual considerations.
Mr. Timberlake was originally charged with "Driving While Intoxicated," [DWI], but I couldn't find any source indicating whether or not a Breathalyzer (or other forensic testing) was involved, and if so, what his BAC was. If there was no forensic testing and by all other sources, he was ambulatory and able to communicate with the police officer, most District Attorneys would, under the totality of the circumstances, agree to a reduced plea to "Driving While Ability Impaired," [DWAI], which in fact is exactly what happened here. This was a "standard," not "sweetheart" deal.
https://apnews.com/article/justin-timberlake-guilty-plea-dui-new-york-cef669c8c25fad277f47bd17536a2940
Posted by: Donald G Rehkopf | Sep 14, 2024 1:49:03 PM
Many thanks for sharing your knowledge, Donald.
I have seen various media reports that Timberlake refused to take a Breathalyzer test at the scene: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/justin-timberlake-drunk-driving-arrest
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 14, 2024 2:05:01 PM
Doug,
Your above statement seems to imply that refusing a breath test without a warrant is somehow wrong. Are there any other civil rights you would do away with, such as warrantless arrests inside the home or on the curtilage of one’s property?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 14, 2024 11:32:52 PM
Tarls: Donald implied (accurately) that BAC level matters for the severity of the crime in NY, and he also said he had not seen whether or not a Breathalyzer test was taken. I replied by providing accurate information that there were media reports that Timberlake refused to take a Breathalyzer test at the scene.
How do you read that as a statement that "seems to imply that refusing a breath test without a warrant is somehow wrong"?
Sticking to accurate information, the Supreme Court rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016). That ruling essentially endorsed state laws that allow for criminal prosecution of persons for refusing a warrantless breath test after a DUI arrest. Do you disagree with the Court's interpretation of our constitutional rights in Birchfield? When you use the term "civil rights," are you talking about constitutional rights as currently interpreted by SCOTUS or do you have another definition of this term?
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 15, 2024 9:33:24 AM
On DWI, there are some perverse incentives with breath tests. Not taking a breath test improves your chance of beating DWIs, which is why law enforcement is beginning to turn to search warrants to get blood draws from those with prior offenses. So to encourage folks to take breath tests, there is a very stiff civil sanction for refusing a breath sample.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 15, 2024 10:44:45 AM
Here in Kentucky, refusing to take a breath test after you are pulled over leads to an automatic pretrial suspension of your driver's license. Kentucky says that taking a breathalyzer test upon request is one of the conditions you accept when you get a driver's license. There is no Constitutional right to a Driver's License. If you get one, then you accept the state's terms for having it, which includes "implied consent" to blow in a breathalyzer upon request, if you are pulled over by the police. As Doug points out, the U. S. Supreme Court says that unless the driver consents, a search warrant signed by a Judge is required to draw blood, because it is an invasive test that requires puncturing the skin and a vein with a needle. Breathalyzers, on the other hand, are non-invasive tests. In Kentucky, the interesting DUIs involve prescription meds that are non-narcotics. We have actually hired an expert witness on this subject, who has both a J.D. and an Ph.D. in pharmacology. Twice, we have had the prosecutors tell us that they haven't previously prosecuted a DUI involving the prescription drug found in our client's blood. At the other end of the spectrum, we have seen people passed out over the steering wheel, high on fentanyl!
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Sep 15, 2024 9:46:44 PM
I don't know about other states. But here in Missouri, it is very difficult to get a conviction on anything other than alcohol and maybe marijuana. While there is a presumptive legal at which someone is impaired from alcohol and our courts have held that even lay people are able to recognize when someone is "stoned" from marijuana, that is not the case for other drugs. For other drugs, I am unfortunately the attorney of record on appeal on one of the early cases holding that mere presence of that drug on a blood test is not enough and that the State must prove a connection between that drug and the poor/impaired driving in the case.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 16, 2024 10:36:14 AM
Doug,
There is nothing legally wrong with allowing criminal prosecution absent a breath test. That said, we both know that “reasonable doubt” is a difficult standard to meet absent a breath test and roadside tests.
I personally dislike coercing people with the loss of a license for a crime they have not been convicted of, but also understand it is likely legal. Make the state prove it.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 16, 2024 5:14:30 PM
Tarls, you did not answer any of my questions. Because I remain curious, I will ask them again, but will understand if you do not want to answer:
How did you read [my comment about media reports] as a statement that "seems to imply that refusing a breath test without a warrant is somehow wrong"?
Do you disagree with the Court's interpretation of our constitutional rights in Birchfield?
When you use the term "civil rights," are you talking about constitutional rights as currently interpreted by SCOTUS or do you have another definition of this term?
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2024 6:49:53 PM
Doug stated: “How did you read [my comment about media reports] as a statement that "seems to imply that refusing a breath test without a warrant is somehow wrong"?”
You stated in the original post that you thought the sentencing of celebrities was too lenient. You then bring up his refusing a breath test, which seems to imply it indicates either his guilt or a reason to treat him more harshly.
You stated: “Do you disagree with the Court's interpretation of our constitutional rights in Birchfield?”
Answered.
You stated: “When you use the term "civil rights," are you talking about constitutional rights as currently interpreted by SCOTUS or do you have another definition of this term?”
My opinion is meaningless, so the current interpretation although I reserve the right to disagree in a case I believe is wrongly decided. For example, abortion was never a “civil right,” in spite of the abomination of Roe.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 16, 2024 9:18:47 PM
Tarls, thanks for addressing my questions. But:
1. I did not "bring up his refusing a breath test," rather I was responding specifically to Donald's comment that he "couldn't find any source indicating whether or not a Breathalyzer (or other forensic testing) was involved."
2. Birchfield held the 4th Amendment is not transgressed by warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. It also functionally endorsed state laws that allow for DISTINCT criminal prosecution of persons simply for the act of refusing a warrantless breath test after a DUI arrest. I am still unclear where/how you answered whether you agreed or disagreed with that interpretation of the 4th A.
3. You asked "are there any other civil rights you would do away with," and I was just trying to understand what you meant by "civil rights" in this context. I'm still a bit unclear, since it seems you think some constitutional rights may not be civil rights and many folks talk about broad civil rights that are clearly not established constitutional rights. But maybe the question was just meant to be rhetorical and not actually understood.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2024 9:58:12 PM
