Larchmont teen charged with DWI after 9-year-old is struck

[Guest]

obviously the blame goes to the 18 y/o, but todays journal news article stated the boy walked his sister to the bus stop and watched her on the bee-line bus. i don't know how old the sister is, i would gues if they're on the bee-line by themselves...but where were this kids parents or gardians? anyone one know?

[ny10570 745]

Why do they need their parents with them just because they are on the bus. Long before the days of cell phones I was riding the bee line every week at 14.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Listen, I agree that this kid should serve some time and a major community service debt at the end should it come out that he was actually intoxicated. There's no question about it!

....However, just a little word of mouth info before we walk the guy to the electric chait:

At this point he's only failed the field sobriety test. (That little box with the tube on top that senses alchohol.) He could easily have been drinking the night before and had residuals on his breath. Maybe he wasn't intoxicated and this is just a really terrible accident. Obviously the poor 9 year old is the big victim here, but no one wants to the life of an 18 year old ruined. If the results of his blood test are positive, then he will get what is deserved.....but till then....ease up.

**You CAN blow an eleveated BAC and not be intoxicated**

Edited June 9, 2008 by M' Ave

[Guest]

Why do they need their parents with them just because they are on the bus. Long before the days of cell phones I was riding the bee line every week at 14.

as did i at 14 years old, but 14 isn't 9. its a child and i'm not too sure i know any streets where the bee-line runs that would constitute as a quiet street. i'm sorry, but 9 yrs old is a bit young to cross the street, unlike a school bus where traffic must come to a halt. the kid is in the hospital bc of the 18 y/o drunk driver, not because of the parents. if a parent/gardian were there, maybe they both would have been struck, maybe not, i'm not going into a "what if" issue. just seeing where the parents/gardians were.

[27east 19]

Great posts Chris192 and M'Ave. Of course I agree that if found guilty, he deserves to be punished. However, you can't fault LPD for not releasing the name of the driver. If the judge decides that he is a Y/O, then it's all sealed. If not, then we can all go and attend the trial. This shows one of the problems with FOIL. The law clearly states how to proceed with Y/O records. They cannot be FOILed. Also, I agree with those who asked where the parents were of the 9 year old. He should not have been walking home alone.

Chris, I sent you a PM. Thanks.

Edited June 9, 2008 by 23piraf

[LTNRFD 266]

its a child and i'm not too sure i know any streets where the bee-line runs that would constitute as a quiet street.

Go to Magnolia Ave and Grove Ave in Larchmont and you will know at least one quite street with a Bee Line bus stop on it.

This street does not have a normal bus stop. For that matter there is not a single street in the Larchmont Manor that has an established Bee Line bus stop on it. The bus stops are for commuters that are going to the train station.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

Listen, I agree that this kid should serve some time and a major community service debt at the end should it come out that he was actually intoxicated. There's no question about it!

....However, just a little word of mouth info before we walk the guy to the electric chait:

At this point he's only failed the field sobriety test. (That little box with the tube on top that senses alchohol.) He could easily have been drinking the night before and had residuals on his breath. Maybe he wasn't intoxicated and this is just a really terrible accident. Obviously the poor 9 year old is the big victim here, but no one wants to the life of an 18 year old ruined. If the results of his blood test are positive, then he will get what is deserved.....but till then....ease up.

**You CAN blow an eleveated BAC and not be intoxicated**

So the COPS pull you over and give you an ALCO SENSOR at the side of the road. You blow a .10. Are you intoxicated? Of course you are. Then they give you another set of STANDARDIZED TESTS that you fail. Are you intoxicated. OF COURSE YOU ARE. So how do you get "YOU CAN BLOW AN ELEVATED BAC AND NOT BE INTOXICATED"? Unless this KID put Binaca or another substance that mocks ALCOHOL in his mouth right at the time he was going to do an ALCO SENSOR there is know way that he would fail if he was NOT DRINKING.

Everyone needs to stop trying to defend this KID. If it was anybody on here, our names would be plastered all over the NEWS.

[abaduck 123]

Well the name has been released anyway - or more accurately, he talked to the press:

http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...06/-1/newsfront

"Mike Mezansky, a former star Mamaroneck High School baseball player, has been identified as the 18-year-old motorist charged with driving while intoxicated in a crash that left a 9-year-old boy critically injured.

Mezansky allegedly steered around a Bee-Line bus and struck a neighborhood boy, William Powers, who was crossing the street at 7:45 a.m. Friday."

Oneeyedmic: yes!

Mike

Edited June 9, 2008 by abaduck

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Mike, I share your zero tolerance and agree with all who have posted and called for jail time.

The issue is not with the Larchmont PD, State law specifies who's eligible for youthful offender status (all that means is at the end of the criminal process the records get sealed - he could still go to jail and be a YO). As for the FOIL bypassing that, it is an interesting question and I'm sure that the Journal News will try or has tried in the past.

A few more comments,

As far as the criminal justice system is concerned, anyone over the age of 16 can be charged with DWI so he won't be a "minor".

The parents should indeed be ashamed of themselves and hopefully will be held liable - at least in civil court!

You can't have "double digits and not be DWI". Intox in NYS (and almost all the rest) is .08.

bvfdjc316, can you cite your assertion that this is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act?

Finally, you're absolutely right. Some of these kids need a good swift kick in the a**!

I do not believe that this is a breach of FOIL. According the first article on lohud.com, it was stated that it was a breach of FOIL. In the current article, however, the assertion that it was a breach of FOIL is made apparent in the following:

"Robert Freeman, head of the state's Committee on Open Government, has spoke to this issue in the past and has said police don't have the authority to withhold that information.

"It's not their call. It's the judge's call," Freeman has said in prior interviews with The Journal News. "If a teenager is arrested, it seems to me that police have nothing to say about what's public and what's not, unless a judge grants youthful-offender status."

Link to Article:http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS02/806060427

It was not made clear that this was going to be given youthful offender status, therefore it was considered to be a breach of Freedom of Information.

[INIT915 1,119]

Just a side note.

I believe some on here are confusing a PBT (Portable Breath Test) with a Chemical Breath Test (CBT).

The PBT are field estimates, roadside, not admissible in Court other than as a "Positive" or "Negative" finding. The actual figure that appears means very little, as they are not calibrated. However, if properly cared for, can be very accurate. The new models even acknowledge "mouth alcohol" problems, which older units do not. The PBT is nothing more than an additional field sobriety test.

The Chemical Breath Test is completed at the station (or certain mobile DWI's units) which are calibrated, require a certified operator, and provide a SPECIFIC, ACCURATE reading. The most common units are the Datamaster or the Draeger 7110 MarkIII

PS: I speak from experience, having made on the order of roughly 400 DWI arrests in the past five years or so.

[helicopper 1,050]

**You CAN blow an eleveated BAC and not be intoxicated**

I'm not sure what you mean by this... Perhaps you can elaborate?

[M' Ave 1,466]

I'm not sure what you mean by this... Perhaps you can elaborate?

What I was trying to convey is was better "spoken" by the poster who commented prior to you. Simply that the field tests are not regarded as being accurate enough to be admissable in court.

[helicopper 1,050]

What I was trying to convey is was better "spoken" by the poster who commented prior to you. Simply that the field tests are not regarded as being accurate enough to be admissable in court.

Sobriety tests are actually accurate enough to be admissible in court. These include standard motor function and divided attention tests and the use of horizontal gaze nystagmus testing.

The "blow in the box" devices that so many people think make the decision for us are merely a guide to further bolster our determination from the above tests.

Anyone using nothing more than a PBT (alco-sensor or similar) is out of their mind! They'll surely be chewed up and spit out by a competent attorney.

So, the moral to the story is you can't have an elevated BAC and not be intoxicated but you can get just about any reading from a "blow in the box" device.

[DMM8240 2]

UPDATE

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...EWS02/806110427

Edited June 11, 2008 by DMM8240

[Guest]

not a happy update. i hope the best for this kid.

[DMM8240 2]

i hope the worst for the DRIVER. I heard a RUMOR that he was being charged as a youthful offender, again, RUMOR, I don't know where to get more factual information on his case.

thoughts and prayers with the Powers family, in addition to being the owners of a large Westchester Company they are also very involved with Swim Across America.

[ex-commish 490]

Everyone needs to stop trying to defend this KID. If it was anybody on here, our names would be plastered all over the NEWS.

Amen!! Time to hold those accountable for thier actions, not make excuses. A little boy lies in a coma in the hospital due to a reckless driver...period. We need to pray for this child.

[Guest]

Sobriety tests are actually accurate enough to be admissible in court. These include standard motor function and divided attention tests and the use of horizontal gaze nystagmus testing.

The "blow in the box" devices that so many people think make the decision for us are merely a guide to further bolster our determination from the above tests.

Anyone using nothing more than a PBT (alco-sensor or similar) is out of their mind! They'll surely be chewed up and spit out by a competent attorney.

So, the moral to the story is you can't have an elevated BAC and not be intoxicated but you can get just about any reading from a "blow in the box" device.

i think he might be taking about the level of impairment if a 90lb girl chuggs 2 beers compared to a 200lb man, the girl might be more impaired than the male, BUT the BAC levels are still the same, just one person can tolerate it more. i think that was his point, but once you get behind the wheel none of this matters, they'll still both be LEGALLY drunk. just like LEGALLY bind doesn't necessarily mean you can't see anything, but the law has made determinations based on your eyesight and etoh levels

[Guest]

anyne know if any organizations are helping this kid or his family, financially or otherwise?

[jayhalsey 6]

i think he might be taking about the level of impairment if a 90lb girl chuggs 2 beers compared to a 200lb man, the girl might be more impaired than the male, BUT the BAC levels are still the same, just one person can tolerate it more. i think that was his point, but once you get behind the wheel none of this matters, they'll still both be LEGALLY drunk. just like LEGALLY bind doesn't necessarily mean you can't see anything, but the law has made determinations based on your eyesight and etoh levels

Would their BAC's really be the same? Isnt blood volume generally proportional to body weight? So in the above scenario the total volume of alcohol in the blood would be the same, but since the 200 lb guy has more blood, it would be more dilute> Unless I am missing something.

[abaduck 123]

Would their BAC's really be the same? Isnt blood volume generally proportional to body weight? So in the above scenario the total volume of alcohol in the blood would be the same, but since the 200 lb guy has more blood, it would be more dilute> Unless I am missing something.

I think there's a misconception here. If BACs are equal, the degree of intoxication is equal. If the degrees of intoxication are equal, the degree of impairment is equal. Now a hardened drinker may be better at superficially *appearing* not be intoxicated/impaired, but that's not the same thing. This whole thing about 90lb girl vs. 200lb man is a myth. Yes of course it may well take less booze to get the girl as drunk as the man, but if they have equal BACs they will in fact be equally impaired.

At least that's always been my understanding; if anyone knows better then please explain!

Mike

Edited June 12, 2008 by abaduck

[Guest]

from my understanding, the BAC can be equal, but the tolerance of the blood in the system varies fom person to person. i studied this crap years ago, so i might be off. i think there's a MD or two on the forum if they want to clear this up. but jist is people can have the same BAC and one may seem impaired and another may not, either way the law doesn't care. and i must say, some people really aren't "drunk" with a BAC of 1.0, but the law says you are, and when you're behind the wheel the law (not science nor psychology) is making the call.

[abaduck 123]

From the Gazette this morning:

"Police did say that after cooperating with the field sobriety test, which includes use of an Intoxilyzer® (in photo at right) to sample alcohol on the breath, the driver declined to be tested with the more reliable Datamaster™ machine housed at the Larchmont Police Station. Police were able to obtain a warrant that compelled the driver to undergo a blood test. "

Question for our LE colleagues out there. I don't get that - why would the driver decline to be tested? In the UK, refusing a test is an offence with exactly the same penalties (license suspended minimum 1 year) as giving a positive reading, presumably it's the same in NY? Anything else doesn't make sense, it just encourages intoxicated drivers to refuse the test and play for time, hoping that by the time a warrant for a compulsory test is issued they will be 'below the limit'. Or do you use a 'countback' system which allows evidence in court that 'if the driver tested x (legal) at such-and-such a time, they WOULD have been x+y (illegal) when arrested several hours earlier'?

Mike

Edited June 13, 2008 by abaduck

[RichC 0]

What really would answer this question Mike is asking, how quickly can these warrants be obtained that compells the driver to take the blood test. Another question probably best answered by LE members on here.

[jack10562 414]

In my opinion, V+T law should be re-written to require anyone that operates a motor vehicle involved in an accident that causes serious injury to anyone else, be automatically tested for alcohol AND drugs.

No such thing as a refusal, no warrant needed. No nothing.

Make the law state: you hurt someone, you give a blood/ urine / hair sample. Period.

No "youthful offender", for this, either.

[Guest]

declining a field sobriety test is your RIGHT...but with choosing your right to decline, there are other ways to forcibly obtain a BAC reading. Since it is your right to decline and a privilege to have a drivers' license, the state rightfully can suspend ot revoke your privilege, but it is perfectly legal to decline a field sobriety test.

[abaduck 123]

In my opinion, V+T law should be re-written to require anyone that operates a motor vehicle involved in an accident that causes serious injury to anyone else, be automatically tested for alcohol AND drugs.

I can't believe that's not the law already. In the UK, the cops can require a test if they suspect someone of drinking, OR if they're involved in any kind of accident, injury or not.

The one thing they can't do is random spot-checks where they test everyone.

Mike

[mfkap 0]

from my understanding, the BAC can be equal, but the tolerance of the blood in the system varies fom person to person. i studied this crap years ago, so i might be off. i think there's a MD or two on the forum if they want to clear this up. but jist is people can have the same BAC and one may seem impaired and another may not, either way the law doesn't care. and i must say, some people really aren't "drunk" with a BAC of 1.0, but the law says you are, and when you're behind the wheel the law (not science nor psychology) is making the call.

Well, assuming that you are using the US definition of BAC, where it is grams of alcohol per 100 grams of blood, then a person with a BAC of 1.0 is not drunk, they are dead (0.5 is generally considered L50, or lethal to 50 percent of the population). Also, the previous statement that a 90lbs girl and a 200lbs man having the same BAC after 2 drinks isn't even close to true, it is just wrong to the very core. Even discounting the fact that a 200 lbs man and a 200lbs woman probably don't have the same volume of blood (men have more), a 90lbs teenage female would have approximately 2.7L of blood, compared to an average male, of around 5L of blood. So really, if a 90lbs girl and a 200lbs man drink the same amount, their BAC will differ by a factor of 2, or 100%, or a LOT. Sure, metabolism is different, fat holds more water, etc, but they are not even in the same ballpark. People can show different levels of impairment with the same BAC, but generally there is SOME impairment at 0.1 in all people. And if you have SOME impairment, you shouldn't be driving.

I think that it is a general misunderstanding of impairment (even by medical personnel), combined with people thinking they have the best liver around, and "I am big and I can handle my booze", that causes 9 year olds to end up in the PICU in the first place. If you have been driving drunk for years and never had an accident, it doesn't mean you are able to drive safely when you are drunk, it just means that you are really lucky. And so is everyone else that you didn't kill when you decided that you should drive drunk.

You can read http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa25.htm and look at some of the 20+ scientific studies cited in it for your hard scientific data.

[Guest]

Well, assuming that you are using the US definition of BAC, where it is grams of alcohol per 100 grams of blood, then a person with a BAC of 1.0 is not drunk, they are dead (0.5 is generally considered L50, or lethal to 50 percent of the population). Also, the previous statement that a 90lbs girl and a 200lbs man having the same BAC after 2 drinks isn't even close to true, it is just wrong to the very core. Even discounting the fact that a 200 lbs man and a 200lbs woman probably don't have the same volume of blood (men have more), a 90lbs teenage female would have approximately 2.7L of blood, compared to an average male, of around 5L of blood. So really, if a 90lbs girl and a 200lbs man drink the same amount, their BAC will differ by a factor of 2, or 100%, or a LOT. Sure, metabolism is different, fat holds more water, etc, but they are not even in the same ballpark. People can show different levels of impairment with the same BAC, but generally there is SOME impairment at 0.1 in all people. And if you have SOME impairment, you shouldn't be driving.

I think that it is a general misunderstanding of impairment (even by medical personnel), combined with people thinking they have the best liver around, and "I am big and I can handle my booze", that causes 9 year olds to end up in the PICU in the first place. If you have been driving drunk for years and never had an accident, it doesn't mean you are able to drive safely when you are drunk, it just means that you are really lucky. And so is everyone else that you didn't kill when you decided that you should drive drunk.

You can read http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa25.htm and look at some of the 20+ scientific studies cited in it for your hard scientific data.

ha! my bad, i meant .10

[DMM8240 2]

anyne know if any organizations are helping this kid or his family, financially or otherwise?

http://larchmontgazette.com/2008/articles/...dentupdate.html

I believe the local church has reached out.

I think what the family needs most is support, financially they are pretty sound.