Shining Stars Mobile Apps

Police: Local lawyer charged with DWI, resisting arrest

2013-01-18T11:37:00Z Police: Local lawyer charged with DWI, resisting arrest Glens Falls Post-Star
January 18, 2013 11:37 am

GLENS FALLS -- A Glens Falls lawyer was charged with misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest after a traffic stop late Thursday, police said.

John W. Caffry, 54, of Glens Falls was arrested after an 11:53 p.m. traffic stop on Ridge Street, according to Glens Falls Police.

He was stopped because the vehicle he was driving had a headlight out, Glens Falls Police Capt. Robert Ash said.

Caffry failed field sobriety tests, and when informed by Glens Falls Police Officer Andrew Mija that he was under arrest, Caffry replied "No I'm not" and tried to walk away from the officer, Ash said.

That alleged act resulted in the resisting arrest count.

Caffry was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.09 percent, just above the 0.08 percent threshold for DWI, according to police.

He was released pending prosecution in City Court. He said he had no comment on the matter Friday.

Copyright 2015 Glens Falls Post-Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(23) Comments

  1. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 24, 2013 2:08 pm
    First, the LEOs are just doing their job in enforcing a law that the legislature passed, I do not blame them.

    You have logic fail. So you are taking the probability for an accident and spinning it into a criminal intent by alleging that every person that drinks and drives intends to harm someone or damage property? That's absurd! Or are you saying that everyone, including concealed carry citizens, who walk into a bank with a gun on them intend to rob it? Yikes!

    Please spare your emotional plea. I have more certain risks and issues to worry about than the rare probability that a drunk person may crash into me. And all this time I thought that the DUI laws prevented that. According to MADD, it's had virtually no effect. BTW - Young, inexperienced and old drivers are a greater threat. If someone does, or damages my property while drunk, there are real laws of conduct that the person will be charged with.

  2. areuserious
    Report Abuse
    areuserious - January 23, 2013 5:46 am
    ...then was noticed to be impaired by alcohol. The police officer just doing his job for the protection of society and once again gets crap for it. I hope to God you never lose a loved one by the selfish act of another when they CHOOSE to drink and drive.

    I like the robbing a bank analogy. Go in with a gun intending to rob someone and that's a crime against someone but go out drinking then driving, putting dozens of innocent people in harms way, but that's OK. You make no sense! There are potential victims in both scenerios and you just can't see it!

    I am 100% sure your views on this subject would change on the need to govern the actions of drunk drivers if you are personally involved.
  3. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 22, 2013 5:58 pm
    If some one walks into a bank intending to rob it, that person has committed an act against another. That is entirely different than comitting a legal act (driving) with a legal substance (alcohol) in their blood, but at a % that the federal government could coerce the states to adopt for the threat of losing highway money,

    I don't drink, so I don't know what my limit is.The laws DO NOT reflect what is impairing to all. You cannot be sure when you are legally impaired or physically impaired...or not. It could be a fine line between, say 2 beers or 3 beers that could destroy one's life when they have done nothing to anyone.

    How do you measure it? Is your breathalizer calibrated to equal that of the authority's? When you tested it, was all the ingested alcohol been transferred into your blood already, or is more being processed as time goes by? How much, if any, food did you eat?

    Mr. Caffrey did not get pulled over for driving badly - he got pulled over for having a headlight out.
  4. Jelkon
    Report Abuse
    Jelkon - January 22, 2013 9:00 am
    Bleeb u are grasping at straws, when you take that first drink then the 2nd you know whether you have had enough. If someone walks into a bank with a gun in hand pointed at the teller, and is grabbed before he can do or say anything, he should be set free because he did not do anything illegal yet? ,08 is not an arbitrary #. It is the same amount of alcohol to body weight for all. The laws may not know what is impairing to all, But you individually know, I know exactly how many drinks it takes for me to be impaired. It is my responsibility to know when I am impaired. We are responsible for our own actions. Too many people making excuses for others and our selves. Lawyer or cop, House wife or Handy man, no excuses.
  5. Key
    Report Abuse
    Key - January 22, 2013 12:05 am
    It is about evidence for court. Refusing the breath test is considered consciousness of guilt, but which guilt DWAI or DWI? The laws of NY are tricky because other states do not have DWAI, they only have DWI. NY state law uses BAC to determine which charge is applicable to the case. Most attorneys advise their clients to remain silent and refuse the tests if they are stopped by the police. The aim of refusing the test is to avoid incriminating themselves of either charge.
  6. Protectfrompotect
    Report Abuse
    Protectfrompotect - January 21, 2013 11:52 pm
    Thank you and Amen!
  7. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 21, 2013 7:56 pm
    That's the point - one's action is not being criminalized - a substance in their blood is! One cannot know they are breaking the law until it is too late. One cannot prevent the situation you speak of. Do you believe in racial profiling? Surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because a demographic group has a higher crime rate than others. Well, this is driver profiling, with the assumption that if one had a few drinks they are more likely to cause harm to others.

    A crime used to consist of both conduct against another and a concurrent state of mind. We now see laws that are made to modify behavior, not to punish specific actions. The idea is to criminalize people before something bad happens, and so make for a perfectly safe world. We are managed by a matrix of bell curves with all but the upper tail not shaded as potentially criminal. This legal construct is tyranny.
  8. areuserious
    Report Abuse
    areuserious - January 21, 2013 5:59 pm
    NEVER said I was "much better a professional because I recieved the blessings of the state". I said I worked my tail off to earn it and will not jeopardize it. Last I knew, it requires education and a license in every state to be an RN. I'm sure my "clients and customers" appreciate that I'm not practicing without either. Are you suggesting that there needs to be no state boards to evaluate one's competency? I happen to take care of the victims of drunk driving regularly which helps form my opinion on drunk driving. I also take care of the blind drunks who injure themselves once they can't stand or see straight. It's certainly a reality check. As far as young people who have done nothing to anyone...if they've recieved enough DWI's to make it a felony they obviously aren't getting the message about drinking & driving. What else should be done with them to get them to see the light? People, get as nasty drunk as you want to. Just DO NOT DRIVE AFTER. SIMPLE.
  9. Cricket
    Report Abuse
    Cricket - January 21, 2013 4:01 pm
    There is a direct correlation between one's blood alcohol level, and one's actions. This can vary from person to person of course. Thus, someone with a BAC of .06 can be as adversely affected as one with a BAC of .08. By your reasoning then, the BAC of .08 should be lowered, if anything, to punish those 5' women out there drinking and under the influence as well. Agreed. The law will allow, and rightly so, any officer to arrest someone who is exhibiting signs of intoxication OR impairment. If you do not want to be considered a criminal, don't put yourself in that situation. Do not drink and drive, pretty simple.
  10. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 21, 2013 1:16 pm
    The suspect doesn't know he broke the law until AFTER he's administered the breathalizer. Do you know of any other law where one doesn't know that one committed a crime until the police say so? How screwy is that?
  11. InterestedCitizen
    Report Abuse
    InterestedCitizen - January 21, 2013 8:57 am
    This arrest is an indication that there is still some element of justice in this world.
  12. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 21, 2013 8:55 am
    We have allowed the government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves. We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of police and police technicians. What's the difference in intoxication levels for a 5' woman with a slow metabolism vs. a 6' male with a fst one? How many drinks before you are considered illegal to drive? One, two, three? One has to wait for the government to administer a breathalizer test to tell one whether or not one is a criminal. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Laws should not be based upon probabilities, but upon actions alone, insofar as they cause harm to others. Insurance companies deal in probabilities.
  13. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 21, 2013 8:44 am
    I'm glad that you feel you are so much better a professional because you recieved the blessings of the state. Of course, your clients or customers are not smart or responsible enough to ascertain your competence all by themselves.

    Please think critically about the application of laws that constitute a felonious crime without the necessity for a victim. I have no issue with one losing their license and driving privileges for DUI, but I have a big problem with them being subject to prison for not causing any actual harm to others. Our jails are full of young people who have done nothing to anyone, who now are tarnished criminal records for life.
  14. Key
    Report Abuse
    Key - January 21, 2013 4:07 am
    When the suspect refuses the breath test it is harder to prove the level of intoxication to distinquish the appropriate charges, DWAI versus DWI. The major point is that juries will have a more difficult task of deciding which charge to convict the defendant of without the test results. If he agreed to be tested for his BAC, then he cannot as easily dispute the level of intoxication in court. Refusing the breath test, does not in itself prove guilt of DWI: however, it does allow the DMV to revoke the drivers license for one year.
  15. scottycc31
    Report Abuse
    scottycc31 - January 20, 2013 10:58 am
    I agree with "areyouserious".......Just an FYI to "Key" What is your point (regarding your question) on whether he agreed to be tested for DWI???? Are you suggesting that if you don't consent, then there would be no way are more difficult to prove a DWI??? In NYS, if you refuse a breathalyzer is an automatic DWI. As far as how the DA will handle this case, it is most likely be prosecuted by another counties DA's assure fair and unbiassed treatment.
  16. Cricket
    Report Abuse
    Cricket - January 20, 2013 9:06 am
    @TheBleep - So, what should the magic number for intoxication be if not .08? Impaired drivers have been arrested for less than the going BAC rate, as well they should be. Driving impaired or buzzed is still dangerous and irresponsible and he could very well have hurt of killed someone who just happened to be in his way. He, and anyone in the law and enforcement field, should know better and set an example if nothing else. But, rest assured... our drunk driving laws are plenty lax and with a good lawyer and some money in the checking account, he will be good as new. Just look at the way drunk drivers and impaired drivers get to keep their licenses and insurance, and continue on their merry way. @areuserious - agreed with everything you posted.
  17. areuserious
    Report Abuse
    areuserious - January 20, 2013 8:09 am
    The Bleeb- This number wasn't just plucked out of thin air. Studies have indicated that once someone reaches this level of intoxication it is dangerous to operate a vehicle (or machinery, boat, ATV, etc). Personally, I think .08 is a bit high. When will society stop sticking up for people who put others in jeopardy? Yes, his carreer is now blemished but it is his fault, therefore, his duty to fix it. If it were a cop you all would be screaming to have the book thrown at him because he is a professional and should be held to higher standard. Well, so should lawyers, medical professionals, teachers, etc. People choose their career paths knowing that they should represent themselves in a good moral light. I hold a professional license, worked my tail off to obtain it and would never jeopardize that. I drink on occasion and have never had a DWI. It's easy, I don't drive after I drink, period!
  18. The Bleeb
    Report Abuse
    The Bleeb - January 19, 2013 6:13 pm
    So his career will be damaged or destroyed for causing no harm to any other, under the pretense that he "may have" caused harm to others, of which such actual acts are already covered under other criminal statutes. 0.08% is the magic number, because .... well... because any higher would result in loss of federal highway money.

    Perhaps the next law to save everyone will be conspiring to drink and drive while sitting on a bar stool - because, you know, one may leave the bar, may hop in their car, and may harm someone.

  19. Key
    Report Abuse
    Key - January 19, 2013 3:25 pm
    I am not saying that the charges are not warranted. I am just curious about what happened. I ask these questions because most attorneys would refuse to take any tests that might be used in court; they tend to be incriminating to the defendant's case. Clearly, the laws apply to all people, and attorneys should be held to the same standards as other citizens.
  20. Rinnah
    Report Abuse
    Rinnah - January 19, 2013 12:50 pm
    Yes Key too many Warren County lawyers are getting arrested, that should tell you something. They are breaking the law and should be treated the same as anyone else. Just because someone has a good reputation doesn't mean that they should get special treatment. Caffry's BAC was high enough to cause slow reaction time to situations. What if he had injured someone, should the police have overlooked that too?
  21. areuserious
    Report Abuse
    areuserious - January 19, 2013 8:52 am
    Key and politicoB-are you serious? He was pulled over for a headlight out, obviously the PO suspected ETOH intoxication, his suspicion was correct and the man arrested for DWI. Because he has a good reputation as an attorney he should get off free? So if the guy was a laborer would you think the same thing? Obviously the article says he failed field sobriety testing so he must have agreed to it. If "too many Warren Cty attorneys are getting arrested these days" maybe they need to stop breaking laws, how about that? They are not above the law. How about if that same attorney killed a beloved family member while driving and was found to have a BAC of 0.09? Would you feel the same? Post Star commenters lately are blowing my mind!
  22. politicoQB
    Report Abuse
    politicoQB - January 18, 2013 7:33 pm
    Good point, Key. Maybe you should ask that question of Kate Hogan. Funny how Caffry is on the side of environmental issues and, well, you get the idea.
  23. Key
    Report Abuse
    Key - January 18, 2013 3:13 pm
    I am surprised at this arrest; Mr. Caffry has a good reputation as a competent attorney. Did he agree to be tested for DWI? It will be interesting to see how this case is handled by the DA's office, and which judge will be assigned to the case. Too many Warren county attorneys are getting arrested these days. What gives?


1) Comments must be contained to the topic of the articles only. Comments that stray from the direct subject of the article will be deleted.

2) Readers are free to comment on and debate other readers' comments, but comments must specifically address the issue(s) raised. Comments containing personal insults directed toward another reader in any form will be deleted.

3) Comments must be civil in tone, and there will be no name calling of any kind. Uncivil or inappropriate comments will be deleted, as will any comment containing profanities.

4) Comments critical of crime or accident victims will be deleted.

5) Comments that are potentially libelous, including those that contain accusations not supported by facts, will be deleted.

Commenters who abuse these policies will have their e-mail registrations revoked.


View the full commenting policy.

Thank you, and we hope you enjoy interacting with us and the community.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Call to volunteer organizations

Do you run a volunteer organization in our area? We're looking to add listings to our online database of volunteer organizations. Please submit details to us using this form.

Search Homes for Sale

Search Classifieds