Justin Timberlake’s lawyer says he was not intoxicated during DWI arrest

SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. (Court TV) — Justin Timberlake’s lawyer said the pop star was not intoxicated when he was pulled over and arrested in June on suspicion of drunk driving in New York’s Hamptons area.

Justin Timberlake was charged with driving while intoxicated after a traffic stop on June 18, 2024. (Sag Harbor Police Department)

“The most important fact to know about this case is that Justin was not intoxicated and should not have been arrested for DWI,” lawyer Edward Burke, Jr., said Friday after a court hearing in the case.

Timberlake is on tour in Europe and did not appear in person or remotely for the hearing in Sag Harbor, a village about 100 miles east of New York City in the Hamptons, Long Island’s tony seaside destination for the rich and famous.

According to court documents, Timberlake was pulled over shortly after midnight on June 18 for allegedly driving his 2025 BMW UT through a stop sign and failing to stay in his lane. During the traffic stop, an officer said Timberlake smelled of alcohol, was “unsteady” on his feet, had “slow speech,” bloodshot, glassy eyes and “performed poorly on all standardized field sobriety tests.”

MORE | Police: Justin Timberlake ‘had trouble standing’ during DWI arrest

Timberlake was arrested and spent the overnight hours in jail. He appeared in court the morning of June 18 and pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated.

At Friday’s hearing, Timberlake’s lawyer argued a motion to dismiss the charge because of a clerical error in the initial charging document.

“Sometimes the police make mistakes and this is just one of those instances,” Burke said in a statement. “But the fact remains, he was not intoxicated and they made an error in arresting him for it. We are confident that this charge will be dismissed.”

The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office acknowledged the error and said it refiled the case on July 2. Timberlake will return to court on August 2 for an arraignment on the refiled charge.

Otherwise, the underlying facts of the case are the same, a spokesperson said in a statement.

“The facts and circumstance of the case have not been changed or amended,” the statement said. “We stand ready to litigate the underlying facts of this case in court, rather than in the press.”