Marion man charged with DWI after backing into ditch in Palmyra
James A. Suhr faces charges including driving while intoxicated in the September incident, according to the Wayne County Sheriff's Office.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 5, 2026, 4:32 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 5, 2026, 4:38 p.m. ET
Marion man charged with DWI after backing into ditch in Palmyra
James A. Suhr, 61, of Parker Road in the town of Marion, has been charged with driving while intoxicated and driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher, according to the Wayne County Sheriff's Office. The charges stem from an incident in which Suhr allegedly reversed his vehicle into a ditch in Palmyra.
The Wayne County Sheriff's Office alleged Suhr was driving while intoxicated at the time. He was also charged with unsafe backing and moving from a lane unsafely. These are allegations only; the case is undecided and has not been resolved. Suhr is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Sentencing, if any, would occur only after a trial.
The charges were originally reported by fingerlakes1.com on September 5, 2026.
Sep 5, 2026, 4:32 p.m. ETFirst report
Marion man charged with DWI after backing into ditch in Palmyra
James A. Suhr, 61, of Parker Road in the town of Marion, has been charged with driving while intoxicated and related offenses, according to the Wayne County Sheriff's Office as reported by FingerLakes1.com. The charges stem from an incident on September 5, 2026, in which Suhr allegedly backed his vehicle into a ditch while intoxicated.
Suhr is charged with driving while intoxicated, driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher, unsafe backing, and moving from a lane unsafely. The Wayne County Sheriff's Office alleged that Suhr was driving while intoxicated when he reversed the vehicle into the ditch. As of the report, the matter is at the charging stage, and the case has not been resolved. Suhr is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 15 Sept 2026, 20:38current
First published.
- Version 15 Sept 2026, 20:32current
First published.
- Version 15 Sept 2026, 20:42current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.