DUI Wins

Nov 4, 2020	Case: 19-CT-016625	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glass/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed various field sobriety tests including the finger to nose, walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Based on the contradictions in all the evidence, the firm was able to show the State that there was a lack of probable cause to make the arrest. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000597	Judge Nicola
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with his high beams on. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. He also admitted to having drank 3 beers. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The officer's reports exaggerated all the alleged indicators of impairment prior to and during the roadside tests. This was brought to the State's attention by the firm and they Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI and he received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 19-CT-012953	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, fumbling fingers, and slurred speech. She had difficulty following instructions and leaned on the car for balance. Roadside tests were stopped for safety concerns, due to her level of intoxication. She was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The firm was able to show that the defendant never actually refused to give a breath test and it was due to the machine. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 19-CT-013373	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant ran a red light and ended up in an embankment. When officers and fire rescue arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and a sway while he stood. He was asked to perform roadside tests but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, the officer must advise of the adverse consequences for refusing. or the refusal is excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give any adverse consequences and immediately arrested the Defendant. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000303	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after almost sideswiping an officer and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. After performing some field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	On tape, the officer kept interrupting the defendant. The firm pointed out that this is what caused the defendant's mishaps on the roadside tests, not any alcohol impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-004083	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and fumbling fingers. He also had bloodshot eyes and a blank stare. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton was able to show that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI based on all the reports and video tape. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-020145	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after a manager at a bar called police saying that the defendant was intoxicated and refused an Uber ride. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed while he stood and admitted to drinking. He was arrested for DUI after performing roadside tests. He later blew. a .129 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense:	There was no corroboration by the officer of any erratic driving pattern or intoxication based on the call. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003345	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also stated that she had drank 3 beers. After performing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew. a .097 and a .092 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm was able to take the defendant's breath results below the legal limit due to the .02 margin of error. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000309	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, dilated pupils, and watery eyes. He also was nonreactive to light and had unstable balance. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The video contradicted the officer's reports on numerous specifics on the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003375	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by police after a call went out about a reckless driver. Upon contact, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. She performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense:	When there is an anonymous call, not only must be it be specific, but officers must corroborate some type of driving pattern. Here, there was no specifics (i.e. reckless driving) and also no corroboration. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 21, 2020	Case: 19-CT-015915	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He also had bloodshot eyes and admitted to having drank whiskey and beer. After performing numerous roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .127 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) at the scene. Under Tharpe's Formula, if the officer does not get and angle of onset prior to 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes, he could have a breath alcohol level under the legal limit. Thus, the firm was able to show that the officer did not get an angle prior to 45 degrees and thus the defendant could have had a breath alcohol level under the legal limit at the time of driving. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 21, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003696	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, fumbling fingers, bloodshot eyes, and difficulty paying attention. The defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .084 and .084 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm pointed out to the State that there is .005 and .02 margin of error in the breath machine. Thus, the firm was able to place the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 21, 2020	Case: 20-CT-001077	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after almost hitting a police car. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank two IPA beers. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .168 and a .162 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm was able to show that it was unclear who truly was at fault prior to the defendant being stopped. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 15, 2020	Case: 20-CT-005321	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and an unsteady gait. After performing roadside tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The defendant never actually refused the breath test. She tried blowing into the machine numerous times. There was a problem with the machine. The control test solutions are supposed to be between .075 and .085. Here, a control test was .087. This could have led to higher breath result. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 13, 2020	Case: 20-CT-019386	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	A concerned citizen called 911 stating that the defendant was unable to maintain a single lane of travel and was driving over the speed limit. Officers conducted a traffic stop and noticed the defendant to have slow/slurred speech, glassy eyes, and he was unsteady to the point of almost falling over. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the defendant then performed roadside tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The State has to prove a defendant is impaired by a "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance to convict a defendant of DUI. Here, they they could not and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 8, 2020	Case: 20-CT-026307	Judge Peacock
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and a pale face. The defendant swayed, fumbled with his items, and was slow to respond to questions. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .128 and a .128 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to vagueness of the defendant's alleged driving pattern as written in the police reports (i.e. the weaving), the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 8, 2020	Case: 20-CT-030801	Judge Peacock
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/glassy eyes. The officer then requested that she perform numerous field sobriety tests. The officer alleged that she failed and she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .163 and a .149 in the breath machine.
Defense:	In order to request field sobriety tests, the officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime. In other words, there must be facts that would lead an officer to believe one was impaired by alcohol. Here, the observations made only led one to believe that she had consumed alcohol and not that she was impaired. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 7, 2020	Case: 20-CT-501549	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and watery/bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk turn, and one leg stand field sobriety exercises. According the officer, she performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense:	There was no video in the case. The firm pointed out to the State that the officer's reports contradicted each other as to many specifics of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Due to the conflicts in the reports, the officer's credibility was called into question.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 6, 2020	Case: 19-CT-015003	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. There was no odor of alcohol. The defendant's speech was slow and lethargic. He had constricted pupils, droopy eyelids, and slow speech. The officer believed he was impaired by drugs, and not alcohol. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine sample which revealed positive results for numerous illegal non prescribed controlled substances.
Defense:	The defendant's video tape contradicted the officers written observations. Furthermore, the State couldn't prove that he was under the influence of those drugs that he tested positive for because the police never called a DRE (drug recognition officer) officer to do an evaluation.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.