Police respond to the scene of a single-car accident where they find client wandering about the vehicle. Client admits to driving but can’t explain how the accident happened and has trouble answering basic questions. Subsequent to his arrest, client is transported to the hospital where he is diagnosed with Acute Alcohol Intoxication. Blood tests reveal a .24 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), which is three times the legal limit. Achemist for the state police testifies at trial and is forced to acknowledge that he knows nothing about the manner of the blood draw or the method of testing at the hospital. The government also fails to introduce any evidence demonstrating what the client’s BAC was at the time of driving.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Police respond to a location intersection where they find client asleep behind the wheel with the radio blaring. As the officer knocks on the window, client finally stirs, only to tell the officer to “shhhh or be quiet.” After finally waking up, client greets the officer the a ”deer in the headlights” look. Client appears unsteady on his feet after exiting the vehicle and admits to consuming two (2) beers earlier in the night. At trial, the defense argues that the officer’s observations were consistent with someone experiencing extreme fatigue, and that client’s unsteadiness could have been caused by a pre-existing medical condition.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Officer testifies that client committed numerous marked lanes violations over an extremely short period of time before coming to an “abrupt” stop in response to the officer’s lights and siren. There is an extremely strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and client refuses to make eye contact with, or otherwise acknowledge, the officer’s presence. It is alleged that client was extremely confused, disorientated and that he fell from the vehicle when asked to exit. Subsequent to his arrest, client allegedly became even more disruptive and made disparaging remarks about the arresting officer’s mother. On cross-examination, the defense demonstrates that the actuallocation of the defendant’s operation is inconsistent with the officer’s testimony on that issue. Questions about the officer’s credibility and memory of the event also raise doubt as to the client’s guilt.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Police receive a call from a local restaurant indicating that a truck hit a light pole while exiting the parking lot and then left the scene. Client is stopped a short time later and the police officer immediately detects a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. Client’s eyes appear blood shot, he admits to having a ”couple of drinks” when asked, and he is unable to offer an explanation for the damage to his vehicle. Client submits to the typical battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (HGN, One Leg Stand, Walk and Turn) and allegedly fails them all. Prior to trial, the defense demonstrates several problems with the arresting officer’s administration of the FSTs resulting in a reduced charge.

VERDICT: DWI COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

Client drives into a DWI Sobriety Checkpoint and the screening officer immediately detects the strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. According to the officer, client’s eyes were extremely red, and he was slow and lethargic when responding to the officer’s questions. Client admits to having recently smoked marijuana and he is then put through the same Standardized Field Sobriety Tests normally used to predict impairment by alcohol. Following his arrest, client agrees to provide a urine sample that was then sent to the state lab for testing. At trial, the defense demonstrates that FSTs have never been validated as reliable indicators of impairment from marijuana. In addition,the defense demonstrated that the lab test results, which showed only the presence of marijuana in the system, was insufficient evidence of impairment by the drug.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Client gets two (2) flat tires after striking something on the highway and calls 911 for assistance in getting a tow. Instead of a tow truck, the police respond and client is subjected to a battery of field sobriety tests before ultimately being arrested. At trial the defense argues that the FST evidence was of little value to the jury, particularly given the location of the tests and the weather conditions at the time.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Police respond to the parking lot of a local tavern where two motorists were involved in a small fender-bender. Client is accused of refusing to provide insurance information to the other motorist and, when asked by the police, he gives inconsistent answers regarding his consumption of alcohol. Officers also testify that he displayed a strong odor of alcohol and that his eyes were “extremely glazed and blood shot.” Officer testifies that client failed four (4) FSTs before being placed under arrest. At trial thedefense calls into question the relevance of the FSTs and client explains that his allegedly belligerent behavior was due to his anger over the accident and not his alcohol consumption.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Police are dispatched to be on the lookout for a particular vehicle after a 911 caller reports witnessing numerous instances of erratic operation. Police officer then observes client travelling in excess of the speed limit and committing several marked lanes violations before deciding to stop the car. Client displays an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, slow movements and appears confused. Client allegedly fails five (5) FSTs and admits that his performance on the tests may have been impacted by his prior consumption of alcohol. At trial, the defense demonstrates that the FSTs have little to do with a person’s ability to drive safely. Defense witnesses then testify that client had been at a funeral earlier in the day and had only consumed a small amount of alcohol prior to his encounter with the police.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Officer is conducting stationary patrol in the parking lot of a convenience store when he observes client “brake suddenly” and then enter the store parking lot. After seeing client purchase alcohol from the store, officer notices that her license plate ispartially obstructed by a defective spoiler and he begins to follow the car, at which time he notices that the car is weaving and varying speeds for no apparent reason. After stopping the vehicle, the officer determines that client failed several field sobriety tests, including the Alphabet Test. Subsequent to the arrest, client submits to a breath test indicating a .13 BAC. At trial the defense calls into question whether the breath test was adminstered properly and then introduces expert testimony to show that the breath test result may not have been an accurate reflection of the client’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of driving.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Client is stopped by policeafter a 911 caller reports witnessing extremely erratic operation. Officer is met with a strong odor of alcohol after the vehicle and client has difficulty producing license and registration when asked. Client allegedly performs horribly of several field sobriety and has difficulty answering even simple questions. Defense introduces testimony from client’s treating physician to demonstrate that client suffers from an extreme form of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome that could explain her inability to perform the FSTs and answer seemingly simple questions.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Officer observes client travelling 45 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone while committing numerous marked lanes violations. Upon approaching the vehicle, police officer observes a large bottle of vodka protruding from beneath the passenger seat. Client admits to having 2 drinks while at a concert earlier in the evening. Client fails the HGN Test, One Leg Stand Test, the Walk and Turn Test and a Counting Test before being placed under arrest. A post-arrest search of client’s wallet reveals numerous receipts reflecting drink purchases that evening, however said evidence is suppressed prior to trial due to an improper search and seizure. On cross-examination the defense questions the reliabilty of the field sobriety test evidence and introduces a videotape of the booking to demostrates client’s appearance and condition at the time.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Client is stopped at 2:15 am after officer “clocks” his speed by travelling at the same speed as client’s vehicle for a certain period of time. Upon approaching the car, officer is met with a strong odor of alcohol and describes client’s speech as “thick tongued.” Client states that he “probably had one beer” and is ordered to exit the car. Client submits at a series of field sobriety tests and is subsequently arrested. At trial, the 23-year-veteren police officer testifies that he can not recallthe specifics of his training relative to the administration of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but instead chooses to “modify” them so as to make them easier for the citizen to perform. On cross-examination the defense demonstrates how poorly the arresting officer conducted his investigation and argues that such “modified” FSTs are of no relevance.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Client is found sitting in the driver’s seat of her car on the side of the road just before 5:00 a.m. Officer approaches and detects a strong odor of alcohol coming from client’s breath as well as other possible signs of intoxication. Officer adminsiters a series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and then places clientunder arrest for Driving while Intoxicated. Defense argues that there is insufficent evidence to demonstrate impairment at the time of driving.

VERDICT: DWI COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

Client is parked, briefly, in a Fire Lane when officer apporaches and orders him to move his vehicle. Officer testifies client’s eyes were dialated and that his speeach was slurred. After three attemopts client is able to produice his license and then stumbles as he’s asked to exit the motor vehicle. After allegedly failing two Field Sobriety Tests client is arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated. Defense argues that his appearance and performance of the FSTs is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was impaired by alcohol att he time.

VERDICT: DWI COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

Police are called to the scene of a single car accident where they are met by a homeowner who indicates that the driver of the vehicle had come to her home seeking assistance. Client is observed to be shaking and visibly upset when approached by the officer. After detecting an odor of alcohol, officer asks client if she had been drinking and client admits to drinking one glass of wine earlier in the night. After giving somewhat inconsistent accounts of her whereabouts prior to the accident, client is arrested and charged with Operating Under the Influence. Subsequent investigation reveals that the homeowner who intially called the police observed no signs of impairment.

VERDICT: COMPLAINT FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE DISMISSED.

Client, operating on a driver’s permit, is stopped at 1:35 a.m. after allegedly making several marked lanes violations. Officer detects an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and observes client’s eyes to be bloodshot and glossy. When asked, client admits to having “a couple beers.” Client is asked to perform four field sobriety test and is allegedly observed to be ”almost falling over.” After being placed under arrest client is transported to the police department where he submits to a breath test indicating a .14 BAC. At trial defense successfully undermines the credibility of the arresting officer and demonstrates that the breath test may not have been administered properly.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

Client is stopped for failing to maintain her travel lane and straddling the center line. After stopping the vehicle, officer detects a strong odor of alcohol and asks client to perform a series of three (3) Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (HGN, One Leg Stand, Walk and Turn). At the conclusion of the field sobriety tests client is asked to “rate her level of impairment on a scale of 1-to-10,” and indicates that she is a “four.” At trial defense demonstrates that client was not familiar with the area and that the driving observed by the officer was consistent with someone who may have been lost. Defense also argues that she should have been advised of her so-called Miranda rights before being asked to rate her own level of impairment.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY.

Police respond to the scene of a single-car accident at 11:30 p.m. Witnesses indicate to the first responding officer that the operator fled on foot. Client is then apprehend a few blocks away where she was found “unsteady on her feet and could barely speak.” At trial client is convicted Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, but defense argues that the was insfficient evidence to prove that alcohol (and not some other substance) was the cause of the defendant’s impairment.

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.