|
|
|
|
|
|
                                   |
 
Contact Patrick Barone Now for Your Michigan Drunk Driving DUI OUIL Defense!
People vs. J.B. The police report indicated that the reporting/arresting officer was responding to a BOL (be on lookout) for an OWI driver driving southbound on Gratiot from 27 Mile Road. He apparently was advised that the vehicle was a black Jeep. It appears that he did in fact observe this vehicle in the Gratiot and Main area. According to his report, he then followed the Jeep southbound on Gratiot and observed it cross the yellow center line at least three times before reaching 26 Mile Road. Additionally, the officer also notes that the Jeep crossed the lines numerous times after passing 26 Mile Road. After making the alleged observations, the officer stopped the Jeep. The officer asked for the vehicle documents and license and the report indicates that JB fumbled with the paperwork. The officer also indicated that he had to request the license a second time. Additionally, the officer stated that there was a strong odor of intoxicants, slow slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes and an admission to having "two beers." The only "standardized test" administered by the officer was the one-leg stand (OLS). The report indicates one of four standardized clues - specifically "swaying while balancing." The officer also requested the alphabet and counting backwards, and the driver had some difficulty with both as well as the finger dexterity task. The report also suggests slurred speech during these tasks. There was a roadside breath test (PBT) as well as the evidentiary breath test in this case. The PBT result was .117 and the evidentiary breath test results were .12 and .12. We set the case for trial and came back two days in a row waiting for the case to be called. We prepared our case, and remained ready to attempt to try and win before a jury. On the second case the arresting officer did not show. Result: Case Dismissed!  People vs. S.C. In this case the reporting/arresting officer first observed client's vehicle swerving on 13 mile road. At that point the officer made a u-turn and followed client's vehicle. The officer noted that the vehicle swerved within the lane and that on more than one occasion the tires touched the center line. Several field sobriety tests were given. The first of these tests was the One-Leg Stand. There are four clues associated with this test, and in order for the officer to properly testify that the driver "failed" this test, he must observe at least two of the four. According to the report the driver did not follow the instructions, and put his foot out for balance. The next test was the Walk-and-Turn (heel to toe). With this test there is a total of eight clues, and in order for the officer to properly testify that the client "failed" this test he must observe at least two of the eight during the performance. The report indicates that client did not complete this task due to a problem with his feet. The next standardized test was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. In administering this test, the officer is looking for an involuntary jerking (nystagmus) as the eye moves across a horizontal path. This jerking is thought to be caused by alcohol induced intoxication. There are three clues for each eye that are associated with this task, for a total of six clues. A subject may be deemed to have failed this task if two of the three clues are observed for each eye. The report indicates that the officer observed that client's eyes lacked smooth pursuit, and that he moved his head to follow the pen. The client was also asked to state the alphabet and count backwards. These are both non-standardized tests. In Michigan an officer may testify to what was observed on these tests. The description of the alphabet suggests that the client did not recite the alphabet correctly. Regarding the counting task, the client passed this task without issue. The client refused to take the roadside breath test (PBT). But did sumbit to a chemical breath test at the station, the results of which were .17 and .17 respectively. Result: This client wanted most to avoid the felony conviction and we were able to negotiate the felony charge down to a misdemeanor drunk driving. Among other things, this result allowed our client to keep his job, vote, and keep his gun rights. People vs. E.B. Here is a transcript of the videotape from this arrest: Phase One - Vehcile in Motion The tape begins at 1:43:52. The patrol vehicle is traveling down a two-lane street. The p. vehicle quickly turns around and comes upon a vehicle stopped at the side of the road. The officer can be heard saying: "Holy Shit". He then appears to call in the license plate. Phase Two / Face-to-Face Driver Contact : The officer can be heard saying, "Who's the driver". The response is, "it was me". The officer next indicates "what happened." The answer is "well I come around the curve here, and I just lost control and hit the embankment". The officer next asked, "have you been drinking at all tonight?" The response is "yes I have". The driver continues by saying, "I didn't think I had - I didn't think I was - you know". The officer next indicates, "Here's what happened, you hit that way back there - you cast yourself in the air and you ended up here, I can see where you went off and launched it". The officer next asked for the driver's license and the driver is able to produce it quickly. At this point, a crackling can be heard in the mike indicating that it may be windy. The officer asked the driver again how much he's had to drink tonight and the driver explained that he had been at the Moose in Belleview since eight o'clock. He then continues that he didn't think he had a lot but he's been on a diet lately and that his judgment may be off. Phase Three - Pre-Arrest Screening : The officer asked the driver to walk in front of the vehicle. At this point the driver can be seen walking into the view of the camera. The two officers are with him and they look into his vehicle with flashlights. The one officer comments that both air bags went off. The other officer asks him if anybody else was in the car to which he responds no. The officer next asks if he is hurt at all to which he responds no but he is embarrassed. He went into Kate's "It's not what I intended to do". Task One : Finger Count - The officer first demonstrates the task and asks the driver to count with his finger to his thumb 12344321. On the first try the driver indicates 12343421. The officer asks him to try again and on the second time he indicates 12343421. Task Two : Counting Task - The officer asks first if he has any problems counting 1-15, to which the driver indicates "no." The officer then asks him to count 1-15 then backward 15-8. The driver completes this task successfully. His speech appears approximately normal. The officer next asks if the driver has any problems with his knees or ankles to which the driver responds he has problems with both his knees as well as his ankles. The officer indicates both to which the driver responds yeah, I used to play football. The officer asked if it causes him balance problems and the driver responds " Not a lot but you know". As he is answering the question he puts his arms up with his palms forward and shrugs his shoulders. Officer responds "okay fair enough." Task three : One leg Stand: The officer indicates to the driver: "okay, what I am going to have you do is pick either leg and I am going to have you balance on it. You're going to extend your foot out about six inches above the ground like so and you are going to count with your hands at your side 1001 1002 1003 now go ahead and count until I tell you to stop." The driver lifts his left leg and extends both hands about 18 inches away from his sides and counts 1001,2, 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 at this point his left hand is almost parallel with the ground. He continues counting 1009 1010 1011 1012 at which point he loses his balance and places his foots down. The officer stops the test. Task Four : Walk and Turn - The officer first positions the driver a few steps back so he has enough room to complete the task. He next asks him to stand with his feet together and his arms at his side. He then indicates: "okay what I want you to do is take nine steps forward just like so (demonstrating) and try to walk somewhat of a straight line I know we don't have really a straight line here to use try to get it as straight as you can take nine steps forward turn around and take nine steps back. Go ahead and do that for me." After the driver begins he tells him to "count his steps out loud." After this instruction the driver does begin to count his steps out loud and can be heard indicating 4, 5. On these first steps he loses his balance somewhat and then continues counting to nine, turns, and counts nine steps back. As best as can be determined from the tape his last steps are heel to toe. At 1:50:30 the police officer can be seen obtaining his preliminary breath testing device from its case. The officer instructs the driver of his preliminary breath test rights including that a violation is a civil infraction punishable by $100 fine. He then asks if he will take the test. The driver responds that he is cooperating and will do whatever the officer asks him to do. The officer then instructs him with regard to how to actually take the test. The test begins at 1:51:30 . The officer then indicates: "all right, this what you're at right now a .16 so put your hands behind you're under arrest for operating while intoxicated." A later breath test at the station confirmed the roadside breath test. Result: Original charge of OWI dismissed. Client convicted only of careless driving, a three point civil infraction no different from a speeding ticket.
Case 42 People vs. P.S Here our client was operating a watercraft (sail boat). He placed the vessel on auto-pilot and had been consuming whiskey all day. He eventually passed out on the vessel and became stuck on a sand bar near the swim area in East Tawas Bay. He failed the field sobriety tests, the preliminary breath test, and the evidentiary breath test results were .18. To defend the case we filed a motion arguing that the Coast Guard is not authorized to conduct the field sobriety of preliminary breath tests. Result: The original charges were dismissed. Ultimately the prosecutor agreed to add a new count and client plead guilty to Negligent Operation of a Water Craft.
People v. J. S. Our client was pulled over after going wrong way on one-way street. He was from out of town, and pretty much seemed to have passed the field sobriety tests. The roadside breath test however was a .09. He was arrested and taken back to the station. His DataMaster breath tests results were .08, .09. We filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to make the arrest. Result: OWI charge dismissed, client plead guilty to Careless Driving - (civil infraction).
Case 44. People v. G.S. In this particular case our client was charged with three things: I - OWI, II - PBT Refusal, III - Careless Driving. The facts were that our client was was outside of his flipped vehicle when the cops arrived at the scene. He explained he was not driving, but the passenger made statement that he was. The client poorly performed field sobriety tests but did not take PBT. He was arrested, and the DataMaster test results were .14, .15. Note: D is from Wisconsin, passenger was from Indiana. Tried to negotiate bc D was a pilot and this would effect his pilot license. Because of the contradictory evidence regarding who was driving we filed a motion arguing that the state would be unableto meet their burden of proof relative to the issue of operation.
People v. T. F. This client was charged with several things including OWI, PBT refusal, and an alleged Implied Consent Violation. He had been stopped in a driveway. The troopers claimed that they knew he did not live there and had observed him driving "left of center". He failed the field sobriety tests, did not take PBT. He also refused the breath test, and the trooper obtained a warrant for his blood which was subsequently tested with a result of .13. Result: Original Charges Dismissed, prosecutor added counts and client plead guilty to Reckless Driving & Disorderly Person. Client: Ruprecht, Mark (Illinois)
This client was charged with three things, including:I -OWI, II - Open. Intox, III - DWLS. He was pulled over after running a stop sign and making a wide turn. There was an open beer in the console in plain view. He was on his way home after a work function but had stopped at a bar on the way. He failed the field sobriety tests and the preliminary breath test results were .15. He was arrested, and the DataMaster test results were .16, .16. This particular case was complicated by the fact that the client's license had been restricted over the past 5+ years stemming from revocation after two OWI convictions within 7 years (1994, 1997), and had yet to return to have the license fully re-instated. Therefore, any alcohol related conviction would impact client greater than typical client.
People v. M.P. Here our client was charged with count I - OWI, and count II - Leaving the Scene of PDA. According to the police reports our client had rear-ended another vehicle and did not stop when that vehicle pulled into gas station. That vehicle then followed our client until he stopped. He did not feel there was any damage and complainants called police with description and license plate. The cops were dispatched to the client's address where he found vehicle (still warm) and looked in the client's house from front porch. The cops knocked on door, then pushed door open, and entered when no one responded. The cops found our client coming from bedroom, conducted investigation including field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. They also looked in receptacle for beer cans from recent alcohol consumption. To defend this case we filed several motions including one to Suppress Evidence because of an Illegal Search (4th Amendment). On the day of the motion the prosecutor met with the cop and the Complainant. The cop wanted to have motion hearing, wherein if we won - prosecutor would give us a "reasonable offer", and would plead guilty to impaired if we lost. We explained that we would likely win, and if we lost we would likely appeal. The prosecutor spoke with officer again, and we were able to reach an agreement. Result: All charges dismissed, client plead guilty to Careless Driving (Civil Infraction). Case 48 People vs. J.S. This case was an second offense drunk driving. Our client was stopped after the cops ran his plate "randomly" (unfortunately legal in Michigan) and thereby discovered that he had a restricted license. After stopping the car our client told the cop "I'm going to prison" (he had a bad criminal history). He admitted drinking seven drinks at the bowling alley, and told the cops that he was a "stock broker." He was not able to properly state the alphabet, but could count backwards without any "noticeable" problems. He was not able to complete the walk and turn, at one point almost losing his balance. His PBT result was a whopping .354. Our client refused the breath test, and his blood was drawn. Much later his blood test results came back at a .12. We filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the police lacked any reasonable suspicion to stop our client's vehicle because the only way he could definitively determine that the driver was in violation of the restricted license was to stop and question him. We were able to further demonstrate this at a contested hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge took the matter "under advisement" pending further research. About one month later the court issued its opinion on the record, granting our motion. Result: Case Dismissed!
Here our client was charged with OWI first. He was an Ohio resident who met in Michigan for a work meeting/dinner. He was unfamiliar with the town and was unable to locate the 131 South ramp while attempting to drive back to Battle Creek. He pulled over onto the shoulder, turned his hazard lights on, and attempted to contact a co-worker via cell phone for directions. An officer pulled up next to him and asked if him if he needed assistance. The officer detected slurred speech and blood shot eyes. The officer activated his lights and requested that our client step out of the car for the field sobriety test. Our client failed the tests and had a .09 blood alcohol level according to the roadside breath test. During a thorough cross-examination, the defense was able to demonstrate for the jury several inconsistencies in the officer's testimony as well as his failure to adhere to the Standardized Procedures for Field Sobriety Tests. Result: Not Guilty - Jury Deliberated for approximately 20 minutes!
Case 50. People vs. D.D. In this particular case our client was charged with an OWI (Second Offense). He was pulled over after officer observed his vehicle cross over center line, drive onto the shoulder on multiple occasions, and travel at irregular speeds. Our client admitted to consuming 6-7 drinks and had slurred speech. He was asked but was unable to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and explained he was suffering a diabetic incident. EMS arrived, treated our client who was then escorted to the Hospital. A blood draw and subsequent serum test were conducted without consent with a result of .171. We filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing arguing that the Prosecution would not be able to lay a proper foundation of reliability for the admission of the blood serum tests prior to trial, and further arguing that the serum blood test was inherently unreliable as forensic evidence, and that it should therefore be suppressed. Result: All Charges Dismissed, client plead guilty to the non-alcohol Reckless Driving (OWI-2d was dismissed. Additionally, the our client had a CDL and therefore, a conviction/plea to alcohol related offense would suspend the CDL for 1 year, and this was independant of the one year revocation for the underlying operator's lciense.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| © 2005 AMERICA'S TOP DUI & DWI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. All rights reserved. Disclaimer |