|
|
|
|
|
|
                                   |
 
Contact Patrick Barone Now for Your Michigan Drunk Driving DUI OUIL Defense!
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 unable to 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 |
