Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – DUI and DWI (.088 BAC) – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 16782) – JUN 17, 2021 – (Phoenix City Court No. 5354541).

Mr. M had gone to dinner with his wife at Durant’s restaurant, where they ate a full meal and had a bottle of wine.  He then went with his wife to watch the Bob Dylan concert in downtown Phoenix.  On the way home, an Officer claimed at an off-ramp on theI-17 that Mr. M had run through a red light.  He subsequently pulled Mr. M over, and took him to a DUI Task Force van.

The only test he gave in the field was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (i.e., the eye test).  During that test he found only four out of the six cues necessary to determine if somebody was impaired by alcohol.  In addition, Mr. M was 61 years old and had various physical problems.  The Officer stated that the reason he only gave the HGN test was that they were near heavy traffic on the freeway.  He also tried to use that as an excuse as to why he did not find all cues during the eye test.

In front of a Jury, we were able to demonstrate all of these flaws, along with having proof that Mr. M had drank only half a bottle of wine, which would not have allowed for his blood alcohol content to be above the legal limit.  We discredited the State’s BAC test of .088, and the Jury came back Not Guilty on all charges.  This was very important, because Mr. M worked at a manufacturing plant that had various government contracts, and required all employees to have clean criminal records.

Not Guilty, Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – DUI and DWI (.107 BAC) – State v. Ms W – (DMC No. 16810) – JUL 29, 2021 – (Surprise City Court No. TR2019-00313).

Ms W was coming home from a restaurant in Surprise by the name of Eagles.  She had approximately two glasses of wine with dinner and was traveling 35 miles per hour in a 45-mile zone.  The Surprise Police Officer claimed that she ran a light, and then he followed her for almost two miles.  He claimed that when she made a turn, she struck a curb, and that’s when he pulled her over.  On the citation, the Officer put the time of driving as 10:23 at night (instead of 9:45).  When he conducted field sobriety tests, he received only 4 cues out of 6 on the HGN (eye test).  He subsequently placed Ms W under arrest and she produced a breath test, which resulted in a .107 blood alcohol concentration.

After Ms W hired our law office, we began our investigation.  Ms W was 72 years old at the time she was stopped, and had various medical issues.  At Trial, all of these issues were brought up, which nullified most of the field sobriety tests.  In addition, we were able to show that traveling at 10 miles below the speed limit did not constitute one of the 24 night-time indicators of DUI impairment as established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  Ultimately, the Jury came back Not Guilty on all charges, and Ms W was greatly relived that she did not have to spend time in jail.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – Super Extreme DWI (.289 BAC), Extreme DWI, DUI and DWI – State v. Ms G (DMC No. 16890) NOV 18, 2021 – (Peoria City Court (Case NO. TR2019-000322).

Ms G had dinner and several drinks at Legends Sports Bar in Peoria, Arizona.  She had medical issues which caused her feet to swell, so she left the bar and went to her parked car, turned on the engine in order to run the heater while she had her shoes off.  Her son worked across the street at the Lowe’s Department Store, and she was waiting for him to get off work.  He was then going to drive them both home.

It turned out that somebody had seen her leave the bar and thought she was intoxicated.  This person had called 911 and reported that there was a “drunk woman inside of her running car.”  The police then showed up and began the DUI investigation against Ms G.  Ms G explained she was a nurse, she was merely waiting for her son to get off work, and that she had called him and he could explain everything.  The police still arrested her for DUI and claimed that she was “in Actual Physical Control” of her vehicle.

She was subsequently taken to a police station where a blood draw was conducted.  Her blood results revealed a .289 blood alcohol content. She initially had hired another attorney in town, who had reviewed the case and had advising her to plead guilty to a super extreme DUI.  She then contacted our firm and we explained that she was not in Actual Physical Control because she intended to use her vehicle as temporary shelter while waiting for her son.  There was no indication that she ever intended to drive.  Although the prosecutor was stubborn, and would not listen to us, we set the case to Trial.  After a two-day trial, the Jury returned Not Guilty verdicts on all counts.  This was very important, as Ms G was a registered nurse, and a DUI conviction could have cost her her license.