DISMISSED | DUI – State v. Mr. C. (Phoenix Municipal Court No. 4404265): Mr. C. was stopped for allegedly having an obstructed plate. When the officer stopped him, he claimed Mr. C. had watery, bloodshot eyes and an odor of alcohol. During the eye test (HGN), Mr. C. exhibited 6 cues out of 6. After setting Mr. C.’s case to trial and filing three separate evidentiary motions regarding no reasonable suspicion for the stop, no probable cause for the arrest, and a violation of his right to counsel, the State dismissed all criminal charges. Following the dismissal on criminal charges, a separate civil traffic hearing was set. At the hearing, the officer requested not to proceed and Mr. C.’s civil charge was also dismissed.

(Phoenix Municipal Court No. 8970876CR): Mr. H. was stopped or an alleged DUI in June. The City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office was unable to proceed to trial in October, and the case was dismissed. Sometime thereafter, the City Prosecutor’s Office re-filed the charges and sent notice to Mr. H.’s former address without notifying Defense Counsel. He eventually discovered there was a warrant regarding his DUI some six (6) years later. We then got the case dismissed in its entirety do to a violation of Mr. H.’s speedy trial rights.

DISMISSED | DUI (Phoenix Municipal Court No. 654495CR): Mr. J. was involved in a single car accident approximately 6 years prior to hiring us. Because he had moved, the Summons never reached him and a Bench Warrant was issued for his arrest. He was subsequently arrested when he returned to Arizona, and hired us to fight his case. We filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of Corpus Delecti, and the State ultimately agreed and all charges were dismissed.

DISMISSED | DUI (Phoenix Municipal Court No. 2917580CR): Ms. R. was stopped by police for allegedly making a “short left turn” and almost striking some of the “raised buttons on the roadway.” She performed well on Field Sobriety Tests. Although she submitted to a breath test which was over the legal limit, we were able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the DUI charges.

(Phoenix Municipal Court No. 2966630CR): Ms. K. was stopped for driving 51 in a 40 mph zone. She admitted to having 2-3 beers, and submitted to Field Sobriety Tests. After she was transported to the police station, she provided a reading above the legal limit. We were able to point out that the calibration checks on the breath testing device showed that the machine was reading somewhat high. That, combined with her performance on Field Sobriety Tests allowed us to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the DUI.

(Phoenix Municipal Court No. 2970478CR): Ms. J. was seen by the side of the road as an officer was driving by. The officer indicated that the area had a high number of burglaries. When he pulled back around, he saw Ms. J. pulling away in her car and he stopped her. She performed well on Field Sobriety Tests, and provided a breath sample above the legal limit. Due to the questionable stop and her performance on FST’s, we were able to get the prosecutor to dismiss the DUI charge.

DISMISSED | DUI (Phoenix Municipal Court No. 2972842CR): Ms. W. was stopped for allegedly traveling 25 mph in a 40 mph zone. Although she did not perform well on Field Sobriety Tests, she was offered a breath test by the officer. The breath test resulted in an “interferent detected/no viable readings obtained.” We convinced the prosecutor that the reading would be suppressed, and the DUI was dismissed.

(Phoenix Municipal Court No. 2978701CR): Mr. W. was seen driving without rear lights on his vehicle. He was stopped by police, and a DUI investigation ensued. He did very well on his FST’s, and no eye (HGN) was given. Even though his BAC was above the legal limit, we were able to get all charges dismissed.

(Phoenix Municipal Court No. 8970876CR): Mr. H. was stopped for an alleged DUI in June. The Phoenix City Prosecutor’s Office was unable to proceed to trial in October, and the case was dismissed. Sometime thereafter, the City Prosecutor’s Office re-filed the charges and sent notice to Mr. H.’s former address without notifying Defense Counsel. He eventually discovered there was a warrant regarding his DUI some six (6) years later. We then got the case dismissed in its entirety do to a violation of Mr. H.’s speedy trial rights.