DUII Cases With Great Results
Year in, year out, the most frequent type of matter handled in our law office is a charge of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII). When a person gets a charge of DUII, there is often a feeling of hopelessness, anger, and frustration. However, DUII’s can be defended successfully.
Proactive and resourceful advocacy on behalf of client paved the way to the State’s dismissal of our client’s DUII charge.
Client W was discovered in his truck, parked off the side of a roadway, sound asleep. He was several hundred miles from home, and appeared intoxicated to the police officer. He made incriminating statements, and failed the field sobriety tests. I challenged the client’s suspension pursuant to Oregon’s Implied Consent law, and was able to lay the groundwork for a successful defense at trial. Indeed, the work that I did at the client’s administrative hearing was instrumental in enabling me to persuade the District Attorney to dismiss the criminal charge without going to trial.
The police thought our client was intoxicated, but we were able to demonstrate that the client was suffering from effects of a brain injury.
Client B was pulled over for traffic infractions, and was prosecuted for DUII. The work I did at the client’s Implied Consent suspension hearing enabled me to lay a foundation for a successful defense at trial. At trial, I established that the client’s unsteadiness on his feet and his slurred speech was due to a brain injury which the client sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and not intoxication. Our efforts were rewarded with a Not Guilty Verdict.
The police responded to a complaint of our client driving recklessly, and discovered the client was apparently intoxicated. We won the client’s case.
Client D was arrested because of unsafe driving in a park. When apprehended by the police, he failed field sobriety tests and refused a breath test. I was able to persuade the jury that there was reasonable doubt concerning the client’s condition at the time he was driving, because there was evidence that the client had been drinking beer between the time he ceased driving and was apprehended by the police. The jury found my client Not Guilty.
Police jumped to conclusions about client driving while drugged. Aggressive cross examination revealed that the officer failed to follow procedures.
Client G was pulled over for unsafe driving. The police found drug paraphernalia in his vehicle and white powder on his nose, suggestive that the client had recently ingested cocaine. The client refused field sobriety tests. The police officer was highly skilled and experienced in conducting investigations for drug-impaired driving, and was even an instructor in that field. After reviewing the police reports prior to this trial, my paralegal told me that, if I won this client’s case, I was truly an outstanding defense attorney. I used the officer’s training materials against the officer at trial, and demonstrated that the officer had failed to follow the standard procedures. My work on this client’s behalf resulted in a verdict of Not Guilty on the charges of Driving Under the Influence, as well as the drug possession charges.
Police stopped our client for running a flashing red light. We established that there was no such signal. We won Motion to Suppress. Case dismissed!
Client S faced charges of Reckless Driving and DUII, based on the police officer’s allegation that he had failed to stop at a flashing red light. The client blew three times the legal limit on the breath test. I challenged the police officer’s conduct at the time of the stopping of my client, and demonstrated that the officer was incorrect about certain key facts in the case. Using evidence from the city traffic engineer, I demonstrated that there was no flashing red light at the intersection in question. The judge granted my Motion to Suppress evidence, and the entire case was thrown out.
Proactive and aggressive advocacy on our client’s behalf at the Implied Consent hearing resulted in dismissal of the client’s criminal charge.
Client V was arrested in his home on suspicion of DUII. The arrest was based on an anonymous tip on the part of another motorist, who phoned in a complaint to the police. When the police arrived at the client’s home, they entered the home in violation of the client’s Constitutional rights. Based on the testimony at the client’s Implied Consent hearing, I persuaded the prosecuting attorney to dismiss the case.
Police officer erroneously concluded that client was intoxicated. We established that language barriers prevented adequate communication. Not Guilty!
Client R was from a foreign country, and spoke little English. When he was apprehended by the police, he requested an interpreter, but the officer refused to get one. At trial, the police claimed that the client had made significant driving errors, had failed the field sobriety tests, and had refused the breath test. I persuaded the judge that my client’s conduct and the police observations resulted from a difficulty in communicating due to the language difference, and my client was found Not Guilty.
Police officer pulled over our client, who exhibited signs of intoxication. In reality, the client had worked around chemicals all day. Not guilty!
Client M was apprehended based on driving infractions and was prosecuted for DUII. He failed the field sobriety tests and refused a breath test. At trial I demonstrated that the client’s condition was not based on intoxication, but resulted from the client being tired from working all day. I also demonstrated that his dizziness and poor balance resulted from working around toxic chemicals at his workplace. Further, I established that the client’s slurred speech and confusion which was exhibited to the police officer resulted from a language barrier, arising from the client not being a native English speaker. The jury rewarded my defense of this client with a Not Guilty verdict.
Police failed to follow all steps required by DRE protocols. Result: DUII charges dismissed!
Two clients were arrested, in separate counties, and were prosecuted on suspicion of DUII. They committed traffic infractions, and exhibited signs of intoxication. The State alleged they were under the influence of marijuana. I demonstrated that the police officers had failed to take all the investigative steps necessary to establish a foundation for the admission of scientific evidence, and both cases were dismissed.
Client appeared to be intoxicated. In reality, client was suffering from a diabetic reaction. Blood sugar level made client seem drunk. Not guilty!
Client A was arrested for dangerous driving. He failed the field sobriety tests, and refused a breath test. At trial, the police officer testified that the client appeared heavily intoxicated. I established that the client’s apparent intoxication was actually due to his diabetic-related reaction to a blood sugar imbalance. The jury found my client Not Guilty.
Aggressive cross examination of the arresting officer can reveal inconsistencies and flaws in the investigation. Good lawyering can lead to dismissal!
Client C was prosecuted for DUII. I questioned the police officer relentlessly at the trial, pointing out the numerous errors that the officer had made in his investigation of the matter. The jury could not agree on a verdict, so the judge declared a mistrial. The case was scheduled for a retrial. On the day of trial, the officer refused to appear in court, evidently because he did not want to be subjected to a second grilling. Case dismissed!
Time and time again, good Portland DUII lawyers are able to accomplish Not Guilty verdicts for their clients. The most important factor that may determine whether a case will be won or lost can be the knowledge and skill of the defense attorney. If you are facing a charge of DUII, make sure that you have a criminal defense attorney who is resourceful, and has a proven track record of successfully defending this type of case. Follow this link to the DUII section of our website for additional information: www.coganlawoffice.com/DUII-Driving-Under-the-Influence-of-Intoxicants/