Oregon DUII Diversion Attorneys
DUII Diversion — An Option for First Time Offenders
DUII Diversion is a program created by the State of Oregon to decrease the court workload, and provide for immediate drug and alcohol treatment for those who qualify. The goal is to reduce repeat drunk driving offenses.
At Mark C. Cogan, P.C., we have criminal defense experience that will help you determine if diversion is a good option for you, and help you enroll in this program if you qualify. A DUII diversion may be the pathway to keep your record clean and result in a dismissal of DUII charges.
“Mark, Thank you for your letter and the report. I appreciate everything that you have done on my behalf. You have delivered on every promise and spared me numerous pointless appointments in the halls of the courthouse. Once again, Thank you.” — KS, Portland, OR
Facts About Oregon DUII Diversion
Diversion can be a good option for first time offenders, but not everyone is eligible for entry into the DUII diversion program. You are not eligible for DUII diversion if:
- You have a DUII conviction within the last 15 years in any state.
- You have already gone through a DUII diversion within the past 15 years in any state.
- You injured someone in an accident as part of your DUII charge.
- You currently hold a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL).
If you choose to enter a DUII diversion program, you must:
- File the paperwork with the court within 30 days of your arraignment.
- File a plea of guilty or “no contest”, which will take effect in the event that you fail to complete the program.
- Pay certain fees to the court and be evaluated to determine the extent of your alcohol problem.
- Complete alcohol treatment as required and attend a defendant’s impact panel.
Other criminal charges (reckless driving, driving while suspended, traffic violations) are not necessarily dismissed as a result of participation in DUII diversion. However, an experienced Portland DUII attorney can use a client’s successful completion of a diversion program as a negotiation tool in the client’s other criminal proceedings.
The Prosecution Has Begun Its Work — We Should Begin Ours
No matter the circumstances, anyone under investigation or facing criminal prosecution should retain the best possible attorney as early in the process as possible. If you have been charged with a DUII, please call our Portland criminal law office at (503) 549-1077 or send us an e-mail for a free initial consultation with our lawyer. We are conveniently located near Lake Oswego and Beaverton.
DUII Success Stories
Our Portland law office has had spectacular success defending client facing charges of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI).
Year in, year out, DUII defense is one of the most frequently handled type of matter that comes our way.
We are pleased to share the following case histories of DUII matters we have handled in recent years. Keep in mind that every case is different. Success in a past case is no guarantee of success in the future.
This being said, it is clear that there is a common thread to these cases. That common thread is that I am a resourceful defense attorney who uses all resources to fight hard for the rights of my clients.
I do whatever is possible to put forward a strong defense of any client whose freedom and reputation is placed in my care. I realize that my clients have a great deal of stake when they place their case in my hands. I pledge to do whatever is possible to put up an effective defense of my clients.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Client S faced an allegation for 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!