DUI and DWI Case Outcomes

Recent Case Outcomes:  Driving While Impaired

State vs. J.W. (2016):

  • Verdict: Client charged with DWI and BAC of 0.10.  State’s motion to continue denied by the Court after Defense objected to the continuance due to officer’s transfer to another agency out-of-county.
  • Brief Facts: Client was charged with DWI after having been stopped for failing to maintain lane control.  The officer administered field sobriety tests to the Defendant who, according to the officer, performed poorly on these tests and was arrested for impaired driving.  Defendant was then taken to the jail and administered a breath test resulting in a BAC of 0.10.

State vs. L.T. (2016):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the DWI following the officer’s unlawful entry into the Defendant’s garage without consent, a warrant or exigent circumstances granted and case dismissed.
  • Brief Facts: Client was charged with DWI after officers received a dispatch regarding the Defendant’s motor vehicle leaving the scene after having been involved in a possible collision at a fast food restaurant late at night.  Two units were dispatched, one unit to the restaurant to investigate the collision and the other unit to the address of the registered owner of the vehicle based upon the plate number.  Officers waited outside of the home and observed a vehicle matching the description of the one involved in the possible collision pull into the home’s driving and into the garage.  As the Defendant attempted to shut the garage door upon pulling into the garage, one of the officers stopped the garage door from shutting and made contact with the Defendant who was the driver.  The Defendant was asked to exit his vehicle and follow the officers to the roadway to perform tests.  The Defendant was arrested after performing poorly on field sobriety tests and had a BAC of 0.23.

State vs. L.P. (2016):

  • Verdict: State’s motion to continue was denied by the Court after Defense Attorney objected to the continuance due to the officer no longer being employed in law enforcement.
  • Brief Facts: Client was charged with a second offense DWI after being stopped by police for failing to maintain lane control.  Upon making contact with the Defendant who was the driver of the motor vehicle the officer attempted to administer field sobriety tests.  The Defendant complained of a medical condition and was transported to the hospital where a blood draw was performed showing a BAC of 0.22.

State vs. T.L. (2016):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s Attorney Chris Dozier was able to negotiate a dismissal of Client’s driving while impaired charge following the Defendant having been involved in a motor vehicle collision and having a BAC of 0.07 approximately 2 hours after the collision.
  • Brief Facts: Client was charged with DWI after running into the rear end of another vehicle while traveling down the roadway.  The officer administered field sobriety tests to the Defendant and indicated that the Defendant did not perform these tests to his satisfaction.  Approximately two hours following the collision the Defendant was administered a breath tests and blew a 0.07.  The officer claimed the Defendant was appreciably impaired and would have had a higher BAC closer to the time of the collision based upon the theory of “retrograde extrapolation”.

State vs. T.B. (2016):

  • Verdict: Client was charged with DWI and the State’s motion to continue was denied by the Court following the Defendant’s Attorney Chris Dozier objection to the State’s motion after the officer had failed to appear in court for three (3) court dates in a row.
  • Brief Facts: Defendant was involved in a single car collision with witnesses to the wreck.  Upon the officer arriving at the scene the Defendant was still inside the motor vehicle.  Per the officer the Defendant did not perform field sobriety tests to his satisfaction and was arrested for impaired driving.  The Defendant was taken to the jail where a breath test was administered yielding a BAC of 0.17.

State vs. L.F. (2016):

  • Verdict: Client was charged with DWI along with other charges and the Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss the DWI charge was granted by the Court following a challenge to the officer’s probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.  As a result of the Court’s ruling the DWI case was dismissed along with the other charges of resisting a public officer, possession of an open container and reckless driving.
  • Brief Facts: The Defendant was observed by police leaving a bar in downtown Raleigh.  Officers instructed the Defendant and the group of people with the Defendant to get in their cars and leave the scene.  The Officer testified that the Defendant was being loud and failed to heed their command to leave the scene thus drawing more of his attention.  Eventually the Defendant got into the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle and attempted to leave the area.  Another Officer who was also on foot patrol was instructed to stop the Defendant’s vehicle as she exited the area.  The stopping officer testified that the Defendant sped past him as he attempted to stop her vehicle and did not have her headlights on.  Following this interaction, a dispatch was placed to stop the Defendant’s vehicle for failing to heed to a police command and possibly driving while impaired.  Eventually the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped a few blocks away by another officer as well as the original officers from the bar.  The officers testified that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests and placed her under arrest for DWI, resisting a public officer, possession of an open container, reckless driving, failure to burn headlights and failure to stop at a stop sign.  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.08.

State vs. J.A. (2016):

  • Verdict: DWI case dismissed by the Court following the Defendant’s Attorney objecting the State’s motion to continue following officers failure to appear for a special setting DWI hearing on this matter.
  • Brief Facts: Client was charged with driving while impaired after being stopped by officers for speeding 90mph in a 45mph zone.  Officers observed signs of alcohol consumption and impairment coming from the Defendant and administered field sobriety tests.  Officers indicated that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests and arrested the Defendant for DWI based on his driving and his tests.  Defendant was taken to the jail and administered a breath tests with the BAC results of 0.15.

State vs. R.T. (2016):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s motion to dismiss DWI with prejudice granted by the Court due to the State’s violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
  • Brief Facts: The Defendant was stopped and arrested at approximately 4:30am for DWI.  The Defendant appeared in court with another attorney who represented the Defendant on 12 prior court dates.  The Defendant and his Attorney appeared in court for a “special setting” trial on this DWI, however the State was not prepared to call the Defendant’s case for trial due to the unavailability of the charging officer (out on vacation) and requested a motion to continue.  The Defendant’s Attorney objected to the State’s motion to continue and the Court subsequently denied the State’s motion.  The State then entered a dismissal of the Defendant’s DWI, however later the State re-charged the Defendant for the same DWI (within the 3 year statute of limitations).  The Officer re-charged the Defendant using an “Order for Arrest” as opposed to a “Summons to Appear” and the Defendant was re-arrested for the same offense.  The Defendant then appeared pro-se in court on his “first appearance” court date for the re-charged DWI, however the Court could not locate his case in any courtroom.  The Defendant was provided with a certified letter from the Clerk of Court documenting his appearance in court, but the Defendant was still arrested on a “failure to appear” allegation.  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.15.

State vs. J.G. (2016):

  • Verdict: Case dismissed by the State as a result of the Officer’s Agency terminating his employment.

State vs. R.M. (2016):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss based upon lack of probable cause to arrest for DWI was granted by the Court.
  • Brief Facts: Defendant stopped at approximately 8am for speeding 91mph in a 70mph zone and expired tags. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed a
    “strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle” and that the Defendant had “red/glassy eyes”.  The Defendant also admitted to drinking the night before.  Officer had Defendant exit his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests (Walk/Turn, HGN, 1LS and PBT).  Officer observed some clues on these tests as well as a positive roadside breath sample on the PBT.  Defendant was polite and cooperative throughout his encounter with the Officer.
  • Other Post-Arrest Facts: Defendant’s BAC was 0.11

State vs. L.W. (2016):

  • Verdict: Not Guilty to DWI.
  • Brief Facts: Defendant was stopped for running a red light at approximately 11pm.  Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed a “strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle”.  Officer testified that the Defendant exhibited “very slow and deliberate” muscle skills when retrieving her driver’s license and registration.  The Officer had the Defendant exit her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.  The Defendant exhibited clues on the HGN test however refused to perform any other field sobriety tests.  The Defendant was thrown on the ground by the Officer using an “arm bar technique” and arrested for DWI.  After her arrest she refused to submit to a breath test due to her previous encounter on the side of the road with the Officer.  No blood sample was taken by the Officer.
  • Other Issues: At DMV hearing, the Defendant was found not to have “willfully refused” the breath test based upon the Officer throwing her onto the ground and no longer having trust in the Officer to administer the breath test.  Defendant’s license was not revoked for the refusal.

State vs. T.C. (2016):

  • Verdict: Case dismissed by the Court at the end of the State’s evidence.
  • Brief Facts: Defendant was involved in a two vehicle collision. The Officer was dispatched to the collision at approximately 11pm and made contact with the Defendant who was at the scene.  Defendant admitted to drinking 4 beers prior to the collision.  Officer administered the HGN and PBT (portable breath test) field sobriety tests to the Defendant and testified that the Defendant showed clues of impairment on the HGN and had a positive breath sample on the PBT.  Officer failed to get an admission to driving from the Defendant and was unable to testify as to when the wreck actually occurred.  Outside witness (driver of the other vehicle) was not present to testify.  Defendant’s BAC was 0.12.

State vs. E.E. (2016):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss granted based upon lack of probable cause to arrest for DWI.
  • Brief Facts: Defendant’s vehicle was sitting stationary on the roadway and did not move through several light cycles.  The Officer pulled upon the Defendant’s vehicle at approximately 1:50am and waited for the Defendant’s vehicle to move.  After observing the vehicle fail to respond to several light cycles, the Officer approached the vehicle and observed the Defendant “asleep at the wheel”.  It took the Officer several attempts knocking on the car window to wake up the Defendant.  Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer testified that the Defendant appeared confused and admitted to previously consuming alcohol.  The Officer observed a “moderate odor” of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath and was asked to perform field sobriety tests.  The Defendant was administered the HGN, Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand test.  Prior to performing the field sobriety test the Defendant told the Officer she had just recently had hip replacement surgery.  No roadside portable breath test was administered.
    • Other Post-Arrest Facts: Defendant’s BAC was 0.14.

State vs. R.T. (2016):

  • Verdict: Not Guilty to DWI
  • Brief Facts: Defendant was stopped for failure to maintain lane control, improper left turn and failing to property stop at a stop bar at approximately 12:40am. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer testified that the Defendant had difficulty producing her driver’s license and registration as well as he noted that there was “a strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle” and that the Defendant had “red, glass, bloodshot eyes.”  The Defendant admitted that she was going home from a bar and had been drinking earlier in the night.  The Officer had the Defendant exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.  Upon exiting the vehicle, the Officer observed a “very strong odor of alcohol” coming from the Defendant’s breath.  The Defendant performed the HGN, Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand field sobriety test and the Officer testified that he observed clues on all tests.  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.08.

State vs. C.D. (2016):

  • Verdict: State’s motion to continue denied by the Court after Defendant’s objection and case dismissed by the State.

State vs. S.T. (2016):

  • Verdict: Not Guilty to DWI.
  • Brief Facts: The Defendant was stopped for expired tags and operating with a revoked driver’s license at approximately 12:00am. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed that the Defendant’s eyes were “red and glassy”.  The Defendant admitted to having a suspended driver’s license and was asked to exit her vehicle.  The Defendant also admitted that she had been drinking and was asked to perform field sobriety tests.  The Officer administered the HGN, Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand test to the Defendant and testified that he observed clues on each of these tests.  The Defendant also submitted to a portable roadside breath test (PBT) and the results of that test were positive for alcohol.  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.08.

State vs. A.S. (2016):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s motion to suppress results of breath test under Ferguson was granted by the Court and BAC results were suppressed at trial.
  • Brief Facts: Defendant was arrested for DWI and taken to the Wake County Detention Center to perform a breath test.  After the Officer advised the Defendant of his Chemical Test Breath Rights the Defendant requested for a witness to be present for the breath test.  Defendant’s witness testified that her and her husband were following the Defendant when he was arrested for DWI and were in route to the Wake County Detention Center after the Defendant’s arrest.  The witnesses further testified that they arrived within the 30 minutes required.  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.19.

State vs. D.G. (2016):

  • Verdict: Case was dismissed by the State due to lack of appreciable impairment and BAC of 0.07.

State vs. T.H. (2016):

  • Verdict: Not Guilty to DWI
  • Brief Facts: Defendant was stopped for failure to maintain lane control and speeding at approximately 11pm.  Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed a “strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle” and that the Defendant’s eyes were “red and glassy.”  Defendant’s speech was slurred and difficult to understand.  Defendant admitted to having two (2) drinks earlier at a concert and was currently on her way home.  The Officer had the Defendant exit her car to perform field sobriety tests- HGN, Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand.  The Officer testified that the Defendant did not perform these tests to his satisfaction.  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.12.

State vs. J.S. (2016):

  • Verdict: Not Guilty to DWI
  • Brief Facts: Defendant stopped at approximately 5am for failure to maintain lane control on I-440.  Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed a “strong odor of alcohol coming from the driver’s breath”.  Defendant was asked to exit his car and perform some field sobriety tests in the Officer’s vehicle (ABC, Counting and HGN).  Defendant performed the ABC and Counting test “good” and exhibited some clues on the HGN test.  The Officer also noted that the Defendant’s eyes were “red and glassy” and his speech was “a little slurred.”  The Defendant denied drinking however admitted that he had been at a corporate function the night before.  Defendant refused to submit to a breath sample and a blood draw was not conducted.

State vs. C.N. (2016):

  • Verdict: Case dismissed by the Court at the end of the State’s evidence.
  • Brief Facts: The Defendant was involved in a wreck at approximately 3am.  The Officer was nearby when the wreck occurred and believed that he had recently seen the same vehicle traveling on the roadway.  When he arrived at the scene the Defendant was not in the vehicle and was being treated by EMS on the sidewalk.  There were several witnesses on scene, however no witnesses were present in court to testify that they observed the Defendant exit the driver’s seat of the vehicle.  The Officer could observe a “very strong” odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath, but did not perform field sobriety tests due to the nature of the wreck and some injuries observed on the Defendant.
  • Other Post-Arrest Facts: A blood draw was performed and the Defendant’s BAC was 0.23.

State vs. R.G. (2015):

  • Verdict: State’s motion to continue denied by the Court after Defendant’s objection and case dismissed by the State.

State vs. J.C. (2015):

  • Verdict: State’s motion to continue denied by the Court after Defendant’s objection and case dismissed by the State.

State vs. M.A. (2015):

  • Verdict: Case was dismissed by the State due to lack of appreciable impairment and BAC of 0.07.

State vs. A.S. (2015):

  • Verdict: Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss granted based upon lack of probable cause to arrest for DWI.
  • Brief Facts: The Defendant was stopped for speeding at approximately 12:45am.  Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer detected an “odor of alcohol” coming from the Defendant and also noticed that the Defendant had “red, glassy eyes.”  The Defendant denied drinking.  The Officer had the Defendant perform a roadside portable breath test (PBT) which was positive for alcohol.  In addition, the Defendant performed the HGN test as well as the Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand field sobriety test.  The Officer observed 6 of 6 clues on the HGN test, however testified that he did not observe any additional clues on the WAT and 1LS test.
  • Other Post-Arrest Facts: The Defendant’s BAC was 0.08.

State vs. T.F. (2015):

  • Verdict: Not Guilty to DWI
  • Brief Facts: Defendant stopped for driving 20mph in a 35mph zone, then turning into a parking lot of a closed business and expired tags at approximately 3:30pm.  Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed a “strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle”.  Defendant admitted to drinking one drive prior to driving along with lunch approximately 1 hour before he was stopped.  Defendant was asked to perform some pre-exit field sobriety tests (Counting, ABC and Finger Dexterity).  The Officer observed only slight difficulty with the Defendant’s ability to perform these tests.  The Officer also performed the HGN test on the Defendant and observed all 6 clues Additionally, the Defendant was asked to perform a WAT (Walk & Turn) and 1LS (One Leg Stand) field sobriety tests and the Officer also observed a few clues on these tests along with a positive roadside breath sample (PBT).  The Defendant’s BAC was 0.22.