Follow Me on Twitter
DWI Dude Blog
DWI Dude FacebookCase Stories
These are actual case stories from the DWI Dude team. To protect our clients' confidentiality we have not used any names.
(2012) T.S. - Driving While Intoxicated - Bexar County
T.S. came to us on a DWI 1st. During the officer’s testimony at the ALR hearing, it was revealed that this was not only his first DWI, but his first arrest ever. He gave outlandish testimony about our client’s behavior and his administration and interpretation of the standardized field sobriety tests. Because our trial attorneys are certified as Practitioners of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) and have taken the DWI Detection courses, we are able to put extreme pressure on the testifying officers while cross examining them. After reviewing the transcript from that ALR hearing, the prosecutor outright dismissed T.S.’s case.
(2010) C.G. - Driving While Intoxicated - Travis County
CG was charged with DWI. After discussions with the prosecutor it was agreed that the state would dismiss the on the condition that the defendant not commit a new offense for 365 days and perform 40 hours of community service. She was not required to waive her rights to plead not guilty and demand a jury trial in the event she failed to abide by the conditions.
(2010) B.C. - Driving While Intoxicated - Travis County
BG was charged with the offense of DWI in one county and then was arrested for another DWI while this case was pending. In lieu of a pre-trial hearing the State agreed to dismiss the DWI, refile to obstruction of a passageway with a fine only. No jail and no probation.
(2010) J.B. - Driving While Intoxicated - Travis County
JB - Defendant was arrested for a felony DWI and had a forced blood draw of .18. He was arrested behing the wheel of his vehicle, the engine running, parking brake engaged with heater running and he was fast asleep. Raised the defense that defendant was not driving, not in a public place and insufficient evidence as to what his alcohol level was at some other time when he may have been driving. Found not guilty.
(2010)T.O. - Driving While Intoxicated
T.O. was stopped at 2:30 in the morning after a police officer observed T.O. strike a curb. T.O. is a college student with no criminal history and a bright and ambitious future ahead of him. T.O. came to the DWI DUDE seeking quality DWI representation to protect his clean arrest record and criminal history.
T.O. was very cooperative with the police and to his own detriment attempted to perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) that consist of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Walk and Turn test, and the One Leg Stand test. Austin Police Officer also had T.O. perform the Romberg Balance test.
T.O. looked great on the arrest video during the performance of these tasks but after completion of them, he was placed under arrest for DWI. T.O., in an attempt to prove his sobriety then took a Breath Test at the Travis County Jail on the Intoxylizer 5000 EN and blew almost twice the legal limit.
After attempts to resolve the case with the State to a Non-DWI offense and deferred adjudication proved fruitless, the DWI DUDE set T.O.'s case for a jury trial.
Prior to picking a jury, the Judge heard the DWI DUDE's Motion to Suppress. The officer must have reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Reasonable Suspicion is defined as specific, articulable facts that indicate an offense has occurred or will occur in the very near future. In other words, police must have a valid reason to pull you over, ie. speeding, headlights not illuminated, etc.
Fortunately for T.O., the DWI DUDE found case law that stated striking a curb a single time is not sufficient Reasonable Suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop. The Judge heard the evidence and granted T.O.'s Motion to Suppress and therefore the State could not introduce any evidence of the SFSTs or the Breath Test at trial and the state had to DISMISS the DWI!
(2010) M.R. - Criminal Trespass; Driving While Intoxicated - United States District Court
Client accidentally turned into the initial entry point to one of the local military bases. As he attempted to exit the entry zone the military security forces stopped his vehicle and began investigating his presence. During the questioning period the authorities decided to pursue a DWI investigation. Client informed the officers that he was following my advice to invoke his Constitutional Right to decline to take tests or answer questions. In federal court the defendant does not have the right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor DWI case.
After reviewing the case I felt that the prosecutors would have a hard time overcoming the presumption of innocence. I focused on the lack of bad driving facts combined with an overall lack of evidence to present to the magistrate. The typical DWI investigation involves a vehicle in motion stage (driving facts), a personal contact stage (initial face to face exchange) and an arrest decision stage (sobriety tests). This case was based solely on the personal contact stage and the arresting officers were did not have extensive DWI investigation experience.
I enter into discussions with the Federal prosecutors and we discussed the strengths versus weaknesses of the case. We were able to work out a plea bargain that included the dismissal of the DWI charge and a plea to a short probationary period for Obstructing the Roadway. My client was extremely excited about the case results and he was able to avoid the mandatory jail time that he was facing when he hired my firm.
(2010) D.T. - Driving While Intoxicated - Travis County
A young client who came to the DWI Dude to help keep his record clean of any criminal history. D.T. was pulled over for Speeding 47 mph in a 30 mph speed zone and pulled over just off of MoPac in the city of Austin at 2:15 in the morning. The arresting officer in D.T.'s case is a very well known APD DWI Enforcement officer who makes dozens of DWI arrests each month. D.T. provided the officer with a copy of his driver's license but was unable to locate his insurance. The officer stated in his offense report that he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from D.T.'s breath, D.T. had bloodshot and glassy eyes. D.T. admitted to the officer he had consumed three beers and a rum and coke over the previous three hour period. The officer had D.T. perform the standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) that include the HGN, the Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. The arresting officer also had D.T. perform the Romberg Balance test. The officer noted all observable clues on the HGN and even videotaped D.T.'s eyes during the test. However, the officer only observed 2 clues out of the possible 8 on the Walk and Turn and only one clue on the One Leg Stand. Further, Mr. D.T. was very cooperative, responsive, and spoke articulately when answering the officer's questions. Still, D.T. was arrested for DWI and taken to jail where he refused the Breath test. Initially upon watching the DWI video with the County Attorney's office, the prosecutors handling the case offered D.T. to dismiss the DWI in exchange for a plea to Obstruction of a Passageway, another Class B misdemeanor. D.T., mindful of his criminal record and the desire to keep it free of any serious charges or convictions, rejected this offer and his case was set for trial. On that day we appeared and announced "ready for trial" the prosecutors offered to dismiss the DWI in exchange for a plea to a Speeding ticket and a $100 fine. D.T. knowing he was guilty of Speeding, but not DWI, agreed that this was a fair offer, and walked away from the judicial process with a sense of VICTORY and gratitude to the DWIDUDE team.
(2010) - S.B. - Driving While Intoxicated - Bexar County
March 30, 2010 - I was brought in by the primary attorney to win this DWI with No Breath Test. After reviewing the police report and realizing there wasn't a video I went into action. I looked into my Video Achieves and found another DWI Video by the same arresting officer. I performed a DWI Video written review and discovered that the arresting officer performed the HGN portion of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) incorrectly in the prior case.
Under Texas case law, Emerson v. State of Texas, if the SFST administration is done incorrectly then the results of that test shall be suppressed. I agreed to assume First Chair in this trial and I cross examined the arresting officer and after the State rested I put my client on the stand and questioned him during the direct examination portion of his testimony.
During the cross examination of the arresting officer I got him to agree that according to the SFST Manual the administration of the HGN must follow protocol or the validity of the field studies is compromised. After a rigorous cross examination I got the officer to admit that he does the HGN and the other tests according to protocol in every DWI investigation. After locking him into that statement I compromised the officer's testimony by playing the DWI video tape in my possession which showed that same officer failing to follow the protocol during the HGN test. The Judge disregarded the HGN results and it appeared that the credibility of the officer was severely damaged.
The client did a great job of truthfully testifying (or he wouldn't have taken the stand) and withstood a harsh cross examination by the prosecutor. After considering the evidence presented and the lack of foundation to the arrest, the Judge found our client NOT GUILTY. This ended what had become a nightmare for the client and his plans for his future. He was ecstatic and we look forward to getting his arrest record expunged in order to put this matter to a final rest.
(2010) N.R. - Driving While Intoxicated - Travis County
N.R heard from a friend that our office had great success in fighting DWIs in Travis County. When he was charged with a DWI 2nd, N.R scheduled an appointment to come in for his free consultation with the DWI Dude. N.R had a collision one night on I-35 in North Austin after leaving a happy hour with some co-workers. When the officers smelled the odor of alcohol on N.R’s breath, they began to suspect he was over the limit. Whenever an officer detects alcohol and the suspect admits to drinking, there will always be a DWI investigation. N.R has been in this situation before. Unlike most of our clients, N.R refused to do any of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTS) and refused the Breath and Blood tests. These kinds of cases are referred to as total refusals. Total refusals provide the State with less incriminating evidence as opposed to cases where suspects comply with the officer demands. N.R maintained his composure, and appeared coherent, sober, and normal on his DWI arrest video made at the scene. He was subsequently arrested and charged with DWI 2nd. Initially, N.R’s case was not easily resolved due to the County Attorney’s firm stand against negotiating total refusal cases. We set this case for a jury trial allow N.R to exercise his Constitutional rights we all have when charged with a criminal offense. When we appeared on trial day and announced “Ready”, the County attorney offered N.R two years probation on a reduced charge of Reckless Driving. This offer was promptly accepted by N.R as it assured he would not receive a second DWI conviction as a result of his arrest.
(2010) T.J. – Driving While Intoxicated - Travis County
This DWI arrest began as a three car collision. The arresting officer detected an odor of alcohol and stated T.J. seemed disoriented. Officer requested T.J. to perform the SFSTs (standardized field sobriety tests). SFSTs include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (HGN), the Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. T.J. had a prior DWI conviction so he was vaguely familiar with the process, and knew it was in his best interest to not perform any of the SFSTs. Not only did T.J. refuse to perform the SFSTs, he also refused to take the breath and blood tests at the jail.
T.J. remained cooperative and polite with the police officers despite not taking the tests. This is critical when refusing the SFSTs. When you feel you are suspected of wrong doing, there is no need to act defensive, instead, behave normally and inform the investigating officers you are not comfortable performing any tasks they request or answering their questions. It is imperative you remain calm, speak clearly and articulately because you are being video and audio recorded during the entire transaction.
After T.J. was arrested, he came to our office for help. A second DWI conviction carries a maximum punishment of up to one year in the county jail and a fine not to exceed $4000.00. It is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. Eligible defendants who get probation will have to serve a minimum of 5 to 30 days in the county jail as a condition of probation. T.J. did not want to risk his freedom and hired us to protect his rights. Because of his behavior while being recorded, T.J. left the government’s attorney little to work with trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, most prosecutors’ offices in the state of Texas are not inclined to plea bargain cases where defendants refuse all requested tests. We call these types of cases, “total refusals”. While they may be the toughest to plea bargain, they’re probably the easiest as a category to defend at trial. All citizens enjoy a constitutional “presumption of innocence”. This means that in all criminal cases, the government bears the entire burden of proving defendants guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This is the primary reason this law office urges those suspected of DWIs to REFUSE ALL TESTS, including the field sobriety tests, the breath test, and the blood test.
When T.J.’s case was called for trial, we announced “Ready”, and the government offered our client deferred adjudication on a non-DWI class B misdemeanor and dismissed the DWI -second. Upon successful completion of deferred adjudication, the class B misdemeanor Obstruction of a Highway/Passageway will also be dismissed. What started as a three car collision, should end as only a three car collision.
(2010) D.C. - Driving Under the Influence - United States District Court
DC was spending the weekend fishing outside of Corpus Christi on Federal Park property. He was heading into town after a long day of surf fishing and exceeded the beach speed limit of 15 mph. A Park Ranger initiated a traffic stop and noticed that DC had an alcoholic beverage in the cup holder of his vehicle. The Ranger requested that DC perform sobriety tests (SFST) on the beach.
DC agreed to perform the SFST because he had not consumed enough alcohol to be above the 0.08 limit and he knew he wasn't intoxicated. DC showed 6 of 6 clues on the eye test (HGN) but showed no clues on the Walk and Turn (WAT) or One Leg Stand (OLS) Tests. DC then agreed to blow into the hand held breath testing device and showed a result greater than 0.08 BAC. The Ranger decided to arrest DC for DWI due to the results of the eye test and the hand held preliminary alcohol testing device.
[This is one of the reasons why I advise citizens to decline to take the eye test. If the investigating officer improperly administers the eye test he can actually cause your eyes to jerk. If the officer sees your eyes jerking he will more than likely arrest you for DWI based on those results solely.
I also advise against blowing into a hand held breath test devise because it can react to a number of substances other than alcohol. It will also show a high reading if you had recently consumed a drink - open container in drink holder to vehicle.
I do advise Commercial Drivers License holders to take the hand held breath test because if you blow under the officer may decide not to arrest you. If you blow over and get arrested you certainly know not to take the Intoxilyzer Breath Test at the jail.]
By the time DC arrived at the jail his blood system had absorbed more of the alcohol that was in his stomach and that pushed his blood alcohol reading to a 0.081. DC was booking into jail on a Federal DWI charge and released on bond in the morning.
I was able to show the prosecutor that under the circumstances of the arrest DC was probably under the legal limit when he got stopped (while driving) so he disregarded that 0.081 evidence. After discussing the fact that DC passed the WAT and OLS portions of the SFST with flying colors the prosecutor offered DC an "Obstructing the Roadway" charge with no jail time which DC was excited to accept.
By hiring our law office to represent him in Federal court, DC made a very wise decision and was able to eliminate the risk of a DWI conviction. I believe we were able to attain this result due to our high level of experience, training and knowledge in the DWI field. The prosecutor was convinced that we could disprove much of his evidence and he did the right thing to see that justice was served.
(2010) T.S. - Driving While Intoxicated with Child under the age of 15 - Milam County, Texas.
Client is pulled over for not having a front license plate. She has her son with her, who happens to be 14 years of age and two months shy of his 15th birthday. Client is charged with DWI with a child passenger under 15 years of age, a state jail felony. Client and another adult passenger both have open containers in the vehicle, and also an 18-pack of Budweiser beer on ice in a cooler. Client fails all of the standardized field sobriety tests (SFST's), and also fails a portable breath test (PBT) before being arrested. She refuses a breath test at the police station. Client is only offered a felony conviction before trial. The DWI DUDE proceeds to submit her case to a jury. During voir dire, 160 people are listed on the venire, and approximately 100 show up for jury duty. The case is a cluster from the get-go, as the formation of how the jury is seated and paneled is not very organized or uniform in anyway whatsoever (which only serves to make the defense of the accused more difficult). A jury is eventually picked and seated, and the trial then proceeds. The arresting officer is someone many people in the community know well, for better or worse. At trial, it is discovered that the offense report for the arrest was made almost a month after the arrest. Prior to pointing this fact out to the jury, the arresting officer made clear how he knew from the beginning he would be charging the accused with a felony, which would have lasting repercussions for life. However, despite this, on cross-examination the arresting officer had to admit that he failed to investigate the arrest and charge fully, despite the gravity of the offense.
In closing argument, the prosecutor for the state used a "Not Guilty" display to help prove their case. He had index cards made for all the reasons supporting the theory of the state's case, and plastered them all over the "Not" section of the display so it only revealed the word "Guilty." The index cards, for instance, included the "odor" of alcohol beverage smelled by arresting officer from the vehicle, and how there was an "open container" of Budweiser found in the console. The DWI DUDE attorney then, in closing, argued to envision each index card as a balloon. And then made arguments defeating each of the state's point, and made the analogy that each point asserted was like a dart being thrown at the balloon. For example, a dart was thrown at the "odor" of alcohol claim and the "open container" violation, in that jury was not gathered to base guilt on an "open container" violation, and that any odor detected was as a result of this "open container." In doing so, the DWI DUDE attorney then made a sweeping motion washing away the entire state's case, revealing only the "Not Guilty" portion of the sign, and submitting that this was the only verdict that could be rendered.
When deliberating, the prosecutor for the state was very upset at the mistreatment of his own exhibit which was ultimately used against him. After verbalizing this fact, the DWI DUDE attorney simply remarked and pointed out that it was his "utmost duty to represent his client with FULL vigor and zealous advocacy, and would never apologize to ANYONE for doing so."
The jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty" almost exactly two hours later.
When being polled, the two DPS troopers who made the arrest blocked the doorway of the jury room in an attempt to block the members of the jury from leaving. This attempt to intimidate and/or harass the jury was short-lived, as members of the DWI DUDE team entered the room and assisted the jury members with their exit.
It was a great victory that was an uphill battle from the very beginning. The state officials helping secure the conviction, from the court reporter to the prosecuting attorneys, all held a certain resentment for the client, as well as towards to the attorneys on the DWI DUDE team. However, this resentment can be directly attributed to the fact that EVERYONE on the DWI DUDE team will always do whatever is in their power to represent clients with their utmost. If a potential client is looking for attorneys who simply lay down when threatened or intimidated by the state, they should look elsewhere for their representation. This case is indicative that the DWI DUDE team will always be fully committing to the representation of their clients, even at the expense of possibly offending those helping to secure the conviction.
R.R. - Driving While Intoxicated 2nd Offense; Resisting Arrest and Evading - Bexar County
This case involved a drinking but not intoxicated driver that had avoided colliding with a deer and struck a tree while doing so. We prepared this case by having our in-house investigator do a scene investigation. We were able to document the deer hazard problem and even had pictures of deer in the roadway. We hired an expert in the area of SFST to show why the tests should not have been administered to a person that had to be removed from an overturned vehicle by firefighters. We have the client prepared to testify and we showed up "ready for trial". The arresting officers failed to show up at the time on their subpoenas and this was a "preferential setting". Since this was not the first time that these same officers did not appear for a trial setting in this same case the court denied the prosecutor's request for a continuance. The case was called for trial and was dismissed for lack of prosecution witnesses. The prosecutor had prepared for trial and did all that was possible under the circumstances and honorably followed the administration of justice by filing the dismissal papers.
J.C. | Federal Cocaine Case (possession of 350 grams of cocaine)
Client contacted our office after being charged in Federal Court, Western District of Texas, with possession of 350 grams of powder cocaine during a traffic stop in San Antonio, Texas. Upon receiving discovery from the government, a review of the police report alleged that during a routine traffic stop for an illegal lane movement the cocaine was located in open sight in the vehicle.
A closer review made it apparent that the traffic stop arrest was a ruse after a set up buy arranged by federal agents working with a confidential informant (C.I.). The client arrived at a fast food parking lot to meet the C.I. but the C.I. never showed up. The parking lot was under federal surveillance at the time and when the client left the parking lot the agents followed him. The agents had an SAPD traffic unit on standby and that officer made the traffic stop almost immediately after the client left the parking lot and entered the highway.
This is a classic set up that is arranged in a number of drug delivery cases by federal and state drug agents. It is also nearly impossible to win at trial since the traffic cop will testify that he observed a traffic violation and subsequent drug seizure. The evidence most likely will not be suppressed and the client could be facing additional sentencing time for failing to accept responsibility in court. Typically a plea bargain is arranged with the federal prosecutor and the defendant receives a reduction in the sentencing range in exchange for not making the government take the case to trial.
In this case the client had never been arrested before and was not involved in a drug distribution ring. The client did not “cooperate” and “snitch” on anyone as the client had drug and alcohol issues and was doing a “one time” sale for financial reasons. My client was facing a sentence of between 30 to 37 months in a federal prison. We entered a Plea of Guilty in order to gain the sentencing reduction points and prepared for a sentencing hearing.
We needed to show the court who the client was outside of the criminal behavior that the case involved. We got family members, friends, co-workers and employers to write letters on behalf of the client. These letters told the client’s story in a personal and up close manner. They covered the past twenty years and talked about the son, father, husband, friend and neighbor that my client had been prior to this incident.
The federal judge took an interest in the person he was sentencing and realized that this was my client’s first arrest. The judge carefully read each letter and saw that he had someone special in his courtroom. The judge looked into the clean past and exemplary behavior of the client. The judge saw a hard working family man who had made a grave error while abusing substances. And the judge decided that society would be better served by placing my client on five years probation instead of placing him in prison. The judge had the heart of a lion and wisdom like Solomon.
It was a great feeling to walk out of the courtroom next to my client surrounded by his family. I have no doubt that with my client will be successful with the support of his family, friends and employer. He is aware that he has a lot riding on his shoulders, including the trust that the judge has placed in him with the courtroom decision he rendered in this case.
Mr. M was pulled over for speeding and later arrested for DWI 2nd. As a result, Mr. M was forced to put the Ignition Interlock Device on his vehicle while released on bond. After careful review and analysis of Mr. M's case and his performance on the SFSTs, the DWI Dude Team negotiated the dismissal of the DWI 2nd and Mr. M plead to probation on an Obstruction of a Highway and the Interlock Device was removed in less than 3 months.
Mr. L was stopped for failing to signal a lane change, and subsequently arrested for DWI. Many factors such as weather conditions, poor instructions by the arresting officer, and fatigue on the part of Mr. L provided great ammunition for the defense. Negotiations with the prosecutors in the case became fruitless, and Mr. L's case was set for a jury trial. When the DWI Dude Team arrived in court and announced "ready" for trial, the State offered to dismiss Mr. L's case in exchange for a plea to a reduced charge.
