Case Stories

Case Summary #030210 (March 2010):

State vs. L.C. – Travis County

Defendant was charged with Racing after being stopped for going in excess of 100 mph on I 35 South. When asked by the Austin Police Officer Defendant admitted he was racing another vehicle.  However, the other vehicle was not stopped.  The State agreed to offer deferred prosecution with driver saftey course and community service. No fine or court costs.

Jerry Smith – DWI Defense Attorney

Case Summary #022410 (February 2010):

State v. D.T. – Travis County

D.T. was 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 was pulled over on 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, 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 prosecutor handling the case offered D.T. a dismissal on 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 prosecutor 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.

Will Mitchell – DWI Defense Attorney

Case Summary #022210 (February 2010):

State v. M.B. – Travis County

Client was arrested with her son, who was also intoxicated.  Her son called her because he was too intoxicated to drive.  She came to where he was, and slightly moved the car from the shoulder of the highway to a parking lot.  Unfortunately, an officer happened to see her as she was doing this.  She was arrested and charged with a DWI.  She voluntarily submitted to a breath test and failed with a result of around .16.  The client was frantic throughout the process, and was fearful throughout the entirety of the case.  An excerpt she sent to our office is written and included below:

HI Carl,

My next court is Oct 13.  As I have stated many times, I was never read my rights and a DWI conviction will no doubt eliminate my ability to ever teach again in public schools or on the university level  (i.e., ruin my professional career).  I honestly would not put up such a fight if I felt I had actually broken the law and driven drunk.  Two years is a long time to have this hanging over my head.  A criminal record plus two more years probation is overly extreme for something that took place in a parking lot with a responsible citizen.  I know that for those not involved, this is probably not a big deal, but I am heart sick about this and have been for nearly two very long years.  Thank you, MB

Client received a dismissal of her DWI, and also received a promise from the judge that she would terminate her case early if she completed the required DWI classes.  Client was ecstatic that she would not receive a DWI conviction, and was even more happy that her case was disposed of without going to trial.

Carl Ceder - DWI Defense Attorney

Case Summary #021010 (February 2010):

State v. N.R. – 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 2^nd, 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 Officer smelled the odor of alcohol on N.R’s breath, he 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 cases are referred to as a total refusal case.  Total refusals provide the State with less incriminating evidence as opposed to cases where suspects comply with the Officers demands. N.R maintained his composure, appeared coherent and sober on his arrest video that made at the scene.  He was subsequently arrested and charged with DWI 2^nd.  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 to allow N.R to exercise his Constitutional Rights we have when charged with a criminal offense.  When we appeared at trial 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.

Will Mitchell – DWI Trial Attorney

Case Summary #012910 (January 2010):

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 stand by 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.

Jamie Balagia – DWI Defense Attorney  

Case Summary #010710 (January 2010):

State v. T.J. – 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”.  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, ad 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.

Will Mitchell – DWI Defense Attorney

Case Summary #010510 (January 2010):

M.R. – Federal Case

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.

Jamie Balagia – DWI Trial Attorney

Case Summary #120309 (December 2009):

Client was arrested in San Antonio after being stopped for speeding by a DWI Step Program officer.  Keep in mind that officers have testified that the Step officers must make an arrest while on this overtime assignment or they will be passed over the next time that their name rotates up on the list to work this overtime gig.  There was a video in this case and that saved the day for our client.  There is a big problem in San Antonio with the SAPD not videotaping DWI arrests. We typically hear that the equipment is not working or there wasn’t a camera in the patrol car to utilize.

This case involved a DPS trooper and a late night arrest.  The trooper stated he smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the client’s breath and asked the client to step out of the vehicle and perform some “tests”.  The client invoked his Constitutional Rights and told the officer he would not be participating in any tests.  The trooper immediately arrested my client without developing the case facts any further.  The arrest factors were: speeding (not a NHTSA recognized clue), red eyes (not limited to drunkenness) and the client’s refusal to take any tests.  (Believe It Or Not! – In today’s anti-DWI environment that is enough evidence for many rubber stamping Magistrates to issue a search warrant for your blood).

The client also refused to blow into the Intoxilyzer 5000 because he had consumed a few beers over a couple of hours prior to the stop.  The client did not believe he was intoxicated but he did not trust the breath testing device.  The video showed that the client walked and talked in a non-intoxicated manner and was cognizant while answering questions. Clearly, the client should not have been arrested for DWI based on the low level of probable cause present.

We showed up for a jury trial setting this morning and a seasoned trial prosecutor looked at the evidence and realized that the facts did not support a prosecutable DWI case.  The case was dismissed and our client can now get back on track with his life.  His employer would have terminated him if the client had been convicted.

The troubling issue in this case is that had the client attempted the SFST (agility tests) he probably would have performed poorly and those results would have been used against him in trial.  Remember that physical manifestations (appearances) of non-intoxication are generally confused by the arresting officers as clues of intoxication.  If officers see red eyes they believe that alcohol caused them instead of considering a smoky lounge, allergies, fatigue or any other number of causes. Any missteps on the SFST are considered drunken stumbles instead of coordination, fatigue, or balance problems.

It was good to see the relief flood my client’s face as he thanked the Lord for this victory and left the courtroom a free man for the first time in over two years.

Jamie Balagia, DWI Trial Attorney