BASIC FACTS: At about 10 in the morning, a police officer saw two cars in front of him pull over to the breakdown lane.  Shortly thereafter he saw an oncoming truck cross the yellow center mine and into the officer lane of travel (the driver later explained to the officer that he was lost and glanced at a map, which distracted him momentarily).  The officer reversed direction, turned the blue lights in his cruiser on, and accelerated toward the unsuspecting driver.  The driver did not see the blue lights, and did not stop immediately.  The officer turned on his audible siren and the driver pulled over promptly and efficiently into the breakdown lane.

The officer ran the driver’s registration and learned of a prior out of state DWI charge.  He questioned the driver about drinking, and the driver said he had had two drinks since 4:30 a.m.  The officer asked if there were any empty alcoholic beverage containers in a trash bag in the passenger area.  The driver said “no”.  The officer persisted and asked if he could search the trash bag.  The driver succumbed and consented.  The officer found two empty alcoholic beverage bottles in the bag which he seized as evidence.  The driver told him he drank those two bottles several days prior and had simply forgotten to discard them.

The officer asked the driver to get out of his truck and perform a series of roadside balancing tricks.  The series of “tests” on this driver were the usual goulash of so-called “field sobriety tests”.  The driver allegedly failed a pen test (police call these horizontal gaze nystagmus, or “HGN” tests), a “nine step walk and turn test”, and a “one leg stand test”.  The driver could not complete the walking or balancing tests due to old injuries.  After the balancing and pen-following ordeal, the officer arrested the driver and charged him with DWI.  The driver decided to risk blowing into the breath testing box at the police station.  He blew a .13, then a .14. 

After his arrest, the defendant hired Attorney Stevens to fight the DWI charge.

DEFENSE:     Attorney Stevens sent the driver’s breath tubes to CG Labs President Jay Godfrey, where the independent test of the driver’s breath tubes indicated that the officer never labeled the tubes as required by state administrative regulations.  Attorney Stevens objected to the admissibility of the contents of the garbage bag search (the two aforementioned empties) and objected to the alleged result of the breath test box.  The bottles were excluded from evidence and were not admitted at trial.  Based on numerous legal issues with the breath box paperwork, the breath test was excluded and the case went to trial as a stand-up DWI case, meaning the issue in the case was whether the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver was really drunk.   

At the close of the state’s evidence, the DWI charge alleging that the driver blew a .13 was dismissed.  At the end of the trial, this driver was found NOT GUILTY of his impairment DWI charge.

This driver avoided a DWI conviction.

RESULT:       NOT GUILTY ON DWI CHARGES!!!

Attorney Stevens thanks God for this successful defense!!!

“But seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will take care of itself.  Each day has enough trouble of its own.”  Matthew 6:33-34.

Contact Information:
If you leave a voice message or send an email, please include ONLY the following information:

• Date of any alleged offense you have been charged with.
• The court in which you have been told to appear.
• The date and time you have been told to appear.

Information in this column should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Mark Stevens Law Office, nor any attorney associated with the Mark Stevens Law Office. The information contained herein is of a general nature and may not apply to any particular set of facts and circumstances. Please bear in mind that laws change frequently. We will make an effort to update the information on a regular basis, but are under no obligation to do so. No part of this document, nor any information contained in this website, may be disseminated without this paragraph. This may be considered legal advertising.