BASIC FACTS: The driver of a boat in this case was stopped for having his “docking lights on”.  The defendant chose to answer the officer’s questions about drinking and he had one earlier.  The police demanded his license and registration.  Next the police marched the defendant through a battery of seated gymnastics called “marine field sobriety tests”.  He supposedly failed the “pen test”, also known as the “Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus” test, which is when the officer waives his pen in front of the driver’s face and decides the driver is impaired by alcohol. While he allegedly “failed” the sideways pen test, he “passed” the pen test that the officer did by waiving the pen up and down. 

The driver went on to fail the “finger count test”  The “finger count test” is like a parlor trick in which the driver has to touch the tips of his fingers while counting out loud, faster and faster until he makes a few mistakes, at which point the officer deems him to have “failed” the “test”.  After the finger counting came a “palm pat test”, another weird exercise in which the driver flips his palm over and back while counting rapidly until he makes a mistake and “fails” that too.  The driver also performed a “finger to nose test”, an old law enforcement favorite.  He was asked to “say the alphabet without singing it”.  The driver said the entire alphabet, without missing any letters or mixing any letters up, but he “sang” some of the letters.  Finally, the officer directed the driver to “count backwards” from 25 to 1.  The driver did the last test perfectly, even to the officer’s satisfaction.  Despite passing the last test, the officer arrested the driver anyway. 

(NOTE-THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHY COOPERATION OFTEN DOES NOT BENEFIT YOU; YOU SHOULD CHOOSE WHETHER TO DO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS CAREFULLY.  THE FACT THAT YOU DO THEM AND PASS THEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ARRESTED)

Back at the station the defendant chose not to blow into the old gray breath testing box when asked to do so by the police.

DEFENSE:     Actual innocence; the fact that the state could not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.  This was a classic reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence case.  At trial, after cross examining the officer, Attorney Stevens showed a booking video of the driver that showed his balance was perfect.

After trial, the defendant was found:  NOT GUILTY!!! 

RESULT:       NOT GUILTY!!!

Attorney Stevens thanks God for this successful defense!!!

TODAY’S SCRIPTURE:

“And in that vicinity there were shepherds living in the fields, watching over their flock by night. 

And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord flashed and shone above them, and they were terribly frightened.

But the angel said to them, Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you great joy which will come to all the people.

For to you is born this day in the town of David a Savior, Who is Christ the Lord!”

Luke 2: 8-11.

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

• The 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.
• Your telephone number and best time to reach you.

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.