A client hit a telephone pole and the airbags in his vehicle deployed. He did not perform well on the field sobriety tests. Mr. Hernandez challenge the results of those tests based on the fact that because the airbag deployed, the client was dazed and injured. Mr. Hernandez also attacked the scientific validity of the breath test and established that the reading on the Alcotest machine was not acceptable. The judge agreed, and the results were thrown out.
The client was stopped for driving at an excessive rate of speed and was immediately arrested for DWI. When back at the station, he blew a 0.13 BAC in the Alcotest machine. The Client did not submit to field sobriety tests. The reading had to be thrown out because Mr. Hernandez established that the reading was out of tolerance. Mr. Hernandez argued that because there were no field sobriety tests, it was difficult for the prosecution to prove impairment.
This client was stopped for speeding on the Garden State Parkway. Her BAC test came back as a .10. Mr. Hernandez was able to get this result thrown out because the state failed to follow a court order to provide all of the discovery evidence requested in the case. Then, Mr. Hernandez provided her medical records to the prosecutor to establish that her poor performance on field sobriety tests was likely due to back issues and cancer treatment rather than alcohol impairment.
The client was a legal immigrant; however, a DWI conviction would have resulted in a change in immigration status, and immediate deportation. After a long fight, Mr. Hernandez was able to establish that there was a problem with the Alcotest result, which excluded that reading from the evidence. The results of the field sobriety test were insufficient to prove him guilty of impairment. The prosecution dismissed the charge and the client was able to stay in the country.
Client was facing his seventh driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge and had registered a .30% BAC on the breath test. Mr. Hernandez argued during the suppression hearing that the arresting officer could not tell that the client was drunk. The client’s charge was reduced to reckless driving.
Client was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) after the results of the breathalyzer showed his blood alcohol content to be .08%. Mr. Hernandez argued that the prosecution could not prove that the client had not consumed the alcohol at home after the driving occurred.
Client was facing his ninth driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge. The client did not submit to the field sobriety tests, and police video showed him walking and speaking normally, contrary to what the police report said. Mr. Hernandez argued a lack of sufficient evidence and the case was dismissed.
Client was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) after being involved in an accident and telling the police that he was drunk. A blood sample was drawn, and Mr. Hernandez challenged the lab results in court. The case was dismissed.
Client was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) by heroin. The client had passed out in her car while in a driveway. A drug recognition expert (DRE) report had not been filed, and the case was dismissed.
Client was facing his third driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge. Mr. Hernandez argued a lack of probable cause for arrest, as the client had only been slowly driving in a parking lot. The case was dismissed.
Client was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) based on a drug recognition expert (DRE) report and a drug screen that showed positive for Ambien. Mr. Hernandez argued a lack of evidence, and the case was dismissed.
Client was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). Mr. Hernandez argued that the breath test readings were out of tolerance, and the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Client charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) based on a breath test result of .15% BAC. Mr. Hernandez argued that the police did not observe the client for the required 20 minutes prior to administering the test, and the charge was reduced to a lower-tier DWI.
Client charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). Mr. Hernandez argued that the probable cause was insufficient due to improper administration of the field sobriety tests. The case was dismissed.
Client charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) after blood test results showed a .21% BAC. Mr. Hernandez requested detailed discovery, which the prosecution was unable to provide. The case was automatically dismissed due to lack of discovery.
Client was facing his second driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge. Mr. Hernandez argued that the officer did not observe the client for the requisite 20 minutes prior to administering the breath test. Mr. Hernandez also showed that the field sobriety tests were not conducted properly, and the case was dismissed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in order to lawfully stop you, police must have “reasonable and articulable” suspicion that a law has been or is about to be committed. In other words, the police must have a legitimate reason to pull you over. If you did not violate any laws, then your attorney may file a motion to suppress, which could result in the dismissal of your case.
During the course of the traffic stop, the officer will make observations that will help him or her formulate suspicion that you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Slurred speech, watery or bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face could be indicators of impairment—or they could just be symptoms of a speech impediment, a medical condition, or being tired.
In most DWI cases, the arresting officer will conduct one or more field sobriety tests. The three standard tests are the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, and the one-leg stand. These tests must be given in a prescribed manner and graded using specific criteria. If these procedures are not followed correctly, the results of the tests may be skewed.
Breath, blood, and urine BAC tests are highly scientific and should be challenged every time. Failure to maintain and properly calibrate the machines could lead to flawed test results. Further, specific procedures must be followed in the collection, transportation, and storage of test samples. If these protocols are not followed, the test results could be unreliable and should be dismissed in court.