West Georgia DUI Cases We Have Handled

Case No. 1:  This young man was stopped at a roadblock in Paulding County as he headed home from a sports bar in Villa Rica after an evening with two friends.  The officer who detained him conducted field sobriety tests, arrested him for DUI, and then had another deputy take him to a local hospital for a blood test.  Our expert, a recently retired professor of toxicology, explained to the jury that the blood test result of .154 was questionable because there were extra "peaks" in the chromatograms produced by the state crime lab, and we used their documents to explain the problem to the jury.  Our client's speech was not slurred, and his performance of field sobriety tests was much better than would be expected if his blood alcohol level had really been .154.  After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury found the gentleman not guilty of DUI-less safe and not guilty of  DUI-per se (being over the legal limit of .08).  The judge then excused him, and he walked out of the courtroom a free man.

Case No. 2:  Our middle aged client, who traveled a great deal, struck the rear of another car at a traffic light in Haralson County.  A City of Buchanan officer, who had no serious training, decided that our client was driving under the influence of drugs - perhaps largely on the basis of the container where our client kept his pills "for the day" so he would not forget them.  The district attorney subsequently issued an accusation formally accusing him of driving under the influence of drugs.  Although the judge denied our motion to suppress (we believed the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the man for DUI drugs), we prepared for trial and hired two highly credentialed pharmacologists to testify that drugs found in our client's blood, which he had taken for years, would not have impaired him.  We appeared at calendar call at least three times before the district attorney finally dismissed the charge of driving under the influence and our client ended up pleading guilty to following too closely.

Case No. 3: This man was stopped for speeding the night after he had stayed up late watching a Braves game that went into extra innings. Following his arrest for driving under the influence, he took a breath test that measured exactly .080. We showed up for trial with our expert prepared to attack the machine, but the solicitor agreed to a plea to only the speeding charge with probation and a fine. The client took the deal and went back to work.

Case No. 4: The client was on his way home from work when he made a wide right turn and nearly hit a police car. The officer testified that his eyes were red and bloodshot, and the jury was able to observe his performance on field sobriety tests. On direct examination his brother explained that they had bought a six-pack of beer after leaving their job site, there were still two unopened beers when they were stopped, and he had drunk two himself. He also testified about a powerful glue they had used that day, characterized its odor as being similar to a toilet that hasn’t been flushed in a month, and explained how it stung and burned the nose and eyes. Frankly, he had the jury laughing throughout his testimony. The jury apparently found his testimony persuasive and acquitted our client of the charge of DUI.

Case No. 5: This gentleman was also stopped for speeding as he approached an overpass at I-20 in west Georgia. Although the traffic stop was not videotaped, the officer recorded the events with a small cassette recorder. The officer admitted that he did not administer the standardized field sobriety tests before arresting the man for DUI because he does not ask people to do things he can’t do himself. The breath test result of .09 was the centerpiece of their case, and we examined issue after issue that could easily result in a false high reading. The jury was out half an hour before finding the man not guilty.

Case No. 6: This lady ran through a stop sign and struck an ambulance in Villa Rica. Although the investigating officer did not seem to suspect anything initially, he asked her to perform field sobriety tests, questioned her about medications, and arrested her for DUI - drugs. Our client suffered from severe orthopedic problems so, as expected, her crime lab report confirmed the presence of controlled substances. She was taking the medications according to her prescription, and she had an otherwise excellent driving record. We approached the prosecutor with letters from her medical doctor and our pharmacologist, which confirmed that the drugs in her system did not make her incapable of driving safely. The prosecutor appreciated the strength of our case and agreed to a favorable disposition – pleading to failure to obey a traffic control device with six months probation and a fine.

Case No. 7: This small business owner was stopped in the early morning for speeding in a small town in west Georgia. He was not particularly cooperative and refused both the field sobriety tests and the state administered breath test. He explained to the officer that he was a diabetic and had just bought some French fries at a fast food restaurant because he needed something to eat. His doctor wrote a letter explaining how his diabetic condition, particularly a hypoglycemic episode, would mimic the manifestations of someone who was under the influence of alcohol. We prepared the case for trial, but on the date we expected to pick a jury the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the DUI case if the gentleman entered a guilty plea to the speeding charge. Our client did just that.

Case No. 8: This man was stopped at a roadblock on Highway 78 near Temple.  He was subsequently arrested, took the state breath test that yielded a result slightly higher than .09, and requested an independent test.  We challenged the roadblock and were also prepared to argue for exclusion of the state's test because the police failed to reasonably accommodate his request for an independent test.  During our third appearance for a hearing on our motion to suppress the prosecutor finally conceded that they could not prove the legality of the roadblock.  As a result, all of the evidence against our client was inadmissible, so the DUI case was dismissed.

Case No. 9:  Our client was in a one-car accident on a highway in rural Heard County. The arresting officer, who was not experienced in DUI investigations, read the implied consent warning before he arrested the gentleman. Therefore, the .38 blood test was suppressed. We showed up ready for trial on more than one occasion, and the prosecutor continually expressed surprise that we really wanted a trial on such an “open and shut” case. Maybe he had his doubts, because he finally offered a plea to reckless driving, which our client accepted. It saved his job.

Case No. 10: This lady approached what she believed was a roadblock, but was in fact another driver being detained while his car was searched (unsuccessfully) for drugs.  Although the officers were prepared to testify that she came screeching up to the scene, the man who was detained told us that she approached normally and stopped when an officer appeared to flag her down.  Following her arrest, a deputy read the implied consent warning to her, and she hesitated when he asked her to submit to a state administered breath test.  He then told her that he would take her home if she blew under .08, apparently not realizing that his statement was an unlawful inducement.  Since her .17 breath test result would have been suppressed and she had no significant history, the solicitor decided that a plea to reckless driving would be an appropriate outcome.  Our client quickly accepted the offer and went on about her business.

Case No. 11:  This young lady was followed half way across Carrollton by a city officer, who finally activated his blue lights as she was turning into her driveway. She did fairly well on the field sobriety tests, but became angry following her arrest and refused to submit to a state administered test. One of the more compelling moments in the trial came when the backup officer, while being cross-examined, was asked if he had ever arrested anyone for driving under the influence in their own driveway. He chuckled and admitted that he had not. During closing argument we mentioned the “brief snippet” of the video the prosecution had played and left the jury wondering why the prosecutor did not play it all. The jury must have also wondered why, because they acquitted the young lady.