I had a case in July of 1998 where my client (let's call him Joe) had been stopped by a police officer on a street fairly late at night in a residential neighborhood. Because of way in which the police stopped, tested Joe for OUIL/UBAL, and arrested him, I filed several motions. I challenged the stop, roadsides, and arrest. I filed a motion to suppress the preliminary screening test, a motion to suppress statements and a motion to suppress the field sobriety tests.

I also filed a motion to suppress all the evidence.

At the suppression hearing for consideration of my motions, the police officer admitted during questioning by the prosecutor that "I didn't know if he (Joe) had committed a crime, was about to commit a crime or what the circumstances were."

After stopping Joe he approached my client's car and testified that "I did notice an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming out his breath..."

But I doubted the stop was even legal to begin with.

So, during my questioning of the officer I first determined that Joe was going below the legal speed limit.

And then it went on as follows:

Q. Okay, but his speed was not a violation of any statute?
A. Right

Q. Okay, and after the time you pulled up behind him, there wasn't any criminal activity that you suspected, correct?
A. That's not true. I did know.

Q. What did you suspect?
A. You asked if there was any criminal activity and I did not know at that point, that's what I was investigating.

Q. Okay, so you did not suspect any criminal activity at that time?
A. No, that's not correct. I did know.

Q. You did know there was criminal activity?
A. I was investigating the possibility that there could have been, because he was driving around the neighborhood like he was lost.

Q. That there could have been?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay, but the only thing you observed was his slow speed?
A. The fact that he was there. I've worked that patrol area, that particular area for over a year at that point. It is very unusual to observe vehicles in that neighborhood at that time of day. It was my normal patrol area. The neighborhood is residential and it looked like he was lost. That's what triggered it."

In essence, I got the officer to tell me that he was strictly working on a hunch.

The end result was that the District Attorney agreed with me that the evidence should be suppressed because the officer who stopped Joe had no reasonable suspicion to stop him to begin with. Since there was no reasonable cause to stop him, everything that happened after the stop was thrown out.

This left the DA with no case, and at the next hearing the case was dropped entirely.

Before I go any further, let me tell you that I'm not promising that I can do the same in your case. That would be unethical. Every situation is different.

That was pretty interesting, wasn't it?

Let me give you another example.

This one involves my client I'll call him Frank.

Frank was involved in a one-car accident where he hit a guardrail. Frank then traveled approximately 10 miles to a local diner and sat down to get something to eat. After being in the diner for approximately 10 minutes, he was approached by a police officer that questioned Frank about the damage to his vehicle. The officer also noted in his subsequent report an odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from Frank’s person.

The officer asked Frank if he had been drinking and if that was Frank’s car outside. Unfortunately, Frank did not know any better and answered these questions. Frank told the officer that yes he had a few beers and that was his car and he was involved in a one-car accident a ways back. The officer then performed Field Sobriety Tests and Frank allegedly failed.

The officer then placed Frank under arrest for DUI. At the preliminary hearing the officer could not state that he saw Frank drive nor could he state what Frank’s Blood Alcohol Level was at the time of driving. Based on this information alone this was not enough to hold Frank over to court and the charges were dismissed.

This final example concerns a client who traveled the wrong way on one way street for a few yards. We will call him Sam. Sam was not from the area and was driving his friend home that was too drunk to drive.

Sam made a turn while in an urban area that does not have clearly defined signs for traffic. Sam made his turn the wrong way down a one-way street and then backed up after realizing his error. An officer on duty who witnessed Sam’s driving stopped Sam.

After smelling alcohol emanating from the car the officer asked Sam to perform Field Sobriety Tests that Sam of coursed failed. Sam was then taken for a blood test and his results an hour after the stop were .11 BAC.

At the preliminary hearing the officer admitted that Sam more or less passed the Field Sobriety Tests. The officer also testified that he did not test or ask the passenger in Sam’s vehicle about consumption of alcohol.

Unfortunately, the District Justice who heard the case is not known for dismissing charges even in the when it is clear to anyone that the individual should not be held for court. Therefore, Sam had to prepare for trial.

As part of our trial preparation we hired and toxicologist to testify that Sam’s BAC at the time of driving was under the BAC of .10. The district attorney once presented with this defense agreed to lower the charges to a summary offense of Disorderly Conduct and $100.00 fine.

I recently won a trial in bucks county for an individual accused of Drunk Driving after leaving a bar. HE was told to leave this well known bar by a security officer who then followed him and called the police. The security officer followed him for about 20 minutes and eventually our client was stopped by a State Trooper. The Trooper testified that there was a moderate then strong odor of alcohol beverage emanating from our client's person. Our client was then asked to perform a Walk and Turn test which he performed satisfactory. He was then taken to the hospital for a blood test which he refused.

At trial both the Trooper testified and the security officer testified. The security officer had many inconsistencies in his testimony. After the close of the Commonwealth's case we made a motion for judgment of acquittal which after argument the judge granted our request and dismissed the DUI charge.

Another case the we resolved with a plea to a summary offense of Disorderly Conduct was a check point case. Our client had consumed 2 glasses of wine over a period of 1 hour. He was then stopped a t a check point approximately 20 minutes after he had his last drink. He was given Field Sobriety Tests which of Course he failed and was brought to the police station and he gave a breath sample of .12 one hour after the check point stop. Our office retained the services of a forensic Scientist who testified that at the time of driving our client's BAC was below .10 and thus he was not in his opinion under the influence of alcohol. The Judge agreed and the Officer withdrew the Charge of DUI and agreed to the summary dispositions.