Additional Ways to Win the Felony DUI Case

In addition to challenging the State’s basis for enhancement (prior convictions), an attorney at Saunders Law can make numerous challenges to the State’s case against you.  Depending on the facts of your case, an attorney will file one or more of the following challenges:

First, your attorney will determine if the police officer had reason to initially pull you over.  If the police officer did not have a legitimate reason to instigate the initial traffic stop, the attorney will file a motion to suppress the State’s evidence.  In that motion, and subsequent evidentiary hearing, the attorney will argue that the police officer lacked “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the driver committed the underlining traffic offense.  If the attorney is able to successfully argue that the initial traffic stop was unlawful, all of the State’s evidence against the driver will be suppressed and the charges will be dismissed, including the driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI) offense.

Second, your attorney will determine if the police officer had probable cause to arrest you after he or she pulled you over.  If the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest you, the attorney will file a motion to suppress the State’s evidence.  In that motion, and subsequent evidentiary hearing, the attorney will argue that the police officer did not have probable cause that the driver was DUI when the officer arrested the driver, thereby violating the driver’s constitutional rights.  Here, the attorney will usually argue that the police officer incorrectly administered or scored the field sobriety tests.  If the attorney is able to successfully argue that the arrest was unlawful, all of the State’s evidence against the driver will be suppressed and the charges will be dismissed, including the driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI) offense.

Third, your attorney will determine if the police officer correctly administered the breath, blood, or urine test.  If the police officer did not strictly adhere to the legal (foundational) requirements for the admittance of a chemical test, the attorney will file a motion to suppress the State’s evidence regarding the results of the chemical test. In that motion, and subsequent evidentiary hearing, the attorney will argue that the police officer did not correctly administer the chemical test and therefore, the results of the chemical test are not trustworthy and cannot be admitted into evidence.  If the attorney is able to successfully argue that the chemical test was improperly administered, the results of the breath, blood, or urine test will be suppressed.  In this situation, the State will be forced to argue, without the benefit of any test result showing that you were actually over the legal limit, that your driving pattern, demeanor, and performance on the field sobriety tests prove that you were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI) offense.