|
Client gets stopped just after pulling out of a "Gentlemen's Club." BSO Deputy detects alcohol smell and bloodshot eyes. Client is ordered out of his car and allegedly fails roadside exercises. He is arrested for DUI. Later, placed on video at police station, Client submits to a breath test. He is over the legal limit and submits to additional Field Sobriety Exercises. On video, Client admits to drinking a "6-pack" at the club, and when asked, on video, if he was under the influence of alcohol, Client responded, "yes."
Client's alcohol level, according to the State's Intoxilyzer machine, actually increased by .003% between his first and second breath sample. The samples were obtained three minutes apart inside the police station. The State called two witnesses who testified that the machine was performing as it should. Under cross examination, one witness, the breath tech, had been Intoxilyzer Certified for less than a month at the time my client was arrested. She further testifies that she simply didn't know how the breath machine arrived at the number that it did: She didn't know how the machine converted a person's breath alcohol level to their true blood alcohol level or what ratio is preprogrammed into this machine. She also disclosed under cross examination that if she could do it over again, she would have had my client remove his Flip-Flops before performing balancing exercises that he has never performed before.
Next witness: During cross, she admitted that she had nothing to do with my client's case, never met my client, but was present during maintenance of the breath machine. Asked if she could determine what my client's blood alcohol level was, at the time he was actually behind the wheel of a car, she stated she could not.
The State must prove that Defendant's BAC was at or above .08, at the time he was driving, not an hour later when he was at the police station. To debunk the State’s reliance on the Intoxilyzer evidence, we argued that not a single State witness testified as to how my Client's BAC magically increased, where his second breath sample was actually higher than his first!
Client found NOT GUILTY by Jury.
Client, arrested for his second DUI, was facing mandatory jail time if convicted. He was pulled over for speeding on I-95 at 4:00am. Officer further observes Client weaving within his lane and nearly bumping the car in front of him. Arresting Officer, a former member of the BSO DUI Task Force, stops my Client and smells alcohol on his breath. Client denies drinking anything. The Deputy orders Client out of the car to perform Field Sobriety Exercises, including a "walk and turn" test, which the Deputy claims my client failed. He eventually arrests him. My Client was then placed on video at the police station, where he is again asked to complete more Field Sobriety Exercises. Client agrees to the exercises but refuses to submit to a breath or urine test to determine the presence of alcohol or a controlled substance.
Under cross-examination, the Deputy admitted that the surface my client was asked to first perform these "field sobriety exercises," on the shoulder of I-95, was not clean (due to accumulated pebbles and debris from passing vehicles) and was not flat (I-95 is built on a pitch to allow for water run-off after rain). Further, there was simply no straight line for my client to complete the "walk and turn test." Under continued cross examination, the Deputy admitted that the line my client was asked to walk was "imaginary." Mr. Clemens established that these "exercises" as administered to my client by the Deputy, simply did not conform to the manual that police officers are given on how to properly administer Field Sobriety Exercises.
Client found Not Guilty by Jury.
Client was pulled over for failing to use his headlights at night. Stopping officer smells alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Stopping officer dispatches DUI Task Force. DUI Task Force Officer arrives and observes the same. Officer conducts Field Sobriety Exercises which, he alleges, my client failed. Client admits to coming from a bar after drinking and he has a “two-for-one” bar token in his pocket. Client refuses to submit to a breath test. DUI Task Force Officer states, on video, that my client was “very intoxicated” as he was arresting him.
Mr. Clemens argued to the Jury that his client was born with a skeletal abnormality, osteomalacia, that carry with it symptoms that are very similar to intoxication.
Client found NOT GUILTY by Jury.
Client was arrested for DUI after crashing his Porsche into a light pole. The light pole fell onto a parked Cadillac. Upon police arrival, Client admits to drinking wine earlier that night and taking “Oxycontin” and “Prozac” for depression. Client refuses breath test. After allegedly failing Field Sobriety Exercises, Client is ultimately arrested and charged with three counts of DUI.
The State must prove that my client was behind the wheel, or in “actual physical control” of an operable motor vehicle at the time of offense. My client was out of his vehicle upon police arrival. The only alleged eyewitness to the crash supposedly filled out a sworn affidavit with the police, listing a Florida address. After investigation, we uncovered that this address, as listed by the “eyewitness”, simply does not exist. Further, this alleged eyewitness wrote his sworn affidavit in BLOCK (all uppercase) handwriting, and portions of the handwriting were strikingly similar to another sworn affidavit, supposedly filled out by another person. The police submitted these “sworn affidavits” to the State Attorney’s Office.
After we announced “Ready for Trial,” the State took two continuances, apparently in an effort to find a wheel witness that probably didn’t exist.
Before trial, the State “nolle prosseq’d” (Dismissed) all three DUI charges against my Client.
Client was arrested in a DUI checkpoint after leaving a bar in Coral Springs. She allegedly failed Field Sobriety Exercises but agreed to a breath test. She failed the breath test (Intoxilyzer 8000), blowing over the legal limit.
With regard to my client’s failure on the breath test, Mr. Clemens argued that the circuitry for the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine (the breath test) uses a fixed ratio to convert a person’s breath alcohol level to a person’s blood alcohol level. Thus, the breath test results were a “one size fits all” average, as the machine did not know what my client’s true ratio of breath to blood alcohol was. Further, under cross-examination, two different Intoxilyzer certified operators had conflicting testimony as to the margin of error built into this machine.
Client found NOT GUILTY BY Jury.
Back To Top |
