Barone’s DUI Victories

Sample case #58

People v. T.K.

1st Offense OWI, No Proof of Insurance, No Vehicle Registration

OWI Reduced to Careless Driving

This client was stopped after she hit a curb while turning from 13 mile onto Groesbeck Highway.  While turning she also ran the red light at the intersection and made a very wide right turn –  traveling well into the left turn lane for oncoming traffic.  She admitted drinking one and later two beers at a party that evening.

She was asked to step out of the car for field sobriety tests.  For the first field sobriety test she was asked to state the alphabet and did so “as instructed.”  She was then asked to count backwards, and missed several numbers, and put the numbers in the wrong order.  She attempted to count backwards a second time with the same result.  She was then asked to stand on one leg. She was not able to do so.  She put her foot down several times, and simply could not stand on one leg for more than a few seconds.

The client was then given a roadside (pbt) test with a result of .128.  She was arrested and back at the station given another test.  This second “evidentiary” (DataMaster) breath test yielded two results of .14 each.

We ordered the entire discovery package including a videotape of the booking room where the DataMaster test was administered.  We were able to determine that the 15 minute observation rule was not followed.  We filed a motion and asked for an evidentiary hearing.  We cross-examined the police officer and after the videotape was entered into evidence the judge took the matter “under advisement.”  We returned on another date when the Court issued its ruling from the bench which granted our motion.  At this point the breath test was suppressed, and could not be used for trial.

The week before trial we contacted the prosecutor who indicated that we would proceed to trial unless our client would agree to an impaired driving.  We said “no” and began our trial preparation in earnest.

On the day of trial the prosecutor offered a reckless driving.  We told the prosecutor that we thought that we could win the trial, but would consider a plea to the civil infraction of careless driving.  The prosecutor wanted the client to also plead guilty to disorderly person.  Through further negotiations we were able to persuade the prosecutor and the judge to agree to accept a “no contest” plea to the disorderly person with the understanding that the matter would be delayed for six months and then dismissed.  During this six month period our client would be on non-reporting probation.  Client agreed to this and the original charges, including the drunk driving charge, the no proof of insurance and no vehicle registration charges were all dismissed.

Sample Case #57.

People vs. P.C.
41B District Court
1^st Offense Drunk Driving (OWI)
Result: OWI Dismissed. Civil Infraction Only [Careless Driving]

On November 14, 2008, at approximately 8:15 pm, our client had just finished gassing up his car at the Sunoco Gas Station, located at 15 Mile Road and Harper Ave. in Clinton Township.  While client was at the gas station, an officer of the Clinton Township Police Department arrived in response to dispatch receiving an anonymous 911 call, claiming that client’s car had been swerving on the road.  The Clinton Police Dispatcher told the Officer, “Drunk driver, he’s just finishing pumping gas at the Sunoco at 15 and Harper, a silver Honda, boy union 4770, came off the expressway, he’s all over the road, out of Grant Township.” As soon as our client began to pull out of the gas station and onto 15 Mile Road, the Officer immediately turned on his patrol car’s overhead lights.  Our client pulled over in response to the patrol car’s lights.

During the investigation there was an admission to drinking three drinks.  There was an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.  The police report also suggested that our client had balance trouble “throughout the stop” and on at least one occasion leaned on the officer’s car for support.

Our client was asked to state the alphabet and count backwards.  The police report indicated without specificity that our client did not properly state the alphabet on three attempts, and made some minor mistakes with the counting task.  The report also suggested that our client was unable to properly make a finger-count.  Our client agreed to take the roadside breath test (PBT), with the result of .09, and also agreed to the breath test back at the station with a result of .08/.09.

We filed a motion to dismiss arguing that it was a bad stop.  We prepared our case including our cross-examination of the cop, got psyched up, expected to win, went in prepared to win, and on the day of the hearing the prosecutor offered to dismiss the case upon our client’s plea of responsible to careless driving.

Result: OWI Dismissed / Plea of responsible to Careless Driving.

—

Sample Case #56.

People V. S.K.
Clarkston District Court
2^nd Offense Drunk Driving
Case Dismissed

The police responded to a dispatch regarding a vehicle in the ditch.  The witness stated to the police that she believed the driver was intoxicated.  When the police arrived they spoke with a witness who indicated that she noticed the vehicle in the ditch “turn around on Sashabaw south and go back the way he came.  He swerved back and forth fishtailing and swerving.  The vehicle lost traction, did a 360 and stopped against a tree.  She saw a man in the driver’s seat with a beer can between his legs.  He said he wasn’t injured.  His speech was extremely slurred and he had trouble with balance and coordination as he exited the vehicle.  The vehicle came to rest against a tree so that the driver’s side door could not be opened.  The appearance of the man was 5’9” to 5’10” about 27-35 years of age with short blond hair or a crew cut.”

The police ran the plate and went to the home where the car was registered.  When they arrived they interviewed a woman who answered the door.  This woman was later identified as the defendant’s mother and said her son sometimes drives the car in the ditch.  The police asked to let them see her son as he had just been in a serious accident and they wanted to check to be sure he was alright.  The woman was on the phone speaking with her husband to determine if they should let the police into their home.  The police heard her say “I could not wake him up.”  At this point the police stormed the home and found the defendant drenched in sweat hiding in a furnace room in the basement.  He admitted drinking 6-8 beer before driving home.  His speech was slurred; he had glassy eyes and smelled of intoxicants.  He was arrested and taken for a blood test.  The result was a .18 blood alcohol.

We filed our motion to dismiss for unlawful entry.  The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence obtained at the defendant’s home.  The prosecutor told the judge she wished to go forward on the theory of impaired driving based on what the roadside witness had observed.  The judge agreed.  We filed a second motion to dismiss arguing that there was insufficient probable cause relative the identification of the driver or relative to the impairment of the driver.  The judge ultimately agreed with the defense and dismissed the case.

Result: Case Dismissed!

—

Case 55.

People vs. J.B.
Court: New Haven District Court
Charge: 2^nd Offense Drunk Driving
Result: Case Dismissed

The police report indicated that the reporting/arresting officer was responding to a BOL (be on lookout) for an OWI driver driving southbound on Gratiot from 27 Mile Road.  He apparently was advised that the vehicle was a black Jeep.  It appears that he did in fact observe this vehicle in the Gratiot and Main area.  According to his report, he then followed the Jeep southbound on Gratiot and observed it cross the yellow center line at least three times before reaching 26 Mile Road.    Additionally, the officer also notes that the Jeep crossed the lines numerous times after passing 26 Mile Road.  After making the alleged observations, the officer stopped the Jeep.  The officer asked for the vehicle documents and license and the report indicates that JB fumbled with the paperwork.  The officer also indicated that he had to request the license a second time.  Additionally, the officer stated that there was a strong odor of intoxicants, slow slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes and an admission to having “two beers.”  The only “standardized test” administered by the officer was the one-leg stand (OLS).  The report indicates one of four standardized clues – specifically “swaying while balancing.”

The officer also requested the alphabet and counting backwards, and the driver had some difficulty with both as well as the finger dexterity task.  The report also suggests slurred speech during these tasks.

There was a roadside breath test (PBT) as well as the evidentiary breath test in this case.  The PBT result was .117 and the evidentiary breath test results were .12 and .12.

We set the case for trial and came back two days in a row waiting for the case to be called.  We prepared our case, and remained ready to attempt to try and win before a jury.  On the second case the arresting officer did not show.  Result: Case Dismissed!

—

Case 54.

People vs. S.C.
Charge: Felony Drunk Driving
Result: Felony Reduced to Misdemeanor, Satisfied Client

In this case the reporting/arresting officer first observed client’s vehicle swerving on 13 mile road.  At that point the officer made a u-turn and followed client’s vehicle.  The officer noted that the vehicle swerved within the lane and that on more than one occasion the tires touched the center line.  Several field sobriety tests were given. The first of these tests was the One-Leg Stand.  There are four clues associated with this test, and in order for the officer to properly testify that the driver “failed” this test, he must observe at least two of the four.  According to the report the driver did not follow the instructions, and put his foot out for balance. The next test was the Walk-and-Turn (heel to toe).  With this test there is a total of eight clues, and in order for the officer to properly testify that the client “failed” this test he must observe at least two of the eight during the performance.  The report indicates that client did not complete this task due to a problem with his feet. The next standardized test was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus.  In administering this test, the officer is looking for an involuntary jerking (nystagmus) as the eye moves across a horizontal path.  This jerking is thought to be caused by alcohol induced intoxication.  There are three clues for each eye that are associated with this task, for a total of six clues.  A subject may be deemed to have failed this task if two of the three clues are observed for each eye. The report indicates that the officer observed that client’s eyes lacked smooth pursuit, and that he moved his head to follow the pen.  The client was also asked to state the alphabet and count backwards.  These are both non-standardized tests.  In Michigan an officer may testify to what was observed on these tests.  The description of the alphabet suggests that the client did not recite the alphabet correctly.  Regarding the counting task, the client passed this task without issue.  The client refused to take the roadside breath test (PBT).   But did submit to a chemical breath test at the station, the results of which were .17 and .17 respectively.

Result: This client wanted most to avoid the felony conviction and we were able to negotiate the felony charge down to a misdemeanor drunk driving.  Among other things, this result allowed our client to keep his job, vote, and keep his gun rights.

—

Case 53.

People vs. E.B.
Charge: First Offense Drunk Driving
Result: OWI Charge Dismissed

Here is a transcript of the videotape from this arrest:

Phase One – Vehicle in Motion

The tape begins at 1:43:52.  The patrol vehicle is traveling down a two-lane street.  The p. vehicle quickly turns around and comes upon a vehicle stopped at the side of the road.  The officer can be heard saying: “Holy Shit”.  He then appears to call in the license plate.

Phase Two / Face-to-Face Driver Contact:

The officer can be heard saying, “Who’s the driver”.  The response is, “it was me”. The officer next indicates “what happened.”  The answer is “well I come around the curve here, and I just lost control and hit the embankment”.  The officer next asked, “have you been drinking at all tonight?” The response is “yes I have”.  The driver continues by saying, “I didn’t think I had – I didn’t think I was – you know”.

The officer next indicates, “Here’s what happened, you hit that way back there – you cast yourself in the air and you ended up here, I can see where you went off and launched it”.  The officer next asked for the driver’s license and the driver is able to produce it quickly.  At this point, a crackling can be heard in the mike indicating that it may be windy.

The officer asked the driver again how much he’s had to drink tonight and the driver explained that he had been at the Moose in Belleview since eight o’clock.  He then continues that he didn’t think he had a lot but he’s been on a diet lately and that his judgment may be off.

Phase Three – Pre-Arrest Screening:

The officer asked the driver to walk in front of the vehicle.  At this point the driver can be seen walking into the view of the camera. The two officers are with him and they look into his vehicle with flashlights. The one officer comments that both air bags went off. The other officer asks him if anybody else was in the car to which he responds no.

The officer next asks if he is hurt at all to which he responds no but he is embarrassed. He went into Kate’s “It’s not what I intended to do”.

Task One :  Finger Count - The officer first demonstrates the task and asks the driver to count with his finger to his thumb 12344321. On the first try the driver indicates 12343421. The officer asks him to try again and on the second time he indicates 12343421.

Task Two : Counting Task – The officer asks first if he has any problems counting 1-15, to which the driver indicates “no.” The officer then asks him to count 1-15 then backward  15-8. The driver completes this task successfully.

His speech appears approximately normal.

The officer next asks if the driver has any problems with his knees or ankles to which the driver responds he has problems with both his knees as well as his ankles. The officer indicates both to which the driver responds yeah, I used to play football. The officer asked if it causes him balance problems and the driver responds “ Not a lot but you know”. As he is answering the question he puts his arms up with his palms forward and shrugs his shoulders. Officer responds “okay fair enough.”

Task three : One leg Stand: The officer indicates to the driver: “okay, what I am going to have you do is pick either leg and I am going to have you balance on it. You’re going to extend your foot out about six inches above the ground like so and you are going to count with your hands at your side 1001 1002 1003 now go ahead and count until I tell you to stop.” The driver lifts his left leg and extends both hands about 18 inches away from his sides and counts 1001,2, 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 at this point his left hand is almost parallel with the ground. He continues counting 1009 1010 1011 1012 at which point he loses his balance and places his foots down. The officer stops the test.

Task Four : Walk and Turn - The officer first positions the driver a few steps back so he has enough room to complete the task. He next asks him to stand with his feet together and his arms at his side. He then indicates: “okay what I want you to do is take nine steps forward just like so (demonstrating) and try to walk somewhat of a straight line I know we don’t have really a straight line here to use try to get it as straight as you can take nine steps forward turn around and take nine steps back. Go ahead and do that for me.” After the driver begins he tells him to “count his steps out loud.” After this instruction the driver does begin to count his steps out loud and can be heard indicating 4, 5. On these first steps he loses his balance somewhat and then continues counting to nine, turns, and counts nine steps back. As best as can be determined from the tape his last steps are heel to toe.

At 1:50:30 the police officer can be seen obtaining his preliminary breath testing device from its case. The officer instructs the driver of his preliminary breath test rights including that a violation is a civil infraction punishable by $100 fine. He then asks if he will take the test. The driver responds that he is cooperating and will do whatever the officer asks him to do. The officer then instructs him with regard to how to actually take the test. The test begins at 1:51:30. The officer then indicates: “all right, this what you’re at right now a .16 so put your hands behind you’re under arrest for operating while intoxicated.”  A later breath test at the station confirmed the roadside breath test.

Result: Original charge of OWI dismissed.  Client convicted only of careless driving, a three point civil infraction no different from a speeding ticket.

—

Case 52.

People vs. K.M
Result: Satisfied Client

The overall quality of my experience was very good. Your associate handled my case professionally and with sincere concern. I found him to be very resourceful and knowledgeable of the law and procedures to my case. He was understanding and sensitive to my personal goals and needs. Working with your associate, I would highly recommend Barone Defense Firm to a friend or colleague. Thank you very much.

I would also like to give thanks to the office staff for their professional human relations and communication skills. Michelle and Donna kept me updated timely on my notice of court dates and/or adjournments. Whenever I had a question Michelle or Donna always returned my call with an answer or referred me to your associate. Thank you.

Sincerely K.M.

—

Case 51.

People vs. R.F.
Result: New Attorney keeps His License

Mr. Barone,

Thank you! I cannot express my sincere gratitude enough to you and your firm for the work that was done on my case. This was a very draining experience for me, both emotionally and professionally. You and your associate, made this whole process extremely bearable and less frightening. The personal touch and emotional support that was extended by you and your associate helped me get past this. In as much as this was a terrible occurrence, as you advised and you are correct, it was a life changing event for the better.

As you know I am a new attorney and as of February 2006, I started my own practice. More than anything, I needed to keep the ability to drive. The result of my case was exactly what I needed. As I shared the news of the withdrawn implied consent violation in exchange for a plea of guilty to the impaired driving with peers in our profession, all agreed that this is an absolute win! It is obvious that you are a highly respected attorney and I attribute the result of my case solely to who you are and your reputation. There is not doubt that I retained the best!

R.F.

—

Case 50.

People vs. D.D.
77th District – Big Rapids

In this particular case our client was charged with an OWI (Second Offense). He was pulled over after officer observed his vehicle cross over center line, drive onto the shoulder on multiple occasions, and travel at irregular speeds. Our client admitted to consuming 6-7 drinks and had slurred speech. He was asked but was unable to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and explained he was suffering a diabetic incident. EMS arrived, treated our client who was then escorted to the Hospital. A blood draw and subsequent serum test were conducted without consent with a result of .171. We filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing arguing that the Prosecution would not be able to lay a proper foundation of reliability for the admission of the blood serum tests prior to trial, and further arguing that the serum blood test was inherently unreliable as forensic evidence, and that it should therefore be suppressed.

Result: All Charges Dismissed, client plead guilty to the non-alcohol Reckless Driving (OWI-2d was dismissed. Additionally, the our client had a CDL and therefore, a conviction/plea to alcohol related offense would suspend the CDL for 1 year, and this was independent of the one year revocation for the underlying operator’s license.

—

Case #49.

People vs. L.M.
57th District – Allegan

Here our client was charged with OWI first. He was an Ohio resident who met in Michigan for a work meeting/dinner. He was unfamiliar with the town and was unable to locate the 131 South ramp while attempting to drive back to Battle Creek. He pulled over onto the shoulder, turned his hazard lights on, and attempted to contact a co-worker via cell phone for directions. An officer pulled up next to him and asked if him if he needed assistance. The officer detected slurred speech and blood shot eyes. The officer activated his lights and requested that our client step out of the car for the field sobriety test. Our client failed the tests and had a .09 blood alcohol level according to the roadside breath test. During a thorough cross-examination, the defense was able to demonstrate for the jury several inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony as well as his failure to adhere to the Standardized Procedures for Field Sobriety Tests.

Result: Not Guilty – Jury Deliberated for approximately 20 minutes!

—

Case #48

People vs. J.S.
48th DC

This case was an second offense drunk driving. Our client was stopped after the cops ran his plate “randomly” (unfortunately legal in Michigan) and thereby discovered that he had a restricted license. After stopping the car our client told the cop “I’m going to prison” (he had a bad criminal history). He admitted drinking seven drinks at the bowling alley, and told the cops that he was a “stock broker.”

He was not able to properly state the alphabet, but could count backwards without any “noticeable” problems. He was not able to complete the walk and turn, at one point almost losing his balance. His PBT result was a whopping .354. Our client refused the breath test, and his blood was drawn. Much later his blood test results came back at a .12.

We filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the police lacked any reasonable suspicion to stop our client’s vehicle because the only way he could definitively determine that the driver was in violation of the restricted license was to stop and question him. We were able to further demonstrate this at a contested hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge took the matter “under advisement” pending further research. About one month later the court issued its opinion on the record, granting our motion.

Result: Case Dismissed!

—

Case #48

People v. M.P.
37th Dist. – Warren

Here our client was charged with count I – OWI, and count II – Leaving the Scene of PDA. According to the police reports our client had rear-ended another vehicle and did not stop when that vehicle pulled into gas station. That vehicle then followed our client until he stopped. He did not feel there was any damage and complainants called police with description and license plate. The cops were dispatched to the client’s address where he found vehicle (still warm) and looked in the client’s house from front porch. The cops knocked on door, then pushed door open, and entered when no one responded. The cops found our client coming from bedroom, conducted investigation including field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. They also looked in receptacle for beer cans from recent alcohol consumption. To defend this case we filed several motions including one to Suppress Evidence because of an Illegal Search (4th Amendment). On the day of the motion the prosecutor met with the cop and the Complainant. The cop wanted to have motion hearing, wherein if we won – prosecutor would give us a “reasonable offer”, and would plead guilty to impaired if we lost. We explained that we would likely win, and if we lost we would likely appeal. The prosecutor spoke with officer again, and we were able to reach an agreement.

Result: All charges dismissed, client plead guilty to Careless Driving (Civil Infraction).

Case #47

People v. D.S.
67th Dist. – Flushing (Flint)

This client was charged with three things, including:I -OWI, II – Open. Intox, III – DWLS. He was pulled over after running a stop sign and making a wide turn. There was an open beer in the console in plain view. He was on his way home after a work function but had stopped at a bar on the way. He failed the field sobriety tests and the preliminary breath test results were .15. He was arrested, and the DataMaster test results were .16, .16. This particular case was complicated by the fact that the client’s license had been restricted over the past 5+ years stemming from revocation after two OWI convictions within 7 years (1994, 1997), and had yet to return to have the license fully re-instated. Therefore, any alcohol related conviction would impact client greater than typical client.

Result: All Charges Dismissed, client plead guilty to added counts of Reckless Driving & Disorderly

Case #46

Client: Ruprecht, Mark (Illinois)
Court: 56th Dist – Charlotte
Charge(s): I- OWI, II – PBT refusal
Summary: D was pulled over after driving on the shoulder the wrong-way of a one-way hwy after turning too early on a “turn-around”. He was pulled over in the parking lot of his motel. D was asked to perform FST despite weighing close to 400 pounds. He was asked to take PBT, he refused and was arrested. He did not take an EBT and no warrant was issued. Explained to the pros. our intentions to file Motion on PC.
Plea: Careless Driving, conditioned upon completion of Victim’s Impact Panel.

Case #45

People v. T. F.
91st Dist. – Sue. Ste. Marie

This client was charged with several things including OWI, PBT refusal, and an alleged Implied Consent Violation. He had been stopped in a driveway. The troopers claimed that they knew he did not live there and had observed him driving “left of center”. He failed the field sobriety tests, did not take PBT. He also refused the breath test, and the trooper obtained a warrant for his blood which was subsequently tested with a result of .13.

Result: Original Charges Dismissed, prosecutor added counts and client plead guilty to Reckless Driving & Disorderly Person.

Case #44

People v. G.S.
46th Dist. – Gaylord

In this particular case our client was charged with three things: I – OWI, II – PBT Refusal, III – Careless Driving. The facts were that our client was was outside of his flipped vehicle when the cops arrived at the scene. He explained he was not driving, but the passenger made statement that he was. The client poorly performed field sobriety tests but did not take PBT. He was arrested, and the DataMaster test results were .14, .15. Note: D is from Wisconsin, passenger was from Indiana. Tried to negotiate bc D was a pilot and this would effect his pilot license. Because of the contradictory evidence regarding who was driving we filed a motion arguing that the state would be unable to meet their burden of proof relative to the issue of operation.

Result: All charges dismissed, prosecutor added new counts and client plead guilty to Reckless Driving & Speeding

Case #43

People v. J. S.
8th Dist. – Kalamazoo

Our client was pulled over after going wrong way on one-way street. He was from out of town, and pretty much seemed to have passed the field sobriety tests. The roadside breath test however was a .09. He was arrested and taken back to the station. His DataMaster breath tests results were .08, .09. We filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to make the arrest.

Result: OWI charge dismissed, client plead guilty to Careless Driving – (civil infraction).

Case #42 – OWI

People vs. P.S
Tawas City

Here our client was operating a watercraft (sail boat). He Placed the vessel on auto-pilot and had been consuming whiskey all day. He eventually passed out on the vessel and became stuck on a sand bar near the swim area in East Tawas Bay. He failed the field sobriety tests, the preliminary breath test, and the evidentiary breath test results were .18. To defend the case we filed a motion arguing that the Coast Guard is not authorized to conduct the field sobriety of preliminary breath tests.

Result: The original charges were dismissed. Ultimately the prosecutor agreed to add a new count and client plead guilty to Negligent Operation of a Water Craft.

Case #41 – One Count of OWI (Operating While Intoxicated)

Bloomfield Township vs. C.H.
48th District Court
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

This was a trial involving two blood test results of .096 and .099, or adjusted to the time of driving, approximately .11. The roadside breath test result was .16. The facts, as testified to by the various prosecution witnesses, were as follows: 
[read full case description]

Case #41 – Client Testimonial

“I selected Mr. Barone’s firm to represent me after a fair amount of research, including interviews with several other attorneys specializing in DUI defense. I felt it important to retain the best lawyer I could as I had a lot riding on a positive outcome. I was hardly disappointed; as impressive as his resume is, it does not begin to describe how artful and compelling Mr. Barone can be before a jury.

I was stopped for speeding and arrested for DUI after a roadside breath test. Complaining of heat exhaustion at the scene, I was taken by ambulance directly to a local hospital for examination, and blood was drawn several hours later for testing by the state police laboratory in Lansing. While the police video of my field sobriety tests wasn’t particularly incriminating, it seemed to me that the blood test result was: 0.09% BAC. In spite of this, Mr. Barone felt that a solid defense could be mounted at trial. As skeptical as I was, this came as music to my ears owing to concern that a conviction might well jeopardize the sweetheart employment contract I then enjoyed. [read full testimonial]

Case #40 – Implied Consent Violation

People vs. G.F.
DLAD Southfield

G.F. was stopped for traveling well in excess of the posted speed limit (65 in a 40mph zone). Once the reporting officer activated his signal to stop, the driver took a long time to respond and pull over. Upon contact the driver was unable to produce the vehicle paperwork, and “had a very difficult time trying to take his license out of his wallet”. The reporting officer also noted a strong odor of “an alcoholic beverage”. His eyes were watery and his speech was slurred. [read full case description]

Case #39 – OWI 2nd Offense

People vs. R.B.
Novi Michigan

Here our client was stopped for having an improper plate. Upon contact, the arresting officer noted a “strong odor of intoxicants”. The driver was unable to properly recite the alphabet, and also could not properly count backwards. At this point the driver was asked to exit his vehicle. [read full case description]

Case #38 – OWI 2nd

People vs. W.W.
52-2 District Court – Clarkston Michigan

The Narrative Report of Michigan State Trooper in this case indicates that he was dispatched to an unknown accident, and that on arrival, an Oakland County Michigan Deputy Sheriff was talking to the driver who was sitting in the driver’s seat. The deputy advised that when he arrived she was lying down on the front seat and was unresponsive. (The driver had driven off the road, and was between the lanes of traffic on I-75). The Deputy had to smash the rear window to awaken the driver. [read full case description]

Case #37 – OWI 1st

People vs. S.M.
36th District Court – Detroit Michigan

S.M. was arrested and charged with the criminal OWI. The Detroit Michigan Police report/warrant request indicated as follows:

“Crew observed above subject drive over curb through vacant lot to avoid traffic at Fourth and Grand River. Upon investigation subject smelled of intoxicants and had bloodshot dilated eyes. Subject was asked to rear of vehicle to preform series of field sobriety evaluations. Subject passed ABC°s, failed counting backwards from 100-88 & failed One-Legged Stand. Subject was offered PBT with a result of .12.”. The evidentiary breath test registered two results of .12 each.[read full case description]

Case #36 – Implied Consent 1st

People vs. E.M
DLAD – Southfield Michigan

E.M. was arrested and charged with the criminal OWI as well as the civil implied consent violation. The Detroit Michigan Police report/warrant request indicated as follows:

“Crew while in full uniform and marked scout car observed above subject driving above vehicle blocking a moving lane of traffic northbound on Harper at Lakeview. Crew then observed subject slumped over the steering wheel of above listed vehicle. Crew then knocked on window of vehicle to waken subject. Writer observed open can of 12oz Bud light beer in vehicle. Once subject was awakened crew performed a field sobriety test, at which time writer could smell heavy odor of intoxicants from subject. Subject then failed sobriety test. Subject was placed into custody and vehicle towed. Subject refused breath testing”. The narrative report indicated blood shot eyes, slurred speech, and that the “subject was unaware of surroundings”.[read full case description]

Case #35 – OWI 1st

People vs. E.M
36th District Court – Detroit Michigan

E.M. was arrested and charged with the criminal OWI as well as the civil implied consent violation. The Detroit Michigan Police report/warrant request indicated as follows:

“Crew while in full uniform and marked scout car observed above subject driving above vehicle blocking a moving lane of traffic northbound on Harper at Lakeview. Crew then observed subject slumped over the steering wheel of above listed vehicle. Crew then knocked on window of vehicle to waken subject. Writer observed open can of 12oz Bud light beer in vehicle. Once subject was awakened crew performed a field sobriety test, at which time writer could smell heavy odor of intoxicants from subject. Subject then failed sobriety test. Subject was placed into custody and vehicle towed. Subject refused breath testing”. The narrative report further indicated blood shot eyes, slurred speech, and that the “subject was unaware of surroundings”.[read full case description]

Case #34 – OWI 1st

People vs. E.B
34th District Court – Romulus Michigan

We were retained by E.B. after he had been involved in an accident and had been arrested for OWI. We made a discovery demand to the prosecuting attorney and police department. In response to this we were provided by the Van Buren Township Police Department with a patrol vehicle videotape.

We reviewed the videotape, and noted that E.B. admitted to drinking and that his judgement was “off”. The officers on the scene can be observed in the videotape evaluating the accident, and can be heard to conclude that E.B.s vehicle became airborn while negotiating the curve in the road after which the vehicle landed off the road. During its trajectory the vehicle after which time struck and damaged a fence.

Case #33 – OWI 1st

People vs. W.G.
52-3 Rochester District Court

In this particular case our client was stopped for speeding in north Oakland County Michigan. The police report indicates that “officer while speaking with W.G. could smell the strong odor of intoxicants coming from the vehicle. W.G. admitted drinking 3 beers. The odor of intoxicants was also strong from W.G.°s breath.”

The officer asked W.G. to step from the vehicle, and asked him to perform the “ABC°s”, which he “read with hesitation”. He was able to count backwards normally, and was also able to perform the heel-to-toe test normally. However, it was also noted that he had bloodshot glassy eyes and a red face. W.G. refused the roadside breath test. He was arrested and taken to the station where a breath test was administered. The breath test result was .12 and .11.

Case #32 – OWI 2nd Offense

People vs. R.W.
52-1 (Novi) District Court

The police report in this case indicates that the reporting officer received a radio run to a particular Michigan Neighborhood (in the area or jurisdiction of the Novi District Court) because a resident had heard a crash. When the Oakland County Deputy Sheriff arrived he observed a fluid trail leading to R.W.’s address. He also observed R.W. walking in the street in the same general area

R.W. was placed into the Deputy’s car, and driven a short distance back to his home. There, the Deputy continued his investigation, and found that the jeep parked in his driveway had visible body damage, and that the airbag had deployed. There was a bottle of C&C whiskey in the car, aa well as the owner’s watch. The Deputy also found the keys to the car in R.W.’s pocket.

Case #31

In the Matter of: R.W.
DLAD Southfield

The police report in this case indicates that the reporting officer received a radio run to a particular Michigan Neighborhood (in the area or jurisdiction of the Novi District Court) because a resident had heard a crash. When the Oakland County Deputy Sheriff arrived he observed a fluid trail leading to R.W.’s address. He also observed R.W. walking in the street in the same general area.

R.W. was placed into the Deputy’s car, and driven a short distance back to his home. There, the Deputy continued his investigation, and found that the jeep parked in his driveway had visible body damage, and that the airbag had deployed. There was a bottle of C&C whiskey in the car, aa well as the owner’s watch. The Deputy also found the keys to the car in R.W.’s pocket.

Case #30 – Implied Consent Appeal

In the Matter of: E. M.
DLAD Southfield

The police report in this case indicated that the driver was observed “slumped over the steering wheel blocking a moving lane of traffic. The officer knocked on the window to awaken the driver, and an open 12 oz. can of Bud light beer was observed in a cup holder of the car.

The driver was asked to stop out of the car, and the officer noticed a “strong odor of intoxicants”. The driver was asked to count from one to ten. The driver started at the number “1″ but could not continue. The officer also observed that his eyes were “bloodshot red, he had slurred speech and was unaware of (his) surroundings at current time”

Case #29 – Visiting Judge

People of the State of Michigan vs. K.G.
14B District Court – Ypsilanti

This Client was stopped on a freeway in Washtenaw County for speeding, (69 in a 55 mph zone), but while the arresting office was behind and following him, the driver was observed driving on the dotted white line. It was at this point that the officer activated his lights. Upon initial contact with the driver, the officer testified that he noted a strong odor of intoxicants coming from the driver’s breath, and also noticed that the driver had bloodshot glassy eyes. The driver admitted that he was coming from a bar where he drank four beers.

The driver was asked for his papers, produced same, and after being asked to exit the vehicle, the driver was asked to perform several “field sobriety tasks”. In this regard the officer testified as follows:

Case #28

People of the State of Michigan vs. R.S.

This was a jury trial. When the prosecuting attorney was asking the questions, the arresting officer testified that he observed our Client leaving a bar parking lot (Shark’s Club) and cross over the lane marker twice. When following behind our client, the officer testified that he observed the vehicle brake hard, almost coming to a complete stop, and that he did this twice “for no apparent reason”. The officer characterized this as “erratic driving”. It was at this point that the officer activated his lights, and pulled our client over.

Upon initial contact with the driver, the officer testified that he noted a strong odor of intoxicants immediately after the driver rolled down his window “only about a half-inch”. He also noticed nystagmus in the driver’s left eye when the driver “looked up and back at me”. The officer also testified that he noticed that the driver had “very glassy eyes”, and that his speech was slurred. The driver at first denied any drinking, and then later admitted that he had one beer. When asked where he was coming from the driver indicated “I don’t think I want to answer that”.[read full case description]

Case #27 – OUIL

People vs. M.D.
37th District Court

Client’s vehicle was observed by the arresting officer to be traveling at a “high rate of speed” (clocked at 100 mph). The vehicle did not slow down when the officer turned his lights on, and continued driving even after the siren was activated. The vehicle did stop at a gas station, where the driver was observed to have blood shot watery eyes and a moderate odor of intoxicants. The driver admitted drinking two beers.

Nystagmus was observed in both eyes (all six clues), but the driver was able to complete the finger count. The breath test produced two results – .09 and 1.0.

Case #25

People vs. A. D.
41A District Court – Shelby Twp.

While traveling west on Hall road, the deputy observed our client’s vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. The vehicle changed lanes, then accelerated to about 70 mph, and applied its brakes quickly to avoid hitting the vehicle ahead. Our client’s vehicle then stopped for a red light, and when the light turned green, sat below the light without moving. The vehicle turned on its turn signal and pulled into the Amoco gas station.

Case #24

People vs. W. M.
73A District Court – Sandusky

In this Operating Under the Influence – Second Offense, our client was observed by the arresting police officer who then ran his plate. The plate came back expired, the car was stopped, and upon approaching, the arresting officer noticed an odor of intoxicants “emitting from the vehicle”. The driver admitted drinking “a couple beers”. His eyes were noted to be “bloodshot and glassy”.

The driver was asked to exit the vehicle, and was able to say his alphabet and to pick a number between 71 and 69 (he stated “60″). He was also able to perform the finger count, and when asked if Mickey Mouse was a cat or a dog, he correctly indicated “a mouse”. The driver was arrested, and a breath test was administered. The result was a .10.[read full case description]

Case #23 -

People vs. T. H.
72nd District Court – Lapeer

In this Operating Under the Influence – Second Offense, our client was observed by the arresting police officer driving in a market place parking lot with its lights out. The vehicle then put its lights on stopped again, and turned off its lights. The arresting officer then approached the vehicle, and noticed that the driver “pretended to be asleep” when he knocked on the window. The driver “initially denied driving, then later stated that he did wrong”. The driver smelled strongly of alcohol, and could not produce a driver license. It also appeared that he had urinated on himself.[read full case description]

Case #22 -

People vs. J. W.
43rd District Court – Ferndale

Our client was observed traveling 54 mph in a 35 mph zone. According to the police report, “upon activating the over head the suspect immediately jerked his vehicle to the right lane almost striking a vehicle”. The report further indicates that the driver/suspect fumbled through his wallet attempting to locate the requested documents (driver license, proof of service, and registration). The driver had a flushed face, watery bloodshot eyes, and slow hard to understand speech. His movements were slow and deliberate. The driver admitted drinking one glass of wine about “45 minutes ago”. Upon exiting his vehicle, the driver’s balance was “very unsteady”.[read full case description]

Case #21 – OUIL 2nd Offense

People vs. R.C.P.
44th District Court
Royal Oak, Michigan

Client was stopped by Michigan State Trooper J. Huggins after leaving a bar in Royal Oak. The Trooper observed the subject vehicle (a motorcycle) speeding, and passing other cars. The passenger was observed swinging her hands in the air while riding on the rear.

Upon contact, the narrative police report indicates that both riders smelled of intoxicants, had reddish eyes and unsteady balance. There was an admission to drinking six beers. The balance was unsteady, and the driver swayed as he exited the vehicle.[read full case description]

Case #20 – Hearing Officer Hopkins

People vs. M.W.
DLAD – Implied Consent Hearing

The Arresting Officer in this case testified that he responded to the scene of a property damage accident. When he arrived, another Officer advised him that they were looking for the driver in the nearby field. The suspect was later found in the field, laying face down. When approached, he stood up with keys to “the truck” in his hand. A very strong odor of intoxicants was noted, along with red, watery and glassy eyes. He also admitted to drinking three or four beers.[read full case description]

Case #19 – OUIL 2nd

People vs. E. H.
41B District Court

Here the client was stopped because his “right headlight was not activated”. The narrative report indicates that upon contact with the driver, the officer asked for his driver license, registration and proof of insurance. The driver was “acting nervous smoking a cigarette very quickly and did not realize his cigarette was dropping ash down the front of his shirt. The driver fumbled through his papers to produce the registration and proof insurance, then had to be reminded to produce the driver license. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and there was an odor of intoxicants noted”.

The driver was asked to exit the vehicle to perform some field sobriety tasks. He was unable to follow the instructions regarding the number count, and could not balance on one leg, at one point losing his balance. He also could not perform the walk-and-turn task. The driver then took a PBT, which registered at .178. [read full case description]

Case #18 – Implied Consent Violation

People vs. S. B
DLAD – H.O. Modelski

This client refused to take the evidentiary breath test, and was therefore charged with a violation of Michigan’s Implied Consent Law. At the appeal hearing for this violation, the Trooper testified that the subject was observed “speeding” on Big Beaver Road in the City of Troy. She was stopped by two Michigan State Troopers, and the narrative report indicated that upon contact, the Trooper noted a “strong odor of intoxicants”. The driver “fumbled through her wallet before providing her license, and the driver had red watery bloodshot eyes”. The Trooper also noted slurring speech. Upon exiting the driver stumbled from the vehicle, and the PBT registered a .17.[read full case description]

Case #17 -  OUIL 1st

People of the Township of Macomb vs. A. B.
41A District Court – Macomb County

Here the narrative report indicated that the arresting officer was stopped by a citizen who complained that a black van had “cut him off”several times and he feared that the driver was possibly OUIL. The officer then caught up to the vehicle in question, and observed the vehicle drive over the right shoulder line, then gradually correct and then cross the lane marker for the right and middle lanes. The vehicle was then stopped.

At trial, Defense Counsel asked the Judge to limit the testimony of the arresting officer relative to what he was told by the “citizen”. The Judge granted the motion in part, and the officer was only able to testify that he was stopped by a citizen and responded to this citizen’s complaint by catching up to and following the Client’s vehicle. The officer was of course allowed to testify regarding what he himself had actually observed, including the weaving described above.[read full case description]

Case #16 – OUIL 2nd

State of Michigan vs. K.G
14B District Court – Washtenaw County

The arresting officer testified at trial that while on routine patrol the officer observed the client’s vehicle traveling 69 in a 55 mph zone. The officer followed the subject vehicle, and then observed it driving on the dotted line between two lanes of traffic. The officer stopped the subject vehicle, and upon contact with the driver noticed “red glassy eyes, and a strong smell of intoxicants”. The driver admitted to drinking four 12 oz beers, “at least one beer an hour while at the bar, and that he consumed the last beer within an hour prior to leaving the bar”.[read full case description]

Case #15 – OUIL / UBAL 1st

City of Ypsilanti vs. L. L.
14A2 District Court

The client was stopped for going through a flashing red light without stopping, and for pulling straight out of a parking lot, again without stopping first. Upon contact with the driver, the officer noted a strong odor of intoxicants, and that the drivers eyes were bloodshot and glossy. The driver stated that he didnt know how much hed had to drink.

The driver was ordered out of the vehicle and asked to perform a finger-to-nose test. The arresting officers narrative report indicated that he tried three times, but was “unable to perform it in such a manner where I felt comfortable in letting him drive. His coordination was off”. He was able to say the alphabet, but in counting backwards did so slowly. His breath test results were 0.10.[read full case description]

Case #14 – OUIL/UBAL DWLS

People vs. M.J.S.
34th District Court – Romulus

Client was pulled over in Romulus for speeding, and for swerving/weaving within lane, and crossing the yellow line twice. The vehicle also “did not use its turn signal when changing lanes”. The officer approached the driver, and could smell the odor of intoxicants. The driver indicated that “he’d just left the strip joint down the road”, and that he’d had “a couple” while there. The arresting officer’s narrative report also indicated that the client could not recite his alphabet, and had distinct nystagmus in both eyes. Upon checking the officer noted that the client had a suspended license.

The client refused the breath test and blood was drawn, with a result of 0.12 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.[read full case description]

Case #13 – OUIL 3rd

State of Michigan vs. C. G. H.
Monroe County Circuit Court

While on probation for a prior OUIL 3rd (also before Judge LaBeau), this client was stopped by a Michigan State Trooper, and ultimately arrested for a second OUIL 3rd. As a result of this arrest, he was also served with a “show cause” for violation of probation.[read full case description]

Case #12

State of Michigan vs. A. V.
39th Judicial District Court
Roseville, Michigan

(From the client’s perspective) I contacted Mr. Patrick Barone after being arrested for my third drunk driving offense within seven years. The third charge carried a felony conviction and my concern prompted me to find the best defense attorney I could find. Previously, I had secured an attorney through the courts but this time I knew I could not rely on just any court-appointed attorney.

We prepared for my case well in advance. During the preparation process, Mr. Barone kept me informed of all my rights and was completely up front about the type of punishment I would be facing. He also advised me of all the measures I should take to ensure a positive outcome. He shared knowledge gained from many years of experience that ultimately helped me find some peace of mind during a very tumultuous time. I was very grateful for this.[read full case description]

Case #11 – OUIL

Huntington Woods vs. D. H.
45B District Court,
Oak Park, Michigan

This client retained our office after being denied a license in his home state (he moved away from Michigan several years ago). He was denied a license because he had two unresolved drunk driving cases pending in Michigan. The client’s overall goal was to resolve the outstanding Michigan cases and the resulting license sanctions imposed, so that he would be eligible to be licensed in his state of residence. This case was the first one addressed in court.

This case involved a September 1988 arrest for OUIL. The arresting police officer observed the client’s vehicle pulling out of a driveway then continuing down the street, running a stop sign. Upon contact with the driver, the police officer asked for the driver license and registration. The report states that “the driver took about four minutes to retrieve the registration fumbling through the wallet. I could tell he had been drinking from the trouble he was having with the papers in his wallet, and his fingers moved slowly. Also, there was the strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle”. [read full case description]

Case #10 – Two Separate Cases of OUIL

State of Michigan vs. B. W.
42nd District Court New Baltimore, Michigan

The client retained our office after being arrested for an OUIL on March 10, 2001. The police report indicated that the subject vehicle was traveling at excessive speed, and crossing over the center line several times. After the stop, the arresting officer noticed “a lot of slurring in the driver’s speech”. The driver admitted to drinking 2-3 beers, but later admitted to drinking large quantities of alcohol. The arresting officer also wrote that “in his attempt to do the field sobriety test, S1 was stumbling around almost falling down several times”. Also, that the officer “had to assist S1 away from the road to keep him from stumbling onto the road”. When asked to perform the finger-to-nose test, the driver allegedly said “I”m fucked up, you know it and I know it”.[read full case description]

Case #09 – Hearing Officer Modelski

People vs. BJW
DLAD – Port Huron

The client was arrested for OUIL and since he refused the breath test, was also charged with an implied consent violation. After meeting with the client we immediately filed an appeal of the implied consent matter, thereby demanding a hearing with the Secretary of State’s Driver License Appeal Division. [Failure to file an appeal, or failing to win the appeal once filed, results in an automatic six-month license revocation, and six points are added to the violator's driving record].[read full case description]

Case #08 – OUIL 2nd Offense

City of Auburn Hills vs. B.P.
52-3 District Court
Rochester, Michigan

During the pretrial process the prosecutor offered no reduction, so client decided he had no choice but to proceed with trial. The police report indicated that the reporting officer observed the client’s vehicle “swerve over white line hitting the shoulder. Vehicle then changed lanes from left to right, twice without signaling. Vehicle got onto the M-24 interchange. I observed vehicle cross over white line to left, and then exit onto N.B. I-75. Vehicle then crossed the white lines to right twice on N.B.-75″[read full case description]

Case #07 – Hearing Officer Merian

People vs. MJB
DLAD – Southfield

The client was arrested for OUIL and since he refused the breath test, was also charged with the civil matter of “implied consent”. [Additionally, during the subsequent investigation of the case it was found that the client had at least two prior convictions within the appropriate time period so he was ultimately charged with the felony OUIL 3rd Offense]. After meeting with the client we immediately filed an appeal of the implied consent matter, thereby demanding a hearing with the Secretary of State’s Driver License Appeal Division.[read full case description]

Case #06 – Felony OUIL – Third Offense

State of Michigan vs. S.W.
52-2 District Court
Clarkston, Michigan

The arresting Police Officer was responding to call regarding a possible OUIL. The caller had followed the suspect from a local bar. Upon approaching the driver the Officer noted an odor of intoxicants and bloodshot and glassy eyes. The driver admitted to drinking three beers and a two shots. The driver was asked to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety “tests”.

The driver was able to recite the “ABC’s” correctly, but could not follow the instructions of the Officer regarding the backwards count, the balance “test” or the finger-to-nose. He also lost his balance during the one-legged stand.[read full case description]

Case #05 – Hearing Officer Kronk

Secretary of State vs G.B.
DLAD in Flint

The Client in this case had refused to take the breath test, and was therefore charged with the civil implied consent violation. Our office demanded a hearing which was held at the Driver License Appeal Division of the Secretary of State located in Flint Michigan. At the hearing the arresting Officer testified that he paced the Client’s vehicle, a Porsche, traveling 45 mph and 60 mph in a 35 mph zone. The Client swerved to the center lane, swerved to the left side agin, and drove over the yellow line. The Officer also observed the Client’s vehicle change lanes without signaling. The Officer noticed a moderate smell of intoxicants and he admitted to drinking two glasses of wine. The Client attempted the alphabet 3 times, on the first two tries he repeated A to S and then from L to S; on the third try he was able to complete the alphabet quite rapidly. The Client counted from 88 to 73, when asked to count from 88 to 75. On the walk-and-turn the Client could not walk heal to toe. He also could not stand on one leg for more than 2 seconds although asked to do so for 10 minutes. The Officer testified that he read the Client his chemical test rights “from the form”.[read full case description]

Case #04 – Non-Jury Trial

State of Michigan Vs. R.L.
35th District Court – Plymouth, Michigan

In this case the Client’s had stopped for a few beers after work. He left the bar and was driving Northbound on I-275 when he was spotted by a State Trooper. The Trooper followed for a period of time, then stopped the Client, ostensibly because he was not wearing his seat belt.[read full case description]

Case #03

State of Michigan vs. T. B
1st District Court
Monroe, Michigan

Client stopped for improper lane usage and failure to signal. Police officer had observed client braking sporadically, weaving in the lane, and crossing over the fog line three times. Client admitted to drinking “3 tall beers” half hour prior to arrest. During the alphabet, client admitted “I know I messed up, I’ve had too much to drink”. Client also missed fingers during the finger count, and didn’t follow instructions when asked to choose a number between 21 and 19. His preliminary breath test was .19, and the evidentiary breath test was .19. Based on client’s prior record he was charged as an OUIL / per se, 2nd offense.[read full case description]

Case #02

City of Roseville vs. M.L.
39th District Court
Roseville Michigan

Client was pulled over by a City of Roseville Police Officer after being observed swerving between lanes of traffic. The police report indicated a strong odor of intoxicants and blood shot eyes. The Police Officer asked the client to perform field sobriety tests, including walking a straight line, one leg balance, and finger-to-nose. The police report indicated that the client did not perform well, and did not follow instructions. The client and was given a preliminary breath test, and blew over the legal limit. He was arrested for drunk driving, and taken back to the station to be processed. At the station he was given the evidentiary breath test (Datamaster), and blew 0.08. He was charged with OWI.[read full case description]

Case #01

City of Waterford vs. S.P.
51st District Court
Waterford Michigan

In this case the client was arrested for OUIL, and because he refused the breath test he was also charged with a violation of the implied consent law. At the hearing before the Driver License Appeal Division the Hearing Officer was successfully persuaded by defense counsel that the breath test refusal was proper. The Hearing Officer dismissed the implied consent charge. No points were assessed to the client’s driver license, and the client did not lose his driving privileges. [read full case description]

Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (248) 306-9159 , or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!