DWI Crime Case Results

Experienced

Trusted

Respected

Client: D70118

Charge: DWI misdemeanor repetition

Court: County Criminal Court 8

Case Details and Defense: My client fell asleep in his vehicle in the parking lot of a restaurant close to his home. After being awakened by the manager of the restaurant, he began to drive home. However, a concerned citizen called 911 and followed my client while waiting for the police to arrive at their now moving location. The police arrived as my client was pulling into his garage at his home and shutting the garage door behind him automatically.  The officer’s dash cam confirmed the officer arrived as my client pulled into the garage and never had time to follow my client’s vehicle or activate the emergency lights on the patrol car. The officer pulled into the driveway and then got out of the police vehicle and began banging on the garage door telling the client to open the garage door. He complied and opened the garage door almost immediately while still seated in his vehicle. 

The officer then walked into the garage uninvited and began questioning him.  She stated she smelled the odor of alcohol, began her DWI investigation, and my client was placed under arrest for his second DWI.   

We filed a motion to suppress the evidence because we did not believe the officer had a right to enter the home without consent or a warrant. After a contested hearing, the Judge agreed and granted our motion to suppress the evidence. 

Result: Case Dismissed

Client: M62218

Charge: DWI

Court: County Criminal Court 3

Case Details and Defense: While driving, my client was stopped for weaving and failing to maintain a single lane while traveling on the highway.  After the stop and police investigation, he was arrested and provided a breath sample of .107, which is over the legal limit.

After a review of all the evidence in the case including the dash came footage from the patrol vehicle that stopped my client, I was convinced the officer did not have enough evidence to justify stopping my client and detaining him for any investigation.  

The law states that an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause to initiate a traffic stop of a vehicle.  (Terry, 392 U.S. 27.)

A motion to suppress the stop was filed and a contested hearing ensued. The officer testified that he conducted the stop because my client was swerving within his lane, jerking the wheel, and crossing into the lane immediately next to his. When the dash cam video was played before the judge, it showed minimal weaving over a 2.5-mile stretch. Also, in the judge’s opinion the jerking of the wheel was not apparent, and the crossing into the other lane was minimal. The officer also conceded this activity could have just as easily been a driver not paying attention or texting. The judge found that these facts alone do not show out of the ordinary activities and granted the motion to suppress the evidence as a result of the bad stop.  

Result: The case was dismissed. 

Client: T71318

Charge: DWI

Court: County Criminal Court 9

Case Details and Defense: My client enjoyed an evening at a local restaurant where he watched baseball and had a couple of drinks. Afterwards, on his short drive home, he had an accident and the police were dispatched to the scene. When the officers arrived, he told them he had recently consumed two long island ice teas and was on his way home.  My client was very polite, cooperative and showed only minimal signs of intoxication. However, after the police questioned him and had him perform the field sobriety evaluations, he was placed under arrest for DWI. He was then taken to the police station where he agreed to provide a sample of his breath.  The results of the breath test showed an alcohol concentration of .115 – well over the legal limit of .08.  

The law in Texas requires the state to prove a person is intoxicated while operating the motor vehicle. A breath test which indicates intoxication shortly after the person was operating may not prove they were over the legal limit while they were driving.  

When we analyzed his case, we realized that he showed minimal signs of intoxication at the scene and we believed his blood alcohol level was likely below the .08 requirement when he was actually operating his vehicle. This conclusion was based on the science concerning when peak levels of alcohol occur in someone’s system. A person’s blood alcohol level can continue to rise anywhere from about 15 minutes to 2.5 hours after their last drink.  On average, most experts would agree that a person’s peak blood alcohol level is reached 45 minutes to an hour after their last drink. His breath sample was provided about one hour after the accident. 

However, the state refused to dismiss the case based on this evidence, so we had no choice but to insist on a jury trial. We presented a thorough argument based on the evidence and scientific data. After hearing all the evidence in the case, the jury agreed with us and returned a verdict of not guilty.  

Result: Not Guilty

Client: F60717

Charge: Public Intoxication

Court: Arlington Municipal Court

Case Details and Defense: I often see people arrested for public intoxication without any field sobriety evaluations, breath testing, or blood testing offered by the officers. People are wrongfully arrested for public intoxication more than any other crime. I believe the reason for this is that it is not considered a serious offense to the officers, and as a result they engage in a limited investigation. It is not uncommon for public intoxication cases to have almost no evidence other than physical observation testified to by the officers.  Many police officers believe if you are in public and you have been drinking, they have the authority to arrest you for public intoxication. However, this is far from true. For a person to be convicted of public intoxication, they not only have to be in public and intoxicated, but the level of intoxication is higher than the level of intoxication for a DWI charge. On a DWI case you must have lost the normal use of your mental and physical faculties or have a blood alcohol content at the time of driving of .08 or higher.  For a public intoxication case you must be so intoxicated that you are a danger to yourself or others as a result of your intoxication.  

Complicating matters for those arrested for public intoxication is that if a person pleas to a deferred adjudication (and successfully completes it by paying a small fine and staying out of trouble for a few months) the arrest will likely be eligible for an expunction. Officers will often tell my clients, “it’s like a traffic ticket.” This is not true. It is the same level of offense as a traffic ticket, but when one gets a traffic ticket you do not get arrested, spend the night in jail and have an arrest record for the world to see.  Public intoxication cases are money makers for the city because most people will choose not to fight them if the state offers them a deferred with a fine, which they often do.  

In this case my client was detained at the Texas Rangers Ballpark for public intoxication. He informed the officer he had only consumed one beer but was on his way to get a second when he was stopped.  The officers state that he had a very strong odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, watery bloodshot eyes, and a sway in his walk and stance. The police officers did not provide any video evidence from the scene or witness statements. They also failed to conduct any field sobriety tests and breath or blood tests.  

We subpoenaed the video of my client when he was booked into the jail which showed (in our opinion) zero evidence of intoxication only an hour or so after the arrest.  We requested a dismissal due to the lack of evidence, yet they refused. We felt our client was not guilty because the state had no evidence to support their claim, and we had video evidence that showed his disposition while being booked in. We refused to plea to something that was not true. We decided it was best to move forward with a trial. 

The officer testified that he concluded my client was intoxicated based on his observations. He conceded that he did not conduct any field sobriety examinations, attempt to obtain any video evidence from police vehicles, cameras at the Ballpark, or body cams. He further conceded he did not request a breath or blood test. The members of the jury agreed with our argument and returned a quick verdict of not guilty. 

Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – B63018
County Criminal Court 2
Charge: DWI > .15
Result: Dismissed

State vs. My Client – L50014
County Criminal Court 3
Charge: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – C52114
Tarrant County
Charge: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
Result: Case No Filed

State vs. My Client – Y30013
County Criminal Court 8
Charge: DWI
Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – B63018
County Criminal Court 2
Charge:  DWI >.15
Result:   Case dismissed

State vs. My Client – W63318
294th Judicial District Van Zandt County
Charge:  DWI felony / Resisting Arrest / UCW / Criminal Mischief
Result:  DWI reduced to a misdemeanor and all other cases barred from prosecution

State vs. My Client – V62619
Tarrant County
Charge:  DWI felony
Result:   Case not filed

State vs. My Client – L62719
County Criminal Court 6
Charge:  DWI>.15
Result:   Case reduced to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – C62118
County Criminal Court 9
Charge:  DWI>.15
Result:   Case dismissed

State vs. My Client – N60218
372nd Judicial District
Charge:  DWI felony probation revocation
Result:   MTR dismissed

State vs. My Client – B64918
County Criminal Court 3
Charge:  DWI – probation revocation
Result:   Probation revocation dismissed

State vs. My Client – D30213
Montague County
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Case Dismissed

State vs. My Client –L30413
Tarrant County
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Case No-filed

State vs. My Client –Y30013
County Criminal Court 8
Charge: DWI
Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – P22313
County Criminal Court 8
Charge: DWI
Result: Dismissed

State vs. My Client- S10005
Harrison County Court
Charge: DWI
Result: Case Dismissed

State vs. My Client- S10110
396th District Court
Charge: DWI Felony
Result: Case Dismissed

State vs. My Client – D9307
County Criminal Court 9
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – O5710
County Criminal Court 4 (Denton)
Charge: DWI (Driving while Intoxicated)
Result: Plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – K4408
County Criminal Court 10
Charge: DWI (Driving while Intoxicated)
Result: Plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – R9808
County Criminal Court 8
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – J8607
County Criminal Court 4
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – F2304
County Criminal Court 6
Charge: DWI & Possession of a Dangerous Drug
Result: DWI – Plead to Obstruction; Possession – Dismissed

State vs. My Client – C1309
County Criminal Court 2
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – M5508
County Criminal Court 2
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Dismissed

State vs. My Client – H3508
County Criminal Court 9
Charge: DWI Misdemeanor – rep
Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – S7108
County Criminal Court 8
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Not Guilty

State vs. My Client – S7208
County Criminal Court 3 (Denton)
Charge: DWI
Result: Plead to Obstruction of Highway
and
422nd District Court (Kaufman County)
Charge: Probation Revocation/Possession of a Controlled Substance
Result: Dismissed

State vs. My Client – P6008
County Criminal Court 2
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – P5910
County Criminal Court 5
Charge: DWI & Assault Bodily Injury Family Member
Result: Assault – reduced to Class C Misdemeanor; DWI- plead to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – M5009
County Criminal Court 7
Charge: DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
Result: Dismissed

State vs. My Client – E11505
Young County Court 9
Charge: DWI
Result: Case Dismissed

State vs. My Client – E12911
Tarrant County
Charge: DWI
Result: Case Rejected by DA’s Office

State vs. My Client – R13111
County Criminal Court 1
Charge: DWI
Result: Case Reduced to Obstruction of a Highway

State vs. My Client – T15311
County Criminal Court 3
Charge: DWI
Result: Case Reduced to Obstruction of Highway

State vs. My Client – S50215
County Criminal Court 3
Charge: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
Result: Reduced to Obstruction of Highway

State vs. My Client – B62517
Wise County Court at Law
Charge: DWI
Result: Case Dismissed

Scroll to Top