Our client was charged with DUI per se and DUI less in the Atlanta Municipal Court. She was stopped for speeding, asked to submit to standardized field sobriety tests, and asked to submit to a state-administered test of her breath upon an Intoxilyzer 5000. Our client voluntarily submitted to all requested tests. The standardized field sobriety tests produced the following clues: 6 of 6 clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, 3 of 8 clues on the walk-and-turn test, and 2 of 4 clues on the one-leg stand test. The state-administered breath test produced results of .102.

We successfully obtained a dismissal of our client's DUI charge in exchange for a plea to reckless driving. Our client did not suffer a suspension of her driver's license or have to endure a DUI upon her record.

Our client was stopped for failing to maintain his lane. Upon approaching our client's car, the officer smelled alcohol and observed that our client's eyes were bloodshot and watery. Our client initially denied drinking but tested positive on a preliminary breath testing (PBT) device. After submitting to the PBT, our client conceded that he had drank earlier in the night.

Based on these observations, the officer had our client submit to a series of standardized field sobriety tests. The officer observed the following clues on those tests:

• 6 of 6 clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test;
• 3 of 8 clues on the walk-and-turn test; and
• 1 of 4 clues on the one-leg stand test.

Based on these observations, the officer placed our client under arrest for DUI, read the implied consent warning, and asked that our client submit to a test of his breath. Our client submitted to the state breath test which produced results of .129 and .127.

Prior to trial, our Cobb County DUI lawyers successfully negotiated a reduction of client's DUI charge to reckless driving with no license suspension and no jail time.

Our client was stopped for speeding on Georgia 400 in Dawson County. After he approached our client, he said that he observed the following things:

• An odor of alcohol
• Bloodshot and watery eyes
• Difficulty producing his license
• Difficulty producing his insurance

After making this observations, the officer asked that our client submit to field sobriety testing. The officer testified that he observed 6 of 6 clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, 6 of 8 clues on the walk-and-turn test, and 2 of 4 clues on the one-leg stand test. Based on those observations, the officer placed our client under arrest and read him the implied consent warning. Our client refused to submit to the requested breath test.

We tried the case before a jury, and a the jury returned a not guilty verdict as to the DUI charge. Our client was convicted on the speeding charge and the Court imposed a fine. The case was tried by Ben Sessions.

Our client was stopped for speeding in Lawrenceville, Georgia. After being approached by the officer, our client acknowledged that he was speeding and admitted drinking scotch and beer that night. The officer observed that our client's eyes were watery, but not bloodshot.

Based on these observations, the officer asked our client to submit to field sobriety tests in order to further evaluate whether client was possibly DUI. The officer performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test upon our client and observed 6 of 6 possible clues on this test. The officer next asked our client to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT). Our client agreed and the test produced a result of .106. The officer did not performed the walk-and-turn or one-leg stand tests in this case based upon gravel on the roadway.

Based on these observations, the officer placed our client under arrest for DUI and read him the Georgia Implied Consent warning. Our client agreed to submit to the breath test on the Intoxilyzer 5000, which produced results of .086 and .083.

Our client's case began in the City of Lawrenceville Municipal Court. If you are arrested in Lawrenceville (the county seat of Gwinnett County), your case may begin in the City of Lawrenceville Municpal Court or the Gwinnett County Recorders Court. Where your case begins is typically determined by the agency which arrested you (City of Lawrenceville Police Department, Gwinnett County Police Department, or the Georgia State Patrol).

Once our client's case was moved from the City of Lawrenceville Municipal Court to the Gwinnett County State Court, our client was charged by accusation with Georgia's DUI per se law (O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(5)) and Georgia's DUI less safe law (O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(1)). Ultimately, our Gwinnett DUI lawyer resolved this case prior to trial with a dismissal of our client's DUI charges.  Our client entered a plea to reckless driving, and he suffered no license suspension, no further time in jail, and did not have a DUI on his record.

After our client was involving in a single-car accident where he struck the median on I-85, he allegedly left the scene of the accident and went to a local grocery store. In the grocery, he was observed by a DeKalb County Sheriff’s deputy. The deputy approached our client who was having difficulty balancing and smelled of alcohol. Having received information that our client had left the scene of an accident, the deputy detained our client until a DeKalb County police officer could arrive and conduct a further evaluation. The DeKalb County officer observed our client to unsteady, slurring his speech, and our client refused to submit to field sobriety tests. Our client was client was arrested for DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, failing to mantain his lane, and reckless driving. Our client refused the state-administered breath test.

Prior to the motions hearing in this case, we successfully negotiated a dismissal of the DUI, leaving the scene of the accident, and failure to maintain lane charges. Our client pled guilty to reckless driving. This was a particularly important resolution of this case for our client because, if convicted, this would have been a 2nd conviction within 5 years for our client.

After our client was rear-ended while sitting at a red light, an officer arrived on the scene and smelled alcohol on our client. As a result of smelling alcohol, the officer asked that our client submit to the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which the officer said produced 6 of 6 possible clues. No other field sobriety tests were performed on our client. On the preliminary breath test, our client blew a .17. Our client acknowledged having drank a box of white wine earlier in the day. After she was arrested for DUI, the officer requested that our client submit to the state-administered breath test, which our client refused. Our Gwinnett DUI lawyer successfully negotiated a dismissal of our client's DUI charge in exchange for a plea to reckless driving. Our client did not suffer a license suspension, any jail time, or have a DUI on her record.

Our client was stopped for speeding on I-75 in Cobb County, Georgia. Following the stop, the officer smelled alcohol and requested that she submit to field sobriety testing to determine whether she was less safe or too impaired to drive. Following the field sobriety tests, our client was arrested for DUI less safe and the officer requested that our client submit to a state-administered test of her breath. Our client agreed to submit to the breath test, which produced results of .084. Prior to trial in this case, the state agreed to dismiss our client's DUI charge in exchange for a plea to reckless driving. Our client did not suffer a license suspension, did not go back to jail, and did not have a DUI on her record that would permanently affect her future.

Accidents involving drivers who have consumed alcohol are, generally speaking, some of the more difficult DUI cases to defend in the minds of many people. However, in our experience, many factors make these types of cases some of the most defensible DUI cases. In this case, our client was charged with DUI, failing to maintain his lane, and failing to report an accident after striking a fixed object. Our client left the road and struck a traffic sign. He left the scene of the accident to return home to retrieve his cell phone. As our client neared his home, he saw that the police had arrived at the scene of the accident, so he began to return to them. The arresting officer in this case approached our client walking along the road. When he originally approached our client, he asked if he had been drinking and our client honestly admitted that he had been drinking earlier that night. The officer proceeded to perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test upon our client. After the HGN test, the officer claimed that our client refused to submit to the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests. Based on his observations up to that point and the HGN test, the officer placed our client under arrest. After arrest, the officer stated that he read our client the implied consent warning and requested that our client submit to a state-administered breath test. The officer claimed that our client refused the state-administered breath test. Our client was served with a notice of intent to suspend his Georgia driver's license (Form 1205) as a result of his refusal of the state-administered breath test.

At the motions hearing, we successfully exploited several weaknesses in the State's case. First, the officer's testimony was vague and showed a lack of clear recollection of the events. The officer could not correctly recall the number of drinks that he swore to in the arrest affidavit. His testimony on direct examination conflicted with what he swore to in the affidavit. The officer failed to investigate the cause of the accident in this case. He testified in great detail as to the severity of the accident, but he did not offer any testimony (or perfom any investigation) as to why the accident actually occurred.

Next, we turned to the officer's administration of the HGN test. Again, this officer was very vague about how he administered the HGN test on direct examination by the prosecution. The officer failed to properly state names of the 3 stages of the HGN test. He did not know the timing requirements of any of the 3 stages, and, most importantly, he failed to offer any testimony regarding steps that he took to medically qualify our client.

Finally, the officer failed to clarify for the court what implied consent notice he provided to our client. The implied consent was not read into the record, and the officer did not offer a copy of the implied consent notice during the motions hearing.

Following the motion hearing, the trial court issued an order granting our motion to suppress for lack of probable cause. The court agreed with us that the HGN test evidence lack any probative value in the case and would have been inadmissible in the trial of the case. Finally, the court stated that, even if it found that there was probable cause for the arrest, our client's alleged refusal would have been inadmissible as a result of the failure of the state to offer evidence of the actual implied consent warning provided to our client.

Many aspects of this case may be helpful to you in considering whether to retain a lawyer and, if you decide that you want to retain a lawyer, what type of lawyer you want to retain for the defense of your DUI charge. When he was originally charged, our client retained the services of a general practitioner to defend him. This lawyer did a substantial amount of investigative work on the case, but never provided our client with a coherent plan regarding the defense of the case and the procedural path that the case would follow.

There was not a video in this case. This issue is particularly important, and we feel that this illustrates the importance of having a qualified DUI lawyer. If your lawyer is not trained in the administration of standardized field sobriety tests, does not know the requirements for proper administration of the tests, and cannot recognize deficiences in the administration of field sobriety tests "on the fly," you may not get the results that you want (and, possibly, deserve) in your case. We recognized the deficiencies from the officer's testimony in this case, and we were able to tailor the cross-examination in a manner that illustrated the problems in the state's case.

This client was represented by DUI lawyer Ben Sessions.

Our client was stopped for failing to maintain her lane and speeding. During the officer's intial contact, our client denied drinking. Later, she allegedly conceded that she drank several highly alcohol beverages. The officer had our client submit to field sobriety tests, which he said that she failed miserably. Our client was then arrested for DUI and read the Implied Consent notice. At the jail, our client submitted to a breath test that produced a reading of .171.

Our client faced charges of DUI - Per Se, DUI - Less Safe, Speeding, Failure to Maintain Lane, Reckless Driving, Driving an Unregistered Vehicle, and Alteration of Tag. Prior to trial, we successfully excluded the breath test from evidence, so the state could not proceed on the DUI - Per Se charge. At trial, the judge directed a verdict of not guilty on the tag violations. After approximately 8 hours of deliberations, the jury found our client NOT GUILTY of the DUI-Less Safe and Failure to Maintain Lane. Our client paid a fine and left the courthouse with me. She suffered no license suspension, community service, DUI school, or other conditions.

A concerned citizen reported our client’s vehicle allegedly failing to maintain its lane and nearly striking several road posts. When our client was located by the police, the officer did not perform any field sobriety tests upon our client, but the officer noted that our client appeared unstable and was swaying. The officer also noted that our client’s pupils were small and unresponsive to light, and his saliva was foaming in the sides of his mouth. The officer questioned our client regarding alcohol consumption, and then turned her attention to the consumption of drugs. The officer discovered amphetamine salts, a substitute for adderall, and methadone while searching our client’s vehicle.

Upon being read the Georgia Implied Consent Notice, our client informed the officer that he did not understand what was being asked of him. The officer explained the blood-testing process and our client responded by stating that he would prefer to give a urine sample in addition to the state-administered blood test. Upon arrival at the hospital, only the blood test was administered. Our client’s requested urine sample was never taken.

Gwinnett DUI lawyer Ben Sessions successfully negotiated a dismissal of our client’s DUI charge based upon the failure of the arresting officer to accomodate our client’s independent test request and the failure to perform any field sobriety tests to determine impairment by the prescribed medications.  This DUI charge would have been a 2nd conviction with a year for our client. Our client entered a plea to reckless driving and suffered no license suspension or jail time.  Duluth DUI lawyer Ben Sessions turned a difficult case into a great result for this client.