As in every case, I conducted a thorough investigation, keeping in mind what Fred told me. In the interview, the two motorcycle cops who stopped Fred said they were at an intersection 11/2 miles from the bar and saw Fred's vehicle within seconds of hearing officer Ghastly's dispatch call describing Fred's vehicle.

Based upon my investigation, I filed a motion to suppress due to an improper stop. Officer Ghastly testified he was conducting a DUI investigation at an intersection next to the bar that Fred left. He said he saw Fred's illegal driving but did not go after him because he was in the middle of a DUI investigation. This seemed unlikely as Fred told me officer Ghastly was just parked at the corner watching cars leave the bar. I presented evidence, including dispatch records and recordings that contradicted officer Ghastly's claims that he was involved in a DUI stop.

Now the two officers who stopped Fred were stuck with their previous statement that they saw Fred within seconds of Officer Ghastly's call. The judge concluded Fred's vehicle could not have been the vehicle Officer Ghastly saw because Fred would have had to be traveling in excess of 100 miles per hour in city traffic, including blowing through several traffic lights and major intersections, in order for the officers to have seen him within seconds of leaving a bar 11/2 miles away.

The Judge suppressed all evidence arising from the illegal stop. Shortly after, the Prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss its case because all of its evidence had been suppressed.

By the way, Fred was a repeat client, as I had a previously got him off on one DUI.

Before I go any further, let me tell you that I'm not promising that I can do the same in your case. That would be unethical. Every situation is different.

That was pretty interesting though, wasn't it?

Let me give you another example.

This one involves a Defendant driver, let's call him Lucky.

Lucky was facing a second offense misdemeanor DUI. Consequently, he was looking at a 90 day jail sentence, 60 of which could be suspended. This means, the minimum jail sentence he could have received was 30 days. He was also facing harsher second offense financial and drivers license penalties.

Lucky had another lawyer representing him before I got involved. When I met Lucky he was ready to plead Guilty to the second offense DUI, hoping he would receive the minimum 30 days jail. I'm not sure what the other lawyer did, but I was going to do everything I could before I would let him do 30 days in jail. I dug into the case and in my investigation, realized the Prosecutor did not have all the evidence they needed to prove Lucky's prior DUI conviction. Of course, the Prosecutor disagreed with me. So the fight was on.

I challenged the prior DUI conviction. We had a hearing. The Judged determined the state was missing a crucial document to prove the prior DUI "conviction." Consequently, the Judge was not required to sentence Lucky to 30 days jail. The Judge only gave Lucky two days in jail and the minimum first offense fine.

My point here was to show you that although Lucky's case looked pretty open and shut, it wasn't quite that simple. He didn't need to resign himself to 30 days in jail, he just needed someone to take a good hard look at the Prosecution's case.

This next example involves how the breath testing machine can be attacked. This strategy worked well for my client, I'll call him Bob.

Ready? Here's the facts.

Bob was looking at a first offense Extreme DUI (reading of above .18). This offense requires a minimum of 10 days jail whereas a regular DUI requires a minimum of 1 day in jail.

The Prosecutor had a breath machine reading in this case. A thorough investigation of Bob's case revealed the Prosecutor was not properly keeping records on the breath testing machine used in Bob's case. As usual, the Prosecutor believed their records were fine.

I filed a motion to suppress the breath test. After the Prosecutor looked closer, he determined the motion to suppress the breath test could quickly lead to problems in many other DUI cases. Consequently, the Prosecutor offered to reduce the charge to First Offense DUI, requiring a sentence of only one day in jail.

Bob did not want to go to jail. So we continued to work on Bob's case. Eventually, the DUI charges were dismissed and Bob pled to a non_DUI offense and did not have to serve any jail time.

My final example involves license suspension and the consequences relating to an Officer's failure to properly advise citizens of their rights. In this instance, my client, let's call him Mike, refused to blow into a breath machine. Mike's job required him to drive automobiles and he was looking at losing his driver's license for one year. Needless to say, Mike could not afford to lose his license to drive, that would be the end of his job.

In Arizona, citizens are required to provide breath, blood or urine samples at a police officer's request so long as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe a person is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. If a person refuses to provide the sample, the citizen's license will be suspended for one year.

Mike admitted to drinking alcohol and had allegedly bumped his vehicle into a curb while exiting a freeway and then failed to signal a turn. The officer had reasonable grounds to ask for the test. But Mike stated he wanted to talk to a lawyer first. The officer got upset and told Mike he was considering his action a refusal and took his license and gave him a notice of one year suspension.

Fortunately for Mike, his friend referred him to me immediately. Mike came to my office in time for me to ask for a MVD Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. In the mean time, Mike was allowed to drive until the date of the MVD Hearing.

At the hearing, I had the officer testify that Mike said he wanted to have a lawyer present during the test. Then I had the officer testify that he did not inform Mike that he was not allowed to delay the test, even to ask for a lawyer. By law, the officer was required to read specific language to Mike explaining this. The officer failed to do this.

It's one oddity about Arizona law that you are allowed to have a lawyer present for questioning, but not when cops are sticking needles in you, having you blow in machines and collecting your urine samples. Because this exception in the law seems contrary to ordinary constitutional rights, the government understands good_minded citizens might erroneously believe they have the right to have a lawyer present. Therefore, the government requires police officers to advise citizens that they are not entitled to delay for any reason, including the request to speak to a lawyer or have one present. Because the Cop did not advise Mike of this, the Judge threw out the suspension and Mike did not lose his license for a year.

You may want to know about the DUI charge and whether Mike had to go to jail or lose his license because of a DUI conviction. Well, I got Mike's statements that he had been drinking suppressed because the Cop did not read him his rights. Then, we went to trial. A Jury found Mike "Not Guilty."

All of this is true. Nothing has been exaggerated. Only the names have been changed, even Officer Ghastly's.