Case Results

People v. M.P.

Our client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, having no insurance and improper lane usage for hitting a parked car while under the influence of alcohol. The officer responded to the scene of an accident. The response to the accident wasn't very great, since our client was driving immediately behind the officer at the time he ran into the parked car. The officer simply made a U-turn and came to the resting place of the accident. Upon meeting our client, the officer noticed that he was confused, disoriented, had glassy bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. He had great difficulty locating his license, and the officer had to eventually find it for him. Upon exiting his vehicle, our client was extremely unstable and almost fell over to one side. He staggered when he walked in order to perform the field sobriety test, and according to the officer, failed each and every test that was administered to him, including the one-leg stand test, the walk and turn test and horizontal gaze nystagmus test. At the police station, our client admitted that he had been drinking and that he was drinking while taking prescription medication, which included Paroxetine, Lamictal and Concerta. The prohibitions for the first two medications included the fact that he should not take any alcohol with those drugs. As a result, the officer arrested our client for driving under the influence of alcohol and other minor traffic violations, and also took steps to tissue a suspension of his driving privileges for six months. Upon our aggressive representation of him, we successfully contested the suspension of his driving privileges and were successful in convincing the judge to order the state to reinstate his driving privileges and to rescind the statutory summary suspension. In addition, we obtained the dismissal of the charges against our client for driving under the influence of alcohol and for not having any insurance. Because our client ran into a parked car, he plead guilty to improper lane usage and that was all. Despite facts indicating to the contrary, our aggressive defense of our client found him to be