James Mitchell, a middle-aged Newaygo County resident, found himself embroiled in a situation he had never anticipated. After an office party, James was pulled over by a local law enforcement officer while driving home. Despite being confident that he was below the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit, he found himself on the side of the road, about to be subjected to a series of field sobriety tests.
The arresting officer, Officer Davis, first instructed James to perform the "walk and turn" test. Despite his initial confidence, James found this test more challenging than he had anticipated. He was told to walk heel-to-toe along a straight line, make a turn, and then repeat the process in the opposite direction. The side of the road, where they were performing the test, was not perfectly flat, making it difficult to maintain perfect balance. Even though James felt sober, he struggled to maintain his balance, wobbled a little, and stumbled once, all of which Officer Davis took note of.
Next, James was asked to perform the "one-legged stand" test. He was directed to stand on one foot and lift the other approximately six inches off the ground, all while counting to thirty. Struggling with a minor backache from a long day at the office, James found maintaining balance more challenging than it should have been. Despite his best efforts, he swayed slightly. Officer Davis, interpreting these slight movements as signs of intoxication, recorded yet another failure.
Lastly, James was subjected to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. Officer Davis explained that he would be watching for an involuntary jerking of the eye, which could indicate intoxication. While he held up a small flashlight and moved it slowly side to side, James followed the light with his eyes. He felt confident about this one, but Officer Davis announced that he observed signs of nystagmus, indicating potential impairment.
After these tests, Officer Davis administered the Preliminary Breath Test (PBT), informing James that his refusal could result in a civil infraction. James, already flustered from his struggles with the previous tests, decided to comply, hoping to clear his name with a low BAC reading. Much to his shock, the PBT registered a 0.13 BAC, above the legal limit.
Following the tests, James was arrested for driving under the influence. He contacted an experienced attorney, Jonathan Paul, who began to examine the case's details meticulously. During their first meeting, James explained the situation, the field sobriety tests, and his backache, which he thought might have affected his performance.
Jonathan realized that the uneven surface on which James had performed the walk-and-turn test, his existing backache during the one-legged stand test, and the inherent subjectivity of the HGN test could be used to challenge the validity of the test results. He also noted the potential issues with the PBT device's calibration and how it was administered.
The drunk driving case went to the 78th District Court in Newaygo County, presided over by the Honorable H. Kevin Drake. Jonathan presented the case, emphasizing James's physical condition and the conditions under which the field sobriety tests were conducted. He argued that the results of the tests should not be considered as they were affected by these factors, challenging their reliability of the DUI arrest.
He pointed out that the rise in James's BAC level, as recorded by the PBT and later by the Datamaster test at the station, could be due to the absorption of alcohol in his system over time. This meant that his BAC at the time of driving was likely under the legal limit.
Based on some issues with the case, the client had the option of working out a very favorable resolution or proceeding with a trial; the client ultimately used this leverage to workout a favorable outcome.
The arresting officer, Officer Davis, first instructed James to perform the "walk and turn" test. Despite his initial confidence, James found this test more challenging than he had anticipated. He was told to walk heel-to-toe along a straight line, make a turn, and then repeat the process in the opposite direction. The side of the road, where they were performing the test, was not perfectly flat, making it difficult to maintain perfect balance. Even though James felt sober, he struggled to maintain his balance, wobbled a little, and stumbled once, all of which Officer Davis took note of.
Next, James was asked to perform the "one-legged stand" test. He was directed to stand on one foot and lift the other approximately six inches off the ground, all while counting to thirty. Struggling with a minor backache from a long day at the office, James found maintaining balance more challenging than it should have been. Despite his best efforts, he swayed slightly. Officer Davis, interpreting these slight movements as signs of intoxication, recorded yet another failure.
Lastly, James was subjected to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. Officer Davis explained that he would be watching for an involuntary jerking of the eye, which could indicate intoxication. While he held up a small flashlight and moved it slowly side to side, James followed the light with his eyes. He felt confident about this one, but Officer Davis announced that he observed signs of nystagmus, indicating potential impairment.
After these tests, Officer Davis administered the Preliminary Breath Test (PBT), informing James that his refusal could result in a civil infraction. James, already flustered from his struggles with the previous tests, decided to comply, hoping to clear his name with a low BAC reading. Much to his shock, the PBT registered a 0.13 BAC, above the legal limit.
Following the tests, James was arrested for driving under the influence. He contacted an experienced attorney, Jonathan Paul, who began to examine the case's details meticulously. During their first meeting, James explained the situation, the field sobriety tests, and his backache, which he thought might have affected his performance.
Jonathan realized that the uneven surface on which James had performed the walk-and-turn test, his existing backache during the one-legged stand test, and the inherent subjectivity of the HGN test could be used to challenge the validity of the test results. He also noted the potential issues with the PBT device's calibration and how it was administered.
The drunk driving case went to the 78th District Court in Newaygo County, presided over by the Honorable H. Kevin Drake. Jonathan presented the case, emphasizing James's physical condition and the conditions under which the field sobriety tests were conducted. He argued that the results of the tests should not be considered as they were affected by these factors, challenging their reliability of the DUI arrest.
He pointed out that the rise in James's BAC level, as recorded by the PBT and later by the Datamaster test at the station, could be due to the absorption of alcohol in his system over time. This meant that his BAC at the time of driving was likely under the legal limit.
Based on some issues with the case, the client had the option of working out a very favorable resolution or proceeding with a trial; the client ultimately used this leverage to workout a favorable outcome.
