Sample DUI Cases

Here is a partial listing of cases won by Mr. Boyle:

People v D.D.

 Court:        2^nd District Court – Adrian

 Charge:      OWI – 1^st (had prior offense)

 Result:       Reckless Driving

 Facts:        Client has a CDL and facing a minimum 1 year suspension of CDL license.  He was stopped for making an abrupt stop at intersection and because his car was extremely dirty and had dirt and grass around and in the bumper and wheel area.  Client was unable to complete FSTs successfully and was arrested after refusing PBT.  A datamaster test resulted in two samples of .22.  After negotiating with prosecutor, and prior to arguing Motion for Invalid Stop, client agreed to accept a plea offer to Reckless Driving, but had to convince Judge to accept plea offer as well.  Client pled to Reckless Driving.

People v R.W.

Court:        53^rd District Court – Howell

Charge:      OWI 1^st

Result:       Hung Jury

Facts:        Officer working stationary radar stopped client for speeding 40mph in a 25 mph zone on his motorcycle.  Client admitted to consuming 12-13 beers over the past 9 hours.  Client also performed poorly on offered FSTs, but was also extremely overweight.  Client was arrested and submitted to Datamaster test, which resulted in a .11 and .10.  During trial, we were able to attack credibility of FSTs offered, and also tactically point out multiple failures officer(s) made in conducting the Chemical Test that called into question the reliability and accuracy of the results.  After two days of deliberations, the Judge held that the Jury was deadlocked and ordered a mistrial.

People v SM

 Court:        79^th District Court – Ludington

 Charge:      OWI 1^st, No License on Person, No taillights

 Result:       OWI – DISMISSED, plea to Careless Driving & No License on Person

Facts:      Client was stopped for taillights not working.  Officer also claimed she was swerving within her lane.  After traffic stop, client correctly stated that the FSTs were voluntary and that she did not wish to take them because of her age.  She informed the officer that she was a diabetic.  She was subsequently arrested for OWI, and taken to the hospital where officer requested that she submit to a blood draw after reading her Chemical Test Rights.  She agreed, and results were returned at .21.  Prosecutor originally “offered” client to plead to the Charge at the Pretrial and prior to our Motion.  After filing our Motion to suppress chemical test (and results) pursuant to People v Hyde (that a diabetic cannot consent to blood draw, and further Inevitable Discovery Doctrine does not apply), prosecutor offered plea to $175 civil infraction of Careless Driving and $100 misdemeanor ticket for not having her license on her person. Client accepted offer.

People v R.E.

Court:        63^rd District Court – Grand Rapids/Byron Center

Charge:      OWI 2^nd(prior in 2007), Open Intoxicants in Vehicle

Result:       NOT GUILTY – OWI / guilty – Open Intox

Facts:        At approximately 940 pm, officers were dispatched to a grocery parking lot for an alleged man sleeping/passed out in his truck.  Officers arrived with emergency crews to find client passed out in his truck, not running, in a parking spot.  Client was arrested and ultimately had blood test that resulted in a .16.  At a prior hearing, we were able to obtain testimony from the officer that he “DID NOT KNOW” when client got to parking, how long he had been sleeping, or when he had consumed any alcohol.  Officer alleged that a half of Fifth of Crown Royal was in the vehicle and believed a 32oz cup had a mixture of coke and crown with approximately 1/8 to 1/10 left in the cup.  Prosecutor did not make any offer other than plea to charge and dismiss open intoxicants.  We offered to plea to open intoxicants if dismiss OWI 2^nd.  At trial, we made motion for special jury instruction informing the Jury that a sleeping driving, in a motionless vehicle, posing no significant risk, is not evidence of operation, which Judge agreed to provide.  Further, we were able to establish they had no evidence of operation, and specifically no evidence of operation while under the influence of alcohol or above the legal limit.  We were able to better support this argument through cross examination of the State’s Expert, that there was not enough information.  Jury found client NOT GUILTY of OWI.

People v G.M.

Court:        57^th District – Allegan & Driver Assessment and Appeal Division – Secretary of State

Charge:      OWI  – Implied Consent Violation

Result:       NOT GUILTY  Petition Denied, Reversed on Appeal   

Facts: Client was stopped after deputy claimed Truck was having trouble staying in his lane, crossed fog line, traveling at an excessive speed, traveled with turn signal on, and straddled the center line.  Deputy testified that he heard slurred speech, suspect had difficulty speaking, and seemed dazed.  Further, deputy testified there was strong odor of alcohol, had bloodshot and glazed eyes, suspect admitted to drinking, and had balance problems when exiting his truck.  Officer conducted FSTs including Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), One Legged Stand, and Walk and Turn, and testified that client failed all three, and had a .127 PBT.  Once arrested, and transported to the jail, deputy claimed suspect Refused the datamaster test, and that it was a Technical Refusal (the machine rejected him).

IMPLIED CONSENT HEARING: At the Implied Consent Hearing, based upon the available testimony of the deputy and the BAC Evidence ticket, we argued that the Refusal was not a technical refusal, and in fact would be impossible to have a technical refusal based upon the testimony and could only be caused by operator error.  We presented the Datamaster Manual in support but Hearing Officer ruled in favor of the Deputy and denied our Petition.  We Appealed.

TRIAL: At trial, we established that the HGN test was the most reliable test, and that client actually PASSED that test.  Further, argued that the heavy Carhartt overalls (which were tossed onto the Defense table), heavy steel-toed boots (dropped onto the floor), and tracking a deer for hours through a muddy field, would prevent client from satisfactorily performing the other FSTs.  Again, argued that it was impossible for a Technical Refusal, and that the “refusal” on the Datamaster was caused by Operator Error or Deputy error.  Jury agreed, which deliberated for only minutes before returning a NOT GUILTY Verdict.

APPEAL of IMPLIED CONSENT Ruling: The Circuit Court agreed with our arguments, and reversed the Ruling of the Hearing Officer that it “arbitrary, capricious, or clearly an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion” and “Not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record”.

J.B. v SOS (Implied Consent)

Petition granted.  Officer testified that JB failed to make a sufficient breath based upon the fact he did not hear a solid tone.  However, the Evidence Ticket never printed and machine “froze” according to the officer and the screen indicated an invalid sample.  He then unplugged the machine and plugged it back in wherein it began working normal, according to the officer.  He testified that two more attempts were made, wherein he alleged that they, like the first, indicated an “invalid sample” on the screen but a refusal was printed on the last two tickets.  The Hearing Officer agreed that 1) unplugging the machine 2) the ambiguity of the testimony and 3) that a subsequent refusal or failure of a subsequent sample can not be determined as a Refusal under the Implied Consent law where the first sample was an Invalid Sample. Client maintained his license and avoided 1 year suspension.

People v S.C.

 Court:        10^th District – Battle Creek

 Charge:      OWI – 3^rd Offense/Felony

 Result:       Disorderly Person      

Facts:        Client was arrested for OWI 3^rd – Felony after officers found her sleeping in her vehicle, car running, in a gas station parking lot during a snowy March night.  She allegedly failed 4 FSTs, made ambiguous admissions, and submitted to a PBT (.241).  A blood draw was performed, which resulted in a .23.  She was read Miranda amd refused to answer any questions.  This matter was dismissed three times at the Preliminary Examination without prejudice for various reasons, mainly because we were prepared to proceed and the State was not.  Finally at the final Preliminary Examination and after 16 months, the Felony was dismissed including the drunk driving and client pled to Disorderly Person.  Sentenced to a $300 fine.

People v D.D.

Court:        2^nd District Court – Adrian

Charge:      OWI – 1^st (had prior offense)

Result:       Reckless Driving

Facts:        Client has a CDL and facing a minimum 1 year suspension of CDL license.  He was stopped for making an abrupt stop at intersection and because his car was extremely dirty and had dirt and grass around and in the bumper and wheel area.  Client was unable to complete FSTs successfully and was arrested after refusing PBT.  A datamaster test resulted in two samples of .22.  After negotiating with prosecutor and prior to arguing Motion for Invalid Stop client accepted plea offer to Reckless Driving.

People v E.H.

Court:        90^th District Court – Petoskey

Charge:      OWI 1^st (had two prior offenses, therefore possible Felony)

Result:       Reckless Driving

Facts:        Client was returning from business trip in Wisconsin, wherein he drove through U.P. and as he was driving through Harbor Springs/Petoskey area was stopped by police after he pulled into gas station.  Officers approached him after he exited his car alleging that he was driving poorly, specifically driving too slow (40 in 55 mph).  Client performed very well on FSTs but did submit to a PBT (.13) and was arrested.  Datamaster resulted in .14 and .14.  We filed Motion to Dismiss based upon a suppression issue of the PBT and lack of probable cause.  Prior to arguing motion, and negotiating with officers and prosecutor, we agreed to Reckless Driving.

People v S.R.

Court:        3B District Court – Centreville

Charge:      OWI 1^st, Implied Consent

Result:       Case Dismissed, Implied Consent Withdrawn.

Facts:        Client stopped after allegedly failing to dim high-beams.  Officer subsequently conducted OWI investigation. Officer claims to have smelled strong odor of intoxicants and observed bloodshot and glassy eyes.  The officer alleged to have observed all 6 clues of nystagmus during HGN test. The client performed rather well on the other two tests but officer claimed that he was unsteady on his feet.  .  Client refused PBT, and subsequently refused the Datamaster chemical test.  His blood was drawn pursuant to affidavit and warrant.  The results of the blood test were a .01, the case was subsequently dismissed without written motion and parties agreed to withdraw the Implied Consent violation.

People v RV

Court:        12^th District Court – Jackson

Charge:      OWI 1^st (prior in 2001)

Result:       Careless Driving

Facts:        Officers had a “be on the lookout” (BOL) for our client after an alleged domestic dispute.  Officers found client parked in parking lot exiting his vehicle.  He did well of FST’s but PBT was .10 and he was arrested.  Subsequently provided sample on Datamaster with .11 and .12 result.  We filed Motion to Suppress PBT and Dismiss Case.  At the motion hearing we agreed to plea responsible to a Careless Driving, a civil infraction, and the OWI was dismissed. 

J.D. v SOS (Implied Consent)

Petition Granted.  At the time of the hearing, we requested Officer to withdraw the Hearing but he refused and said my client did not deserve any breaks.  The officer testified that after he read chemical test rights my client consented to a breath test.  After allegedly observing client for 15 minutes, client submitted a sample that resulted in an Invalid Sample on the BAC Evidence Ticket.  Officer testified at the hearing that it was a Refusal because he did not believe J.D. made a sincere effort in blowing, and that his experience provided him the knowledge whether someone was making an effort or not.  However, Hearing Officer agreed with our argument, after we submitted the Evidence Ticket as exhibit as well as requesting that she take Judicial Notice of the Datamaster Manaual, wherein the officer is required to take an additional 15 minute observation period if there is an Invalid Sample, and further, even a subsequent refusal (outright or otherwise) would not be considered a refusal under the Implied Consent law.  Petition was granted and client avoided 1 year license suspension.