JP was on a pontoon boat with his family when the boat was stopped by DNR wardens for having blue lights illuminated across the side of the boat at night, which is a violation of the law. They instructed JP to turn off the ignition as he was operating the boat. The wardens then boarded the vessel. They allegedly observed the odor of intoxicants coming from JP's breath and JP admitted to consuming two, three or four beers. JP was then run through field sobriety tests, which he allegedly failed and was arrested for Boating While Intoxicated.
Attorney Murray focused the attack on the field sobriety tests. The typical roadside field sobriety tests related to balance cannot be performed on a boat. For this reason, the wardens administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystgamus (HGN) test, which had problems with its administration, a finger to nose test, a palm pat test, and a hand coordination test. The problem with these tests (aside from the HGN) is that they are not standardized and supported by the studies the way roadside field sobriety test are. Knowing this, Attorney Murray challenged the relevancy of the supposed "failed" tests to the issue of intoxication and asked the judge to keep out this evidence.
The judge never issued a decision because the prosecution offered to resolve the case with citations for speeding and a lighting violation prior to the motion hearing, which JP gladly accepted.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Complete Acquittal in Municipal Court
According to the police report, officers were dispatched to a gas station for a report of a male who attempted to purchase beer, was turned away because it was past midnight and because the male was intoxicated and making a scene. That was allegedly our client, JO. The clerk said JO returned to this vehicle and fell asleep in the vehicle. Officers then arrived, observed signs of intoxication, put JO through field sobriety tests, which he allegedly failed, and arrested him for OWI. A blood draw was completed returning a result of .105.
When the prosecutor would not agree to reduce the charge, Attorney Murray and JO went forward with the municipal court trial. At trial, the prosecutor failed to call the gas station clerk as a witness and failed to question the officer regarding information provided by the clerk. As a result, the court had no information regarding when JO arrived at the gas station. Being aware of the lack of evidence, Attorney Murray did not ask a single question to avoid this information being put into the record. Attorney Murray then argued that the prosecutor had failed to prove that JO was impaired at the time of driving as they had not put any evidence into the record as to when JO arrived at the gas station. The judge agreed and found JO not guilty of both the OWI and the PAC citations. The prosecutor chose not to appeal.
Knowing how to spot issues and capitalize on them is what we do. This was a great outcome and would not have happened without JO choosing to fight the charges and hiring an experienced attorney to get the job done.
When the prosecutor would not agree to reduce the charge, Attorney Murray and JO went forward with the municipal court trial. At trial, the prosecutor failed to call the gas station clerk as a witness and failed to question the officer regarding information provided by the clerk. As a result, the court had no information regarding when JO arrived at the gas station. Being aware of the lack of evidence, Attorney Murray did not ask a single question to avoid this information being put into the record. Attorney Murray then argued that the prosecutor had failed to prove that JO was impaired at the time of driving as they had not put any evidence into the record as to when JO arrived at the gas station. The judge agreed and found JO not guilty of both the OWI and the PAC citations. The prosecutor chose not to appeal.
Knowing how to spot issues and capitalize on them is what we do. This was a great outcome and would not have happened without JO choosing to fight the charges and hiring an experienced attorney to get the job done.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
OWI Based Upon Heroin Consumption with Minor in Vehicle Completely Dismissed
JR was called in by a citizen for swerving and varying speeds. When the officer got behind JR's vehicle, the vehicle continued to swerve and vary speeds. A traffic stop was initiated, but the officers did not notice any signs of impairment other than the driving behavior. They performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and did not see any nystagmus. JR was then put back in his vehicle and told he could leave. Just as this happened, the more experienced of the officers decided to conduct the remaining field sobriety tests just to be sure JR was not impaired. JR performed poorly on those test and was arrested for OWI with a Minor in the Vehicle due to JR's minor child being in the vehicle. JR then admitted to having snorted heroin prior to operating his vehicle and the subsequent blood draw returned the presence of heroin.
Attorney Murray filed a motion challenging whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion to extend the initial detention as the officers had not noted any signs of impairment and had even at one point told JR he was free to leave. The judge agreed after a contested motion a hearing and the State chose not to appeal the decision. The entire case was dismissed and JR could not be happier.
Attorney Murray filed a motion challenging whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion to extend the initial detention as the officers had not noted any signs of impairment and had even at one point told JR he was free to leave. The judge agreed after a contested motion a hearing and the State chose not to appeal the decision. The entire case was dismissed and JR could not be happier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)