Skip to main content
Jessica Ruth Towne

Jessica Towne’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • Sudduth v. State

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2007
    Outcome:
    conviction reversed
    Description:
    This driver was forced to allow a police officer to search her pockets, and the officer could not explain to the judge why he wanted to search her pockets. You do not have to allow a police officer to look in your pockets; don't consent to a search! SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED SEARCH OF DRIVER'S POCKET; CONVICTION REVERSED AS SEARCH EXCEEDED PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF PAT - DOWN SEARCH.
  • Lindsey v. State

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2006
    Outcome:
    conviction reversed
    Description:
    Lindsay's employer was concerned for his mental health. The employer got a probate judge to sign a "pick up order" allowing Lindsay to be involuntarily committed and assessed for mental well-being. When a deputy picked up Lindsay, he searched his pockets before putting him in the police car, and then instead of taking Lindsay to a hospital as the order told him to do, he took him to jail because LIndsay had drugs in his pocket! Police officers cannot use a committal order to search someone's pockets for contraband! SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED CONVICTION ARISING FROM A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MAN DETAINED PURSUANT COURT COMMITTAL COURT.
  • Wilson v. State

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2005
    Outcome:
    conviction reversed
    Description:
    SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED DRUG CONVICTION OF CLIENT WHO ENDURED A "ROUTINE PAT - DOWN" BY AN OFFICER WHO DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT CLIENT WAS A THREAT TO OFFICER SAFETY OR INVOLVED IN THE DRUG TRADE.
  • State v. Kachwalla

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2002
    Outcome:
    conviction reversed
    Description:
    Along with co-counsel Christine Koehler of Lawrenceville, Georgia, we attempted to further challenge the DUI-marijuana laws. While we did not succeed in throwing out all DUI-marijuana convictions, this case FURTHER CLARIFIED DUI STATUTES; THE COURT ULTIMATELY DECLARED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INCAPABLE OF DRIVING SAFELY" AND "LESS-SAFE TO DRIVE."
  • Love v. State

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1999
    Outcome:
    conviction reversed
    Description:
    This driver was speeding in order to get home before curfew. The prosecution could not prove when the driver ingested marijuana, or whether his test resulted from second-hand smoke. The jury acquitted this driver of being a "less-safe" driver, but convicted because at the time, Georgia law prohibited driving while ANY AMOUNT of a drug is present in the driver's system. WE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED GEORGIA'S DUI LAW REGARDING DRIVING WITH "ANY AMOUNT OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR MARIJUANA" IN BLOOD OR URINE, ON GROUNDS THAT STATE'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL USERS OF MARIJUANA DID NOT RELATE TO LEGISLATURE'S PURPOSE AND VIOLATED EQUAL PROTECTION
  • Izer v. State

    Practice Area:
    Speeding & Traffic Ticket
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1999
    Outcome:
    conviction reversed
    Description:
    SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED THE USE OF A LASER AS A SPEED DETECTION DEVICE. Unfortunately, the Legislature was in session at the time the Court decided this case. The Legislature immediately passed a law allowing cops to use Lasers in Georgia. This case voided about 700 speeding tickets throughout the State of Georgia. Good for the drivers, not so good I guess for the taxpayers!
  • Brown v. State

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1997
    Outcome:
    conviction upheld
    Description:
    We challenged whether prosecutors could use pieces of paper as evidence that the breath testing machine worked. It's difficult to ask a piece of paper questions. Ultimately, the court ruled that there's no right to cross-examine the machine! UNSUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED THE STATUTORILY - CREATED HEARSAY EXCEPTION USE OF INSPECTION CERTIFICATES AS EVIDENCE THAT BREATH TESTING DEVICES HAVE ALL MANUFACTURER'S PARTS ATTACHED AND IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.