Skip to main content
Barry Thomas Simons
Avvo
Pro

Barry Simons’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Illinois v. Lidster (2004) 540 U.S. 419

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Outcome:
    Reversed
    Description:
    Challenge to Roadblocks filed in United States Supreme Court
  • Stogner v. California

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Outcome:
    California Supreme Court Reversed
    Description:
    United States Supreme Court declared the retroactive application of time barred statutes of limitation a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws
  • Nelson v. City of Irvine , et al.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Feb 11, 1998
    Outcome:
    Class Action Lawsuit against Irvine Police upheld
    Description:
    The Irvine Police Department engaged in a systematic practice of denying DUI arrestees the choice of a breath test over blood tests. The Court held that this was a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
  • Baker v. Gourley

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    May 21, 2002
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals Overturned DMV Suspension
    Description:
    Mr. Simons exposed The Orange County Crime Lab for using Blood Methods that had not been approved or placed on file with the Califonia Department of Health. This was a violation of the Code of Regulations and the DMV failed to establish that the test was valid. The Attorney General argued that the DMV could rely upon objective symptoms of intoxication to establish that the driver was over the legal limit to support the DMV suspension. The Court of Appeals ruled that objective symptoms were not relevant and were not a substitution for a valid scientific test establishing a BAC over 0.08%
  • Robertson v. Zolin

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Nov 12, 1996
    Outcome:
    DMV Suspension Set Aside
    Description:
    Robertson established that there was .XX code on one of his breath tests and that as a result of this evidence the burden of proving the test valid was shifted to the DMV. The Court held that the driver only needed to show that offical regulations were not followed to shift the burden of proof to the DMV. The Court also held that it wasn't the driver's burden to show the test was invalid and that the driver did not have to intoduce complex scientific evidence to establish that officials standards were not complied with.