State of Maryland vs. M. A. Mendoza
Mar 15, 2018OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
This was a DUI bench trial in Maryland. The prosecutor put on the arresting officer and another officer at the scene as their witnesses to prove the case. As well, the prosecutor introduced the body ca ... m video which documented the stop and the field sobriety tests and all the interactions at the police station. My client refused the breath test at the police station and did poorly on the field sobriety tests at the scene which led to him being charged with DUI and DWI. In Maryland, failure to perform the field sobriety tests in a satisfactory manner is all that is needed to sustain a DWI conviction, if the stop was legal. The arresting officer was in his 30's and had already completed 449 DUI arrests in his career according to his police report. The issue turned on my successful cross examination of the police officer. My client was detained after he was in his car, with the engine running in a parking space outside a bar. The police saw a beer bottle roll out of the defendants car and then inquired to see if he was okay. In Maryland, you don't need to be driving a car on a road to get a DWI/DUI. The law just requires actual physical control, which are 7 factors outlined by the courts in a case called ATKINSON V. STATE 331, MD 199. 627. A 2d 1019 (1993). An exhaustive, intense cross examination , established that my client hadn't drove while impaired to the scene and despite being in the drivers seat and in actual physical control, he was using the car as a stationary shelter (it was January and cold) before his friend arrived. The Atkinson case recognized the importance , as a public policy matter of allowing people to use their vehicle as a stationary shelter, particularly if they are incapable of driving or not ready to drive. Mr. Mendoza had to turn the car on to get the heater in the car to run . He admitted to 3-4 mixed drinks before getting in the car. This stationary shelter doctrine is allowed if you show that the defendant 1) reasonably used the vehicle for shelter 2) has not driven or driven to the scene impaired and/or 3) didn't intend to drive. Most of the time the defense is hard to prove due to the defendants own admissions or driving or getting ready to drive or other witnesses who testify as to the defendants actions. The judge took a recess to read all caselaw I introduced and came back with a judgement of acquittal on my motion to dismiss. The prosecutor and cop were convinced at the outset that because the car was running, the defendant was awake, and other factors establishing control of the car were established that it would be a slam dunk case.
