Colin Christopher Murphy

Colin Christopher Murphy's Legal Cases (186)

West Des Moines, IA

Drug Crime Lawyer at West Des Moines, IA

Practice Areas: Drug Crime, DUI & DWI

Message View Profile
Message View Profile
DUI and DWI

State v. S.M., Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County No. OWOM005507

Aug 29, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI 2nd Offense Charge Dismissed

On August 29, 2011 the district court granted the State's application to dismiss the charge of OWI - 2nd offense following a favorable ruling that suppressed a breath test from evidence at trial. I wa ... s able to show that the calibration of the particular PBT unit had not been checked for several months in 2011, which rendered the results suspect. I was also able to establish that the driver was not properly arrested for purposes of implied consent. Because these were the only two grounds upon which the officer relied to request a breath sample for testing on the DataMaster DMT, the test result was suppressed. The suppression ruling also allowed me to petition the Iowa DOT to rescind the test result revocation from the driver's certified driving record and reinstate the driving privileges.

DUI and DWI

State v. B.M., Iowa District Court for Story County No. OWCR045377

Aug 10, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI Second Offense Charge Dismissed

On August 10, 2011 the district court granted my motion to dismiss the charge of OWI on the grounds of a speedy indictment violation. The question facing the court was whether a person in my client's ... position would have believed he was under arrest for OWI on the date of the stop. We argued, and the district court found that a person who was involved in a hit-and-run automobile accident, stopped by a police officer who made inquiries about his drinking and drug usage, then taken to the ground and handcuffed, told he was being taken in for investigation of possible operating while intoxicated, who was transported to the hospital in handcuffs by a second officer, then read an implied consent advisory, was handcuffed to a hospital bed and held down by at least two law enforcement officers, was catheterized and had blood and urine withdrawn for the express purpose of testing the specimens for drug and alcohol content, and who was later the same evening involuntarily committed,transported by police officers and detained at a hospital as a person incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, would reasonably believe he was under arrest for operating while intoxicated. Because there was no waiver of the 45-day time period for filing a trial information, the court had little choice under the current state of the law but to dismiss. We also had equally compelling reasons to suppress both the blood and urine tests. However, the court needn't reach those issues because of the speedy indictment violation.

DUI and DWI

State v. B.P., Iowa District Court for Mitchell County No. OWCR023915

Aug 02, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI Charge Dismissed

On August 2, 2011 the district court granted the State's request to dismiss the charge of OWI following a favorable suppression ruling in June. The district court agreed that the 15-minute deprivation ... period required for preliminary breath tests was not met here. Therefore, the PBT result could not be used to invoke implied consent. Because there were no other grounds upon which the officer relied, the DataMaster DMT breath test was deemed inadmissible. This case shows the importance of constructing a precise timeline in every OWI case. I was able to establish that the stop occurred at 1:30 a.m. and the PBT was administered around 1:44 a.m., clearly less than the 15-minute period required under the administrative rules and case law to preclude the possibility of mouth alcohol affecting the test results. What a difference a minute makes! The suppression ruling also enabled us to have the license revocation and CDL disqualification rescinded and removed from the DOT's certified driving record.

DUI and DWI

State v. T.S., Iowa District Court for Worth County No. OWCR008662

Jun 20, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI Amended to Public Intoxication

On June 20, 2011 the district court accepted a plea to the amended charge of Public Intoxication after the State reconsidered trying the case as originally charged as OWI. We were able to raise signif ... icant questions that the arresting officer requested a breath specimen for testing within two hours of the PBT test, which meant the test result would be inadmissible without additional foundation, in the form of expert testimony, relating the breath alcohol concentration back to the time of driving. This opinion testimony from the State would have likely supported a rising breath alcohol defense that we planned to raise at trial. The State was left with little choice . . . try a defensible OWI or amend the charge to a simple misdemeanor. The benefit of a plea to public intoxication is that it can be expunged from one's adult criminal record in two years. A good outcome borne from attention to details concerning the difference in time between requesting a breath sample and obtaining one. A few minutes can make a huge difference in the admissibility of key evidence.

DUI and DWI

State v. M.K., Iowa District Court for Clayton County No. OWCR011742

May 18, 2011

OUTCOME: Not Guilty Verdict - OWI 2nd Offense

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty of OWI (second offense) where my client refused breath testing after being stopped following an anonymous citizen called 911 to complain of a vehicle driving o ... n the wrong side of the road that nearly caused a head on collision at high speed. Without a chemical test, the State was forced to prove that he was "under the influence" of alcohol. I successfully persuaded the jury that the mere odor of alcohol coupled with an unconfirmed report of erratic driving and conflicting officer testimony was insufficient evidence to convict. The State attempted to show that a test refusal was conscious evidence of guilt, but my emphasis in voir dire and closing on individual rights, including the absolute right to refuse to speak to or cooperate with law enforcement for whatever reason, carried more weight with this jury.

DUI and DWI

State v. E.M., Iowa District Court for Franklin County No. SRCR502246

May 17, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI (Marijuana) and Drug Possession Charges Dismissed

On May 17, 2011 the district court dismissed charges of OWI and Possession of Marijuana after suppressing marijuana that was illegally seized from the glove compartment of my client's car during a traf ... fic stop. The seizure was later used to invoke implied consent for a urine sample, which tested positive for marijuana metabolites. As a result, once the marijuana was suppressed, the urine test results were tossed out. Having no evidence to introduce at trial, the State was forced to dismiss. The DOT was later forced to rescind the license revocation as a result of the suppression rulings.

Drug Crime

State v. A.R., Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County No. SRCR019494

Mar 21, 2011

OUTCOME: Drug Possession Charge Dismissed

On March 21, 2011 the district court granted the State's application to dismiss following a ruling that suppressed evidence seized after a pat-down. We challenged the admissibility of this evidence on ... two grounds: (1) that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to conduct the pat-down in the first place; and (2) the scope of the pat-down was exceeded when the officer spent 10 seconds manipulating a mysterious object in my client's pocket. The district court found the pat-down was essentially consensual because the officer's asked for permission beforehand, but the subsequent prolonged squeezing of the object was not permitted under the guise of officer safety. Therefore, the evidence was suppressed. This is a great example of the benefits of pursuing multiple reasons for suppression at the hearing. Sometimes the secondary argument carries the day.

DUI and DWI

State v. B.T., Iowa District Court for Franklin County No. OWCR502413

Feb 01, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI Charge Dismissed

On February 1, 2011 the district court granted the State's Motion to Dismiss the charge of OWI - First Offense after it became apparent that my client would prevail on his pending motion to suppress br ... eath test results following a violation of Iowa Code section 804.20. Although the arresting trooper allowed telephone calls at the police station, what my client prefered was to see his son, who was present in the lobby. The troopers refused this request three times. Because section 804.20 applies to not only telephone calls, but also in person visits and consultations with family members and attorneys, the State dismissed.

DUI and DWI

State v. C.W., Iowa District Court for Butler County No. OWCR009148

Jan 10, 2011

OUTCOME: OWI 2nd Offense Charge Dismissed

On January 10, 2011 the district court granted the State's Motion to Dismss the charge of OWI - Second Offense when it was evident that the State would not prevail on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evi ... dence challenging the breath test result. The State could not produce the PBT calibration log in discovery. Because the officer relied only on the PBT result before invoking implied consent, it was necessary to show that law enforcement substantially complied with the administrative regulations regarding PBT calibration. This would have been exceedingly difficult without producing the log.

DUI and DWI

B.T. v. Iowa Dep't of Transportation, No. 10DOTOW3425

Jan 05, 2011

OUTCOME: Driver's License Revocation Rescinded

On January 5, 2011 the Administrative Law Judge rescinded the revocation of my client's driver's license following a contested case hearing. Although the arresting trooper allowed telephone calls at t ... he police station, what my client prefered was to see his son, who was present in the lobby. The troopers refused this request three times. Because Iowa Code section 804.20 applies to not only telephone calls, but also in person visits and consultations with family members and attorneys, the ALJ found a clear violation of the statute.

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
Learn More About the Avvo Rating