Ryan Lee Kaess

Ryan Kaess

There is a criminal and civil portion to DWIs; this client was not convicted of a DWI but of careless driving, even though he had a BAC of .16. My firm successfully negotiated a careless driving plea for him, which means he did not have to report that to any licensing boards, which usually does not happen. Had he gone to court by himself or hired another lawyer, he probably would have plead guilty. It was my firm that pushed the prosecutor, and my reputation for going to trial and making prosecutors work that got that deal, nothing about the circumstances. Only because we worked our butts off and pushed the prosecutor did I get that deal. Had we had a contested hearing, it would have been 50-50 of the Judge throwing the case because of the stop. Judges don't like DWIs, Judges don't like people driving on the road drunk, and he was driving drunk. He was not convicted of that crime and it did not impact his professional license, which was what he told me was his biggest concern. As I told this client, the criminal portion of this had nothing to do with his driving privileges, and I use the word privileges intentionally. Even if the judge would have dismissed the case or had we gone to trial and a jury acquitted him, he still would not have a driver's license. The license is status dealt with in an Implied Consent hearing. Unlike what was said, it is not a trial. It is a hearing in front of a judge. The sole issue the judge would have to decide was whether he lost his license for one year or not, i.e. whether to uphold the revocation or not. They can't make any other decisions and are limited as to the reasons they can rescind the revocation. One difference between an Implied Consent and Criminal trial is the burden; it is a lower burden to uphold a revocation. In this case the sole question the judge has to decide is whether the police officer stopped him legally, that is whether he had reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime and as such could stop him. I could not contest the accuracy of the test (it was done correctly), I could not contest the PC to arrest him (he was drunk, the officer had absolute PC to arrest him), I could not contest anything but reasonable suspicion. The officer had reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime; the officer saw him running from a hotel after a loud party was called in by hotel management. He had picked up a young lady at a bar and went in to check into that hotel, he ran out to his car with the other party guests, a judge more than likely would have held the officer could have stopped my client, which means a loss of license for one year. So, the day of the Implied Consent this client had two options: 1. Have the hearing, which he would lose, meaning a loss of license for a year; 2. Accept the yearlong revocation However, I have won Implied Consents, and the AG's office knows that. Because of that, they were willing to give a third option: 3. Have license revoked for 90 days. Let me be clear, absent me that would not have been an option. That was the reason this client only lost his license for 90 days, not because of the strength of the case but because I have a reputation for being good at this. In other words, the client had two options, lose his license for a year or for 90 days, either one he could have gotten an ignition interlock and drove but those were his two choices. I went with this client to the DMV (most lawyers won't) and tried to get a limited license for him and the DMV refused. I wake up every day wanting to win for my clients; it's not about the money. Being a lawyer and doing a good job for my clients is really who I am. I have sacrificed family, friends, and most of my life to be a good lawyer. Many lawyers simply take your money and help you plead guilty; I don't and I am proud of that. This criticism was unfair and unwarranted.