Assault Family Violence--Dismissal

Jan 01, 2020

OUTCOME: State Dismissed Case

.108 BAC DWI - Acquittal

Jan 01, 2019

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

.143 BAC DWI-Not Guilty

Mar 20, 2015

OUTCOME: Not Guilty Verdict

My client was parked in a running vehicle in a storage facility at night. An officer on patrol saw my client’s parked car in what he called a “suspicious place” and pulled in to investigate. In the p ... rocess, the officer blocked my client in and lit him up with a searchlight, detaining him without a word being said. The officer also believed that he had seen my client urinating from the roadway, which following review of his in-car video would have been next to impossible to see considering the dark conditions. My client admitted to driving the vehicle to the storage area and drinking alcohol. He was ultimately arrested for DWI. During the course of my investigation, I learned the officer that had arrested my client had been fired by the police agency he worked for. At the hearing on my client’s driver’s license suspension, I questioned the officer regarding his termination and he responded under oath he was not given a reason for his termination—“just during my probation period”. I found this hard to believe and obtained the officer’s personnel file from the police agency. I learned that the officer was terminated for using excessive force and reckless driving. Prior to his termination, the officer had made statements in his defense to both charges, to which his superiors found to not be credible after review of the officer’s in-car video recordings. This officer had also lied under oath to me during the driver’s license hearing, since he knew specifically for what he was terminated. I urged a Motion to Suppress the vehicle stop, because I believed the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain my client as the storage facility did not appear to be a suspicious place and the in-car video showed that the officer could not have seen my client urinating from the roadway. During the suppression hearing, I addressed the issue that the officer lied under oath during my client’s driver’s license hearing and impeached him with his prior statements. Following this, I was able to discuss the officer’s personnel file and caught him in several more misrepresentations during the hearing. After I finished my cross examination of the officer, I argued that the officer failed to articulate a reason the storage area was a suspicious place, and based on the video evidence and the officer’s lack of credibility, his testimony that my client was urinating outside of his vehicle lacked merit. Following arguments, the judge granted the Motion. With the reason for the stop now moot, we proceeded to a bench trial before the judge and my client was found not guilty.

5th Court of Appeals (Dallas) Reverses Collin County Trial Court Conviction

Feb 10, 2015

OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded

I acted as both trial and appellate counsel and participated in oral arguments before the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas on a case regarding the constitutionality of a mandatory blood draw taken from m ... y client without without his consent or a warrant under Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code following an arrest for DWI with an accident. My appellate argument centered on the lack of exigent circumstances (an exception to the warrant requirement) that existed in the facts on the night in question, the ease with which the arresting officer could have obtained a search warrant, and the implied consent statute (724) does not take into account the totality of the circumstances regarding exigency. In short, the way my client's blood was taken violated his 4th amendment rights. The Court of Appeals agreed, issuing a lengthy 26 page opinion Monday evening holding that my client's constitutional rights were violated when his blood was drawn without a warrant. More specifically: 1) the trial court erred by concluding that based on the totality of the circumstances, exigency was met and the warrantless mandatory blood draw performed on my client was constitutional; and 2) the taking of my client's blood without a warrant under Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code was a violation of my client's 4th Amendment rights and the results of the blood test should have been excluded.

.128 BAC DWI Dismissed

Jan 01, 2014

OUTCOME: Case Dismissed

Recent Case Win-.125 BAC DWI Dismissed

Jul 17, 2013

OUTCOME: Case Dismissed

The client was parked in her vehicle on the shoulder of the Dallas North Tollway at 2:45 am. My client was assisting her passenger inside the car when a trooper stopped behind them with his overhead ... lights on. The trooper came up to my client’s window and asked for her driver’s license among numerous other questions. After contact with my client, the officer noticed there was an odor of alcohol in the vehicle, but did not see other signs of intoxication associated with my client. However, the trooper went on to continue his investigation by conducting the field sobriety tests, which ultimately lead to my client’s arrest and subsequent blood draw. I urged a Motion to Suppress the vehicle stop because my client was not breaking any laws at the time the trooper came up behind her vehicle--it is perfectly legal to be parked on the shoulder of the highway. In fact, after the arrest the trooper left my client’s car in the exact spot he found it so she could come get it the following day after she was released from jail. So, the trooper’s sole reason for the stop was what is called the “community caretaking” rule, which allows officers to stop and investigate whether an individual is in distress or a hazard to themselves or others. The community caretaking function has a very narrow applicability in Texas under Wright v. State, 7S.W.3d 148 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Furthermore, a police officer may not properly invoke his community caretaking function if he is primarily motivated by a non-community caretaking purpose, such as detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. The factors set out by the Court in Wright to determine whether a reasonable person would think help was needed to justify the officer’s reasons for stopping a person are: (1) the nature and level of the distress exhibited by the individual; (2) the location of the individual; (3) whether or not the individual was alone and/or had access to assistance independent of that offered by the officer; and (4) to what extent the individual-if not assisted-presented a danger to herself or others. (The first factor, nature and level of the distress exhibited, is given the most weight) Following the hearing on the issue, the Court found although the trooper may have been concerned for my client’s welfare, she exhibited no signs of distress simply parked on the shoulder when the trooper stopped behind her—her headlights were on, no vehicle damage, no flashers, no occupant was hanging out of the vehicle, etc. The Court went on to hold that that vehicle stop in the case should be suppressed and any evidence in this case was obtained in violation of my client’s constitutional rights. Following the ruling by the Court, the State had no choice but to dismiss the case against my client. As you can imagine, my client was relieved and very pleased with the result.

Recent Case Win-DWI Not Guilty

Apr 03, 2013

OUTCOME: Aquittal

The client was pulled over for having a headlight out in the early morning hours last September. Once at the driver's side window, the trooper smelled the odor of alcohol beverage and when asked, my c ... lient admitted to drinking. The trooper asked my client to step out of the vehicle, and began to administer field sobriety tests. The client performed poorly on tests and refused to take a breath or blood test. Seems like a certain conviction for the State of Texas right? My client had a professional license that was on the line following the arrest and his career would be ruined if he lost the case, or plead guilty. This was certainly one case where failure was not an option. As I said earlier, my client had performed poorly on the filed sobriety tests, which are essentially roadside gymnastics. If a person has a bad back or foot problems they are not a good candidates for these standardized tests. Well, as it turns out, my client was young, but was 40% disabled from injuries sustained while in the armed forces. Moreover, his primary disability was degenerative back disease that causes him constant chronic pain. He also had injuries to his feet that required him to wear inserts in his shoes. As you can see, my client was set up to fail the field sobriety tests from the start and the deck was stacked against him. At the trial, I introduced my client’s medical records as evidence of his well-documented history of medical problems. I also got the trooper to admit on cross examination that he had the power to seek a warrant to have my client’s blood drawn for testing and he elected not to do so. Further, the trooper admitted that there were alternative field sobriety tests he could have administered in lieu of the tests he gave, but again, he elected not to do so. Following my final arguments after a two-day trial, the jury found my client Not Guilty after an hour of deliberation.

Recent Case Win-.127 BAC DWI Not Guilty

Nov 30, 2012

OUTCOME: Not Guilty-Client Aquitted

The client was pulled over on a report of reckless driving that was made via a 911 call to police dispatch by another driver. When the officer came up on my client her driving looked pretty good prior ... to the stop save for one swerve into the other lane. When the officer came up to my client's window, he took her driver's license and asked her numerous questions. After contact with my client, the officer noticed she had watery eyes, but did not smell of alcohol. The officer went back to his police car and commented to his fellow officer on the open microphone in the vehicle that he did not think my client had been drinking. After that statement, the officer went on to continue his investigation by conducting the field sobriety tests, which ultimately lead to my client's arrest. I urged a Motion to Suppress the vehicle stop because of the comment the officer made that he did not think my client had been drinking. The officer's primary reason for the stop was to investigate the reckless driving charge. After the arresting officer had a chance to speak to my client and not see any real signs of intoxication--as evidenced by his comment--I argued that his reason for the traffic stop was over and the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to continue a DWI investigation. Following arguments, the judge granted the Motion. With the reason for the stop now moot, we proceeded to a bench trial before the judge that found my client not guilty.

A Recent Case Win--Motion to Suppress Granted and .11 BAC Blood Test DWI Case Dismissed

Feb 13, 2012

OUTCOME: DWI Case Dismissed

The client was pulled over for failing to signal a lane change in the early morning hours of the busy 4th of July weekend. Once at the driver's side window, the police officer smelled the odor of alcoh ... ol beverage, asked the client to step out of the vehicle, and began to administer field sobriety tests. The client performed well on the tests, but consented to a blood test that revealed a .11 blood alcohol content--the legal limit in Texas is .08. Seems like a certain conviction for the State of Texas right? On the surface perhaps, but at trial following jury selection I urged a Motion to Suppress the vehicle stop because the police officer's in-car video recording did not show my client's vehicle at the time of the alleged no signal lane change due to a hill the vehicles were going over at the time--the client crested the hill in the middle lane and descended out of camera view; next, the police officer crests the hill and my client's vehicle comes back into view and he's in the right hand lane--we never see him change lanes and argued that neither could the police officer. Following arguments, the judge granted the Motion. With the reason for the stop now moot, the State of Texas dismissed the case against my client. In the final analysis, this was a rushed decision to pull the client over. The evidence at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress just did not support the reason for the vehicle stop and the case dismissed. The client was relieved and very pleased with the result.

Recent Dismissal for Family Violence Case-2nd Degree Felony Aggravated Assault w/ Deadly Weapon

Jan 02, 2012

OUTCOME: Case Dismissed

My client was arrested following a violent struggle with her ex-husband. The client had gone over to her former residence to remove some belongings when a fight with her ex-husband ensued. During the s ... truggle my client was hit in the face and kicked in the back. Breaking away from her ex-husband's grasp she grabbed a broken piece from a plate to hold off him off. As the struggle continued, she struck him in the chest and sliced open his hand in several places as he tried to grab the shard of plate out of her hand. Police came and interviewed the ex-husband and my client. Several days later, my client was arrested and later indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon family violence--and facing from 2-10 years in jail (a 2nd degree felony). The arrest sent shock waves through my client's life--quite simply, life, as she had known it was over. Within a few weeks she was fired from her teaching job and a letter of investigation was placed in her file making her unemployable as a teacher. Furthermore, while case was pending her chances of retaining sole custody of her children was remote. On the surface perhaps, this seems like an open and shut case of family violence for the State of Texas, or at best a risky trial for my client based on a theory of self-defense. But as our investigation into the case facts progressed we were able to develop enough evidence and leverage to convince the District Attorney that my client was not the aggressor, but in fact the victim. The case was pending for over six months, but after much negotiation, the State of Texas dismissed the case outright. My client was much relieved and very pleased with the result.