Our case studies provide a closer look at how we’ve helped clients navigate challenging DUI charges and achieve favorable outcomes. While every case is different, these examples highlight our strategic approach, dedication, and commitment to protecting our clients’ rights and futures.
Defendant was stopped for cutting off a police officer. The officer smelled alcohol and elected to conduct a DUI investigation. He was arrested and his BAC was .110. Mr. Sullivan presented mitigation to the State, which included health issues, professional achievements and letters of support. The State ultimately determined that this was an isolated incident and that the best interests of justice supported a reduction to Reckless Driving
Defendant was arrested for DUI after law enforcement found him asleep at an intersection. After his arrest, he provided a breath sample that was a .150. Mr. Sullivan presented various issues with the case and mitigation. The State agreed to amend the charge to Reckless Driving based upon Mr. Sullivan’s presentation.
Client was charged with a DUI with a BAC of .221. Mr. Sullivan presented scientific evidence to the State demonstrating that his BAC would have been lower at the time of driving. The State agreed to treat the BAC as being below .15. This concession saved the client fine money and allowed him to avoid the mandatory placement of an ignition interlock on his vehicle.
Client was charged with DUI after a citizen reported that she was impaired at a local restaurant. Law enforcement conducted a traffic stop based upon the tip and client was arrested for DUI. Subsequent breath testing revealed breath results that were slightly above the .08 level. Mr. Sullivan presented mitigation, pointed out issues with the investigation, and provided scientific evidence demonstrating that her BAC would have been below .08 at the time of driving. The State agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving.
Client was charged with a DUI with a BAC above the .15 enhancement level. Mr. Sullivan presented scientific evidence to the State demonstrating that his BAC would have been lower at the time of driving. The State agreed to treat the BAC as being below .15. This concession saved the client fine money and allowed him to avoid the mandatory placement of an ignition interlock on his vehicle.
Client was charged with a DUI with a BAC of .199. Mr. Sullivan presented scientific evidence to the State demonstrating that her BAC would have been lower at the time of driving. The State agreed to treat the BAC as being below .15. This concession saved the client fine money and allowed her to avoid the mandatory placement of an ignition interlock on her vehicle.
Client was stopped for drifting over the lane line. He declined to submit to field sobriety exercises and similarly declined to submit to breath testing. Our office asserted a defense that the client was merely fatigued at the time of arrest and not impaired. We submitted employment records that demonstrated that the client had worked an 80 hour work week. The State agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving
Client was stopped by police for a “move over” violation. Client holds a CDL license and risked losing his livelihood if convicted of DUI. The State would not reduce charge so Mr. Sullivan set the case for trial. On the day of trial, the State agreed to reduce charge. Client agreed to accept deal in order to avoid a 1-year cancellation of his CDL license.
Client was arrested for DUI and provided a breath alcohol level below .08. Subsequent urine testing did not show any controlled substances in his system. The State agreed to amend the charge to Careless with no conviction, which allows the client to expunge the record of the arrest without having to shoulder the risk associated with having a trial.
Client was charged with a DUI after a traffic stop for having no headlights on. Subsequent to the stop, she was arrested for DUI and provided a breath alcohol level above .15. Mr. Sullivan used freeze-frame technology and created videos which showed the Defendant’s headlights reflections in various windows. The State recognized that the stop may not have been lawful and agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving.
The client was charged with a fourth offense DUI and facing substantial incarceration and a lifetime loss of license. Mr. Sullivan litigated the matter with a trial when the State would not agree to a reduction in charge. A not guilty verdict was returned, which resulted in the client avoiding any time in jail and a lifetime license revocation.
Client was charged with a DUI with a breath alcohol level in excess of .30. Mr. Sullivan conducted an extensive evaluation of the breath testing machine used to test our client’s breath alcohol level – which revealed multiple errors. This evidence was presented to the State and the State agreed to treat the case as a DUI with a breath alcohol level below .15. This concession allowed the client to avoid enhnanced finds and the mandatory placement of an interlock device on his car that he would have to blow into to get the car to start.
