Defendant was stopped for a “move over act” violation. He subsequenty performed above-average on FSE’s but was nevertheless arrested. Subsequent to his arrest, he provided breath samples that were slightly more than two times the legal limit with results of .17/.17. Mr. Sullivan conducted a forensic examination of the records associated with the machine and discovered a multitude of issues which called into question the reliability of the results. Mr. Sullivan set the case for jury trial. The State agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving.

Defendant was involved in a minor traffic accident. The police investigated and believed that the defendant was impaired. Subsequent to arrest, the Defendant submitted to breath testing. The State ultimately agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving based upon mitigation submitted by Mr. Sullivan.

Defendant was involved in a rear-end collission. She was transported to a local hospital to be medically cleared. The officer believed that she was impaired and requested a blood sample. The client declined. Mr. Sullivan presented varoius legal arguments regarding the illegality of law enforcement’s request for blood. The State agreed to reduce the charge.

Defendant was stopped for a traffic infraction for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Defendant performed above average on FSE’s. Nevertheless, he was arrested for DUI. Subsequent to his arrest, he declined to provide a breath sample. Mr. Sullivan presented mitigation and the State agreed to reduce the charge.

Defendant was involved in an unusual altercation where he attempted to prevent a tow truck driver from towing his girlfriend’s vehicle. Police were called and he was investigated for DUI. Because of his size and physical limitations, he performed poorly on FSE’s. He subsequently provided a breath sample. Mr. Sullivan presented mitigation and the State agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving.

Defendant was involved in an alleged reckless driving episode. When law enforcement made contact with him, they detected indicators of impairment and placed him under arrest for DUI. Subsequent breath testing revealed a BAC above .15. Mr. Sullivan presented scientific evidence demonstrating that he was below .15 at the time of driving. The state agreed and treated his case as a below .15 disposition. This allowed the client to avoid a mandatory 6 month interlock.

Defendant was charged with a second offense DUI. An anonymous citizen reported that she was impaired leaving a bar. Subsequent to her arrest, she declined to submit to breath testing. After a two year legal battle challenging the legality of the traffic stop, the State agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving

Defendant was stopped leaving his employment as a bartender after the police observed a traffic infraction. The police smelled alcohol on his breath and conducted a DUI investigation. Client performed above-average on FSE’s. He ultimately was arrested and provided a breath sample of .14. Mr. Sullivan presented mitigation and scientific evidence of what his BAC would have been at the time of driving. Based upon these factors, the State agreed to reduce the charge.

Defendant was charged with a DUI following a stop for a traffic infraction. He performed above-average on FSE’s and submitted to breath testing post arrest. The State agreed to amend the charge from DUI to Reckless Driving after receiving a mitigation packet from our office.

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.