Our client was found on the side of the road asleep in the clients’ vehicle. A subsequent investigation led to the client’s arrest for DUI. Mr. Sullivan obtained all of the evidence in the case and discovered a legal issue with the case and filed a Motion to Suppress. Based upon this issue, the State agreed to change the charge from DUI to Reckless Driving.

Client was found by law enforcement sleeping in a parking lot. The client declined to submit to field sobriety tests and breath testing. Mr. Sullivan prepared a mitigation packet to the State Attorney outlining issues with the case, our client’s good character, and proactive steps the client had taken since arrest. The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving and Withheld Adjudication on the amended charge. This outcome, which is rare, allowed the client to be eligible to have the record of the arrest sealed.

Client was the subject of a traffic stop and charged with a second offense DUI. The client refused both breath testing and field sobriety testing. Mr. Sullivan presented mitigation to the State and also pointed out legal issues uncovered during the discovery process. Based upon this analysis, the State agreed to reduce the second offense DUI to Reckless Driving. Mr. Sullivan also won the client’s DHSMV Formal Review Hearing, so the client never lost the privilege to drive during the case.

Client was involved in a traffic accident. Law enforcement conducted an investigation for which our client was ultimately arrested for DUI. Following the arrest, the client declined to submit to breath testing. Mr. Sullivan sent a private investigator to the accident scene on the weekend. This swift action resulted in securing valuable video surveillance evidence which revealed that our client was the victim of the crash and the other motorist was at fault for running a stop sign. Mr. Sullivan presented this evidence to the State and it agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving. Mr. Sullivan was also successful in getting the continuous ankle monitor removed from client within one week of being retained.

Client was underage and arrested for DUI. Mr. Sullivan conducted a thorough analysis of the video evidence, breath test records and toxicological screen from urine testing and discovered several flaws with the State’s Case. Mr. Sullivan prepared correspondence to the State Attorney and the State agreed to reduce the DUI to Careless Driving, no probation, no driving schools, just a fine of $166.

Client was arrested for a DUI following a traffic stop for stopping past a stop bar. Client refused field sobriety exercises and breath testing. Mr. Sullivan submitted a mitigation packet to the State attorney’s office and the State agreed to reduce the DUI to Reckless Driving. After the arrest, the client was ordered to wear a continuous ankle monitor. Mr. Sullivan was successful in having that removed within 3 days.

Client was arrested for DUI following a traffic stop for driving the wrong way on a roadway. Following arrest, client submitted to breath testing which produced results of .17 and .16. Mr. Sullivan completed a full analysis of the discovery and located a legal issue regarding law enforcement’s jurisdiction. After discussion with client, this legal issue was presented to the State along with a request to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving. This same issue was used during the DHSMV hearing which resulted in the client’s administrative license suspension being overturned.

Client was arrested for a DUI and provided a breath result well above the .15 enhancement level. Mr. Sullivan conducted a forensic examination of the records associated with the machine used to test the client’s breath for alcohol concentration. Mr. Sullivan discovered a number of issues with the machine that were used to leverage a reduction in the charge by the prosecutor. This had the effect of allowing the client avoid a requirement of having an ignition interlock installed in the client’s vehicle.

Our client was the subject of a traffic stop for an alleged red light violation. Our client had previously been arrested for DUI and refused the breath test in that case. In this case, she declined to submit to roadside tests and also refused to submit to breath testing. Because this was the client’s “second refusal,” the client faced the additional misdemeanor charge of “Refusal to Submit to Testing.” Mr. Sullivan found a number of legal issues associated with the traffic stop, detention, and the recitation of the consequences of refusing a test. These issues were presented to the prosecutor, who agreed that a reduction in the DUI charge to Reckless Driving was appropriate.

Our client was detained by law enforcement as he was parked in a public park with an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. Law enforcement conducted a DUI investigation and our client was placed under arrest for DUI. Mr. Sullivan raised a legal challenge regarding our client’s initial contact with the police as well as mitigation regarding the appropriateness of the DUI investigation given our client’s physical limitations. The case had an added wrinkle as it was a second offense and our client was also charged with a second refusal to submit to testing. Based on everything that Mr. Sullivan presented, the State agreed to reduce the second DUI offense to a reckless driving and agreed to just a fine and no jail on the charge of second refusal.

Our client was the subject of a traffic stop after a citizen reported that the client had been involved in a domestic incident. Law enforcement detained our client and conducted roadside sobriety tests. Our client was arrested and provided a breath alcohol level that was nearly two times the legal limit. Mr. Sullivan conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence, interviewed witnesses, and determined that our client only drove because the client had been the victim of domestic violence and was attempting to diffuse the situation by driving a short distance. The prosecutor agreed that there was substantial mitgation and agreed to reduce the charge from DUI to Reckless Driving.

Our client was the subject of a traffic stop for allegedly failing to maintain a single lane. After the stop, law enforcement conducted roadside sobriety tests and formed the opinion that our client was impaired. Subsequent to arrest, our client submitted to both breath and urine testing. Mr. Sullivan conducted a thorough examination of the evidence and discovered significant mitigation relating to both the sobriety exercises, which were inappropriate given the client’s age and weather conditions, as well as the chemical evidence. The State agreed with this assessment and reduced the charge to reckless driving with no conviction, no probation, no jail time, no loss of license and only a fine.