More to a DUI than Meets the Eye

When I was a young prosecutor, I was amazed at how many DUI defense attorneys evaluated their clients’ cases based on asking me “how did he/she do on the fields and the blow.”  The “Fields” are standardized field sobriety testing such as the walk-and-turn test, the one-legged stand test, the finger-to-nose test, etc.  The “Blow” refers to the breathalyzer machine result if there was one.  This simplistic approach was in direct contradiction to the higher quality DUI defense attorneys who looked at all aspects of a DUI case including, but not limited to, whether the offense occurred on a public roadway or a private drive, whether the arresting officer’s timeline was plausible (time of offense, time of arrest, time warnings to motorist were read, time of the breathalyzer blow), whether the mandatory foundational requirements for the breathalyzer machine were satisfied (breathalyzer machine certification, logbooks and maintenance logs of the breathalyzer machine, arresting officer’s certification as a breathalyzer machine technician, mandatory twenty (20) minute observation period of arrestee and so on.)   Sometimes police officers take shortcuts or write their police reports in a way that is in contradiction of the empirical evidence.  It is incumbent on a DUI defense attorney to recognize these shortcuts and contradictions.  DUI cases are won primarily by attacking and impeaching the prosecution’s case.

When I began defending DUI cases for Elizer & Meyerson, LLC, I followed the lead of the higher quality defense attorneys.  Many DUI defense attorneys and prosecutors only concern themselves with the video from the arresting officer’s police car.  It is a DUI defense attorney’s job to obtain all relevant evidence.   Sometimes additional evidence, including police audiotapes and booking room videos, contradict the arresting officer’s police reports and testimony.  There is no better impeachment during a hearing or trial than to have an arresting officer testify that he read the mandatory “Warnings to Motorist” form to our client at the police station at a certain date and time, and then show a judge or jury a police station booking room video (which contains a running date and time) reflecting that the arresting officer was not even in the booking room at that time.

DUI defense is expensive.  A client should not have to worry whether his or her attorney is going to place each facet of the case under a legal microscope.  At the law firm of Elizer & Meyerson, LLC, we place the entire case under a legal microscope in order to best serve our clients.   We have a proven track record of success in defending DUI cases and we can provide a list of cases wherein summary suspensions were rescinded, DUI charges were reduced or dismissed, and DUI charges resulted in not guilty findings.  Please call 847-513-6600 and ask for Dave or Jason for a free DUI consultation.