Serving Dauphin County, Harrisburg and beyond Robbery Lawyer Harrisburg

Client was charged with two separate DUI’s. For the first case, our client was pulled over for what the state trooper observed to be erratic driving. My client admitted to consuming alcohol and was subsequently asked out of his vehicle to submit to field sobriety tests, which he complied with. Following the tests, the trooper believed he had enough to arrest my client for DUI so he placed him in handcuffs and took him to the booking center for a blood draw. At booking my client agreed to submit to a blood draw; however, after the phlebotomist stuck our client three times in the arm with a needle without hitting a vein, the trooper directed her to stop attempting to draw blood. Although the police were not able to obtain blood from our client, they still filed DUI charges. Yes, you can face a DUI in Pennsylvania without a blood result. Of further significance for this case was that my client had his two children in the vehicle. This enhanced our client's DUI charges from an ungraded misdemeanor to a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Shortly after receiving the charges for his first offense, our client was stopped again for the same circumstances and his wife and children were in the car with him. On this occasion he admitted to the police that he had consumed alcohol and was coming from a family member's home. As with the previous offense, he was asked out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests, but before being placed under arrest for DUI, the trooper who had him perform the field sobriety tests stated on the dash camera video that he did not believe he was impaired. Our client was still arrested for DUI and taken in for a blood draw. As in the prior case, he willingly submitted to a blood draw, but the phlebotomist could not obtain any blood from him.

Throughout this client's cases we attempted to reach a resolution, but all conversations lead us to trial on the first case. Due to the enhancements with the children in the car, this proceeded to a jury trial. Typically for a first offense DUI, you would not be eligible for a jury trial and the case would be decided by a judge. After the jury heard all of the testimony and watched the dash camera footage for the first case, they returned a verdict of not guilty on the DUI. The second case was scheduled for the very next trial term, but at jury selection the District Attorney’s Office agreed to dismiss the DUI charge and offered a plea to the summary traffic citations. This was in large part due to my client’s willingness to submit to a blood draw as well as the trooper in the dash camera video explaining that he felt he did not have enough.

Client was charged with a felony Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI, three other DUI related offenses, possession of drug paraphernalia and three summary violations for an accident that he was involved in with another motorist. All DUI offenses were based on our client having alcohol in his system at the time of the accident. Members of the state police were dispatched to the accident and upon arrival observed heavy front end damage to both vehicles. Our client was still trapped in his car. The state trooper’s provided aid to our client and eventually he was transported to the hospital for life saving treatment. The other motorist was also transported to a local hospital as she sustained significant injuries. One of the troopers testified at a hearing that this was the worst accident he ever witnessed where someone did not die.

This investigation was flawed from the start when a member of the state police attempted to do an accident reconstruction. Typically in an accident of this nature, the state police would send an expert to the scene to do a complete accident reconstruction; however, that was not done in this case. The trooper who filed the charges said that it was not done, because there was not a death. The trooper who filed the charges was not an expert in accident reconstruction. At the conclusion of the trooper’s investigation he determined that our client was driving at an excessive speed, that the other motorist was traveling the speed limit, and our client crossed the lane lines into the oncoming lane of travel striking the other motorist.

When my client’s father arrived at the scene and heard that his son was the cause of the accident he could not accept it as true based on what he saw. Shortly after the accident it was determined that the state police never requested the airbag control module (ACM) from the other motorists vehicle. The ACM of a vehicle can record data in the event of a collision, similar to a “black box” in an aircraft. This information can provide insight into the crash dynamics and can be used in investigations such as this one. Without the ACM for the other motorist we would have nothing to rebut the trooper's findings. Eventually my client's father was able to track down where the other person’s car was taken to. It went from Central Pennsylvania to a junk yard in New Jersey. He was able to get confirmation that this was the same vehicle involved in the crash. With the ACM for this car we were able to hire our own expert to rebut what the Commonwealth was alleging. Our expert was able to confirm that the other motorist was the vehicle traveling in excess of the speed limit, that she crossed the lane line and she was the cause of the accident. After we submitted our report to the District Attorney's Office they had someone else from the State Police review it and they ultimately conceded that our client was not at fault for the accident.

This still left the DUI charges and paraphernalia charge. When we dug further into the blood results we were able to determine that the hospital where our client received medical treatment sent the wrong person’s blood to the laboratory for testing. The alcohol they claimed was in his system was not his blood so the DUI charges were withdrawn as well. The Commonwealth was still not willing to withdraw the paraphernalia charge so we filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the state police illegally searched our client's vehicle after he was extricated and taken to the hospital. Following a hearing, the court agreed and his paraphernalia charge was dismissed as well.

But for my client’s father obtaining the ACM from the other vehicle, subpoenaing detailed information concerning our client’s medical records and requesting documentation from the laboratory that did the blood analysis, it is inconceivable to think of what may have happened in this case. Our client went from facing felony charges, jail time, loss of license and having a civil lawsuit filed against him by the other motoristotorist to being completely exonerated. We are grateful to have been a part of this success.

Client faced a 2nd offense DUI. When having difficulty sleeping, client went out spotlighting for deer when he was stopped by the police. He was stopped for crossing lane lines. Thankfully, we were able to get involved with the case and obtained a copy of the police officer’s dash camera video. The video did not show that our client’s driving was anything more than minimal deviations from his lane of travel. We filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing that the officer did not have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop our clients truck and the trial court granted it. Without any evidence concerning our client’s performance on field sobriety tests or a blood alcohol content the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the charges.

Client had a medical marijuana license for several years and was previously charged with two DUI's for having marijuana in his blood. The previous cases were resolved with pleas to the DUI offenses, making this a third offense. As a third offense our client faced a felony conviction and a mandatory minimum of one year in state prison. For our case, the traffic stop was made as the state police ran his registration and saw that it was suspended. There was no bad driving. After the Trooper initiated his patrol lights our client immediately turned on his turn signal and pulled off an exit ramp onto the side of the road. The trooper asked our client for his vehicle information and he was able to provide all of his documents without issue. The trooper claimed to smell an order of marijuana and asked our client out of his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. He completed the three standardized field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk and turn, and one leg stand. The Trooper observed six clues on HGN; however, marijuana does not cause nystagmus. At trial we were able to get this test excluded from evidence. The Trooper also testified that he saw body and eyelid tremors and we were able to have that evidence excluded from trial as well as the trooper did not have the necessary training to equate that observation to marijuana use. Our client did ok on the walk and turn and one leg stand. There were also non-standardized tests that were conducted, including the Romberg balance and lack of convergence tests. The Romberg balance is a test where the individual is to estimate the passage of 30 seconds. Our client estimated 31 seconds and the Trooper noted this as a clue of impairment. Our client submitted to a blood draw, and marijuana was found in his system.

The Commonwealth initially charged three separate DUI offenses. One charge was for having marijuana in his system. A second DUI charge was filed for having the metabolite of marijuana in his system, and the third DUI charge was for the trooper’s belief that our client was incapable of safely operating his vehicle due to the ingestion of marijuana. After we cross-examined the trooper on his observations of our client, the Commonwealth withdrew the impairment based DUI. The only DUI charges that went to the jury were for our client having marijuana in his system. Unfortunately, the Medical Marijuana Act did not provide us with a legal defense to these charges so all the Commonwealth had to prove was that marijuana was in our client’s blood. Thankfully, the jury followed our arguments concerning the validity of the blood testing that was done and our client was found not guilty of all remaining DUI charges.