Fred Slone. Premier DUI Defense lawyer.

SAMPLE CASE NO. 20 - State v. T.T. (District Court, Palmer)

On a cold January evening, T.T. was driving his pick-up on a highway leading to Palmer. Another motorist called the troopers indicating that he was following the pick-up which was driving erratically all over the road. This call was dispatched to a trooper who soon located the vehicle. The trooper observed that the pick-up was varying its speed significantly, and the pick-up was noted to cross the fog line on the side of the road. Thus, the trooper stopped T.T.

The trooper noted signs of intoxication, and administered several field "sobriety" tests, which were allegedly failed, including the inability to correctly recite the alphabet, and correctly count backwards from 69 to 53. T.T. refused a preliminary breath test at the scene.

After the trooper took T.T. into custody he searched the cab of the pick-up, and found some empty and partially empty alcohol bottles. T.T. was arrested and taken to a substation where he allegedly refused to submit to a breath test. T.T. was charged with DWI and Refusal To Submit To A Chemical Test.

A copy of an audio recording made by the trooper was obtained by Mr. Slone. The audio recording at the station indicated that T.T. was attempting to contact an attorney for advise on whether he should submit to the Intoximeter 3000 breath test at the station. From the time that T.T. requested to contact an attorney, the officer gave him less than 20 minutes to do so. The officer admitted that it was understandably difficult to find an attorney available at approximately 8:00 p.m. on a Saturday evening. After a period of time, the officer required T.T. to decide whether he was going to take the breath test. T.T. indicated that he did not wish to take the breath test until he had the opportunity to speak with an attorney. At that time the officer indicated that he was charging T.T. with refusal, as well as DWI.

Mr. Slone filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence of the alcohol containers found in the pickup on the grounds that the search of T.T.’s pick-up violated his constitutional rights. This motion was granted by the judge. Mr. Slone also filed a motion to exclude all evidence obtained after T.T. requested to contact an attorney, including all evidence related to his refusal to submit to the chemical test, on the grounds that the officer did not provide him with sufficient time in which to contact an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a breath test. The judge granted this motion as well.

Faced with the judge’s rulings excluding this evidence, the District Attorney agreed to dismiss the refusal and DWI charges if T.T. would plead no contest to the traffic infraction of negligent driving, for which there would be no jail or adverse license action. T.T. agreed to this deal, in which both the DWI and Refusal Charges would be dismissed.