|
Recent Courtroom Victories
Township v. Davison Client
Client was stopped for erratic driving at 1:30 a.m. and subsequently arrested for operating while intoxicated after registering a .265 on the roadside preliminary breath test. Mr. Duke was familiar with the arresting officer and was also aware that he had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings for numerous irregularities. After conducting extensive pre-trial discovery, Mr. Duke was successful in casting doubt on the officer’s truthfulness in reporting the facts of the arrest in the official incident report. As a result, the prosecuting attorney agreed to dismiss the drunk driving charge in exchange for a plea of responsible to careless driving which is a three point civil infraction.
People v. Oxford Client
Client was charged with the felony of Operating While Intoxicated 3rd Offense after being stopped at 4:30 a.m. for disregarding a red light. Mr. Duke obtained a copy of the video from the arresting officer’s patrol vehicle prior to the preliminary examination on the felony charge. Through careful review of the video, it was discovered that the arresting officer failed to check the client’s mouth for foreign substances prior to administering the PBT in violation of administrative regulations. Mr. Duke successfully argued to the court that the officer’s conduct called into question the reliability of the .085 breath test result and the consequent lack of probable cause for the arrest. The court refused to bind the matter over to the circuit court on the felony charge and dismissed the case.
People v. Novi Client
Following a single vehicle roll-over accident client was arrested for operating while intoxicated under the “Super Drunk” statute with a BAC of .19. After being retained by the client Mr. Duke mailed his standard Freedom of Information Act requests to the appropriate law enforcement agencies as well as mailing preservation letters to the county sheriff and arresting officer regarding any video from the deputy’s patrol vehicle. Shortly before trial the prosecution claimed that there was no video of either the initial on scene investigation or arrest. Mr. Duke obtained a copy of the Sheriff’s Department Official Video Preservation Policy and filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss based on the failure of the sheriff’s department to preserve the video. The district court judge agreed with Mr. Duke and dismissed the charge.
People v. Auburn Hills Client
After leaving a bar at 2:00 a.m. client was stopped for disregarding a traffic control device and eventually arrested for operating while visibly impaired with a .07 BAC. Mr. Duke’s investigation revealed that the arresting officer failed to administer any standardized field sobriety tests prior to administering the PBT. Prior to trial Mr. Duke filed a series of motions challenging the stop and arrest for lack of probable cause. On the day of trial the prosecuting attorney dismissed the impaired driving charge in exchange for a plea of responsible to the 2 point civil infraction.
Township v. Bloomfield Hills Client
Client was found asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle by an officer at 1:30 a.m. He was parked on the shoulder with the engine running, his headlights on and the transmission in park. After being awakened by the officer client performed very poorly on the field coordination tests and admitted to consuming alcohol. Client was placed under arrest for OWI and registered .14 and .15 on the breath tests administered at the police station. The township attorney was unwilling to offer any reduction in the charge because client had a prior drunk driving conviction. Mr. Duke developed a successful trial strategy based upon the prosecution’s lack of proof of client’s BAC at the time he operated his vehicle prior to parking and falling asleep. The case was tried before a jury which, after only 30 minutes of deliberations, returned a verdict of not guilty.
Back to top
|
