It is a common misconception that a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) makes a DUI case “open and shut.” However, even when the numbers look grim—in this case, a .22% BAC, nearly triple the legal limit—the Constitution remains the ultimate defense.
Recently, Master of DUI Defense Matthew Ruff successfully secured a reduction to “wet reckless” for a client by aggressively challenging the legality of the police detention and the scientific integrity of the breath test.
The “Stuffy Nose” Detention
The case began on December 8, 2024, when a Kern County Deputy found a vehicle that had run off the road in a remote area of Pine Mountain Club California. While a civilian claimed the driver “smelt of an alcoholic beverage,” the responding deputy explicitly recorded that he could not smell anything due to having a “stuffy nose”. Furthermore, the deputy observed no slurred speech, unsteady gait, or lack of coordination.
Despite the lack of objective symptoms, the deputy seized the driver and forced them into a “holding pattern” to wait for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to take over.
Constitutional Challenges: Why the Arrest Faltered
Matthew Ruff filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, arguing that the officers violated the client’s Fourth Amendment rights on several fronts:
• Unlawful Prolonged Detention: Under Rodriguez v. United States, a police stop cannot last longer than necessary to handle the initial mission. Once the roadway was cleared, the “safety mission” ended. Keeping the client in a “holding pattern” just to wait for another agency to find symptoms the first officer couldn’t see is an unconstitutional “fishing expedition”.
• Lack of Probable Cause: The client informed officers they had consumed alcohol after the accident occurred. Because the officers failed to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), they bypassed the primary legal mechanism used to establish impairment at the time of driving.
• The “Mouth Alcohol” Blunder: During the breath test, the machine issued a “mouth alcohol” alert. This scientifically corroborated the client’s claim of recent, post-accident consumption.
The Scientific Failure of the Breath Test
The most critical error occurred when the officer ignored the “mouth alcohol” warning. Per California Code of Regulations Title 17, an officer must restart a full 15-minute observation period if mouth alcohol is detected to ensure the sample isn’t contaminated.
Instead, the officer immediately administered a second test. By ignoring mandated scientific protocols, the search became “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. A breath test is only valid if it follows established, scientifically sound procedures.
The Result
By highlighting that the arrest was based on “vague suspicion” rather than solid evidence—and proving the breath test was conducted in violation of state law—the defense created significant hurdles for the prosecution.
The Outcome: Despite the .22 BAC, the high-level DUI charges were reduced to a wet reckless, saving the client from the harshest penalties of a standard DUI conviction.
Facing a DUI with a high BAC DUI case in the Lamont Court? Don’t assume the case is over. If the police cut corners on your constitutional rights, the evidence may not stand up in court. Contact Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff today to discuss your defense.
For over 3 decades Matt has been winning drunk driving cases by uncovering police misconduct and failing to follow regulations, including unlawful DUI blood draws and botched breath tests.
