This case is an example of how a person can be falsely charged with DUI due to an inability to walk, and stand like a “normal person” due to obesity and medical conditions. In this case the client had a drink but was not impaired due to alcohol and he refused to cooperate by performing the “impossible to pass” field sobriety tests. He further refused to submit to what he believed was an unreliable breath test and declined to allow the officers to extract blood without a warrant. The reality is that sometimes cops just get it wrong and in this case Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff was able to get a Judge to agree and find his client not guilty.

The charge of driving under the influence can be enhanced if the driver is found to have refused to submit to a chemical test. The enhancement carries mandatory jail and a longer alcohol education program, if convicted. It is important to understand the “refusal” allegation and increased punishment only kick in if the client is found guilty of the underlying driving under the influence (DUI) either after trial or plea. In order to be found guilty of this crime the prosecution must prove the person drive a motor vehicle at a time when he or she was impaired by alcohol to such a degree that they no longer could drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person.

The facts of the case are not that unusual, the client was stopped near LAX after he was observed pulling out of the parking lot of a bar, cutting off a police cruiser. After he was stopped the officers observed the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteady gait and problems balancing. The client refused all tests and was arrested and booked. The officers never went to the trouble of obtaining a warrant from a judge to collect and test his blood.

In this case Matthew was successful in avoiding all consequences by persuading a Judge his client was not guilty of the driving under the influence charge following a Court trial in Department W71 of the LAX Airport Court in Los Angeles California. Here’s how he did it:

First, the defense attorney visited the scene of the traffic stop and arrest location. This is crucial to effectively cross examine the police witnesses. At the location Matt took numerous photographs of the area and had a better understanding of the “lay of the land” than he could get from the arrest report. This is one of the many reasons that make him a Top Tier DUI Refusal Attorney in California.

Matthew then filed a motion to suppress evidence (Pursuant to Penal Code 1538.5) on the basis his client was stopped and arrested without probable cause. During the hearing on the motion he introduced photographs of the area of the initial observations which called into doubt the credibility of the reason for the stop and aggressively cross examined the arresting officers, getting them to agree the objective symptoms of intoxication they observed were possibly caused by his client’s obesity and medical issues with his feet. He further got the officers to concede the driving they saw did not consist of any weaving or other things consistent with impaired driving as recognized by NHTSA. Nevertheless, the Judge denied the motion. Not deterred, Matthew announced “ready for trial” and accepted the Judge’s invitation to waive jury and have a Court trial consisting of the Judge hearing the evidence without a jury. The attorney agreed.

During the trial Matthew got each of the prosecution witnesses to agree the signs they saw and attributed to alcohol impairment “could” have just as likely be caused by innocent explanations such as the medical conditions of his client and the fact his client was overweight. He further used the favorable testimony he obtained during the pre trial motion to suppress to establish the driving was consistent with a person who was unimpaired.

The Los Angeles City Prosecutor’s case consisted solely of circumstantial evidence of guilt since the client refused all chemical tests. At the conclusion of the evidence Matthew made a motion for acquittal (Pursuant to Penal Code 1118.1) arguing the prosecution had failed to prove his client was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthew directed the Court to consider a legal instruction (CalCrim 224) that requires the Court to find in favor of his client if the evidence is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, one that points to innocence and one that points to guilt. The instruction reads as follows:

“If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.”

This Judge agreed with the defense attorney’s argument and granted the motion for directed verdict and made a finding of NOT GUILTY. The actual Court ruling is shown below:

This outcome was particularly sweet because Matthew urged the prosecution to allow for a lesser charge of “wet reckless” but they refused. As a result of the not guilty decision his client walked out of Court with a clean record, no probation, no fine, no alcohol program and no criminal record.

Matthew Ruff is a Los Angeles DUI Attorney with 30 years experience defending clients, former DA Office experience and extensive training in the science and procedure of DUI investigations.

Matthew Ruff is also a Top Tier DUI Attorney in Santa Monica with an office at 100 Wilshire Blvd to meet clients by appointment only.