My lawfirm has defended over 13,000 drinking drivers since 1986. Defending Drinking Drivers has provided me with dozens of great tips and techniques that are fresh and effective under today's strict DUI laws. I have made this book a 'must read' for the members of my firm, and I keep it on my shelf as a quick and handy guide for any possible defense. It is a complete and thorough examination of every facet of DUI defense. One page (and one tip) is all that it took to pay for this book!

Donald J. Ramsell
Board Certified in DUI Defense by NCDD

• Possible DUI Defenses (see below)
• Possible Defenses to the DUI Breath/Blood Test
• Beating the DUI Breath/Blood Test
• Successfully Challenging the Blood Test (.pdf)
• DUI Exception to the United States Constitution
• Prosecutor's Guide to Drugs (.pdf)

Some of these documents require Adobe's FREE Acrobat Reader.

Possible defenses to a OWI/OWVI case

It is not possible to point to one defense or group of defenses for every case. Depending on the facts of your case, the following defenses may or may not apply. While it is not possible to point out one defense or group of defenses for every case, our experience has shown that the following list comprises the most successful general defenses.  If you'd like to find out which of the literally thousands of possible defenses fits your case best, please fill out our on-line form for a FREE Case Review.

• Improper Stop - If it can be shown that the police did not have a proper cause to stop your vehicle, then the evidence collected after the stop might be thrown out. The legal standard is that the stop must be justified by probable cause or an articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Of course, notice of a violation of the traffic code, such as speeding or weaving, will provide a sufficient basis for the stop as well.
• Improper Arrest - it will be important for your attorney to determine if your arrest was statutorily and constitutionally proper. This is because an improper arrest can sometimes lead to the Court throwing out the evidence, and ultimately to the dismissal of charges.
• Improper Police Procedures Relative to the Chemical Testing - The taking of breath and blood samples is governed by statues and administrative rules, as is the calibration and maintenance of the testing instruments. If it can be shown that the police did not follow these statutes and administrative rules then the test results can sometimes be thrown out. While this is unlikely to lead to a dismissal, it does make the case a better candidate for victory at trial.
• Improper Police Procedures Relative to the Field Sobriety Tests - While there are no standardized rules applicable to the taking of field sobriety tests, there are police training manuals and the like that can be used in cross-examination to show that a police officer did not administer the field sobriety test(s) properly. There are also scientific studies that show how inaccurate the field sobriety tests really are. While these facts and circumstances will almost certainly not lead to a dismissal, they should help to persuade the jury to view things more favorably for the defendant, and hopefully result in a not-guilty verdict.
• Defects in the Charging Documents - Any irregularities in the charging documents and police reports can sometimes be used to call the police officer's credibility into question. The argument to the jury is if the police officer is mistaken as to the direction your car was traveling then perhaps he/she is mistaken as to other facts as well. This is critical since the prosecutor's case usually turns on the testimony of the arresting officer(s).
• Suppression of Incriminating Statements - While the courts seem less and less inclined to suppress incriminating statements based on a police officer's failure to read a defendant his/her rights, "non-Mirandized" statements are still sometimes suppressed. If you made admissions regarding how much you had been drinking then ask your attorney to determine if Miranda applies and if these statements can be suppressed.
• Increasing Blood Alcohol - In an unlawful blood alcohol case (UBAL) the prosecutor must show that your blood alcohol was over the legal limit at the time you were driving. Thus, if the chemical testing (breath/blood/urine) in your case was not performed until long after the actual arrest (and presumably the act of driving) then you can argue to the jury that these chemical test results should be given less weight. Expert testimony is usual helpful to drive this point home to the jury. Again, with the proper underlying facts this might help persuade the jury to view things more favorably for the defendant, and hopefully result in a not-guilty verdict.
• Inaccurate Chemical Test Instruments - The machines used by the police to test a person's breath, blood or urine are all subject to inherent inaccuracies. It is simply not possible for any testing instrument to be 100% accurate all the time. Blood testing is probably more accurate overall then is breath testing, which is again probably more accurate than urine testing. Still, simply because you tested over the limit this does not mean that you have no defense. Talk to your attorney about how the specific facts of your case may have cause an inaccurate test result. Keep in mind also that it is usually necessary to retain an expert to help educate the jury regarding these inaccuracies.
• No Evidence of "Operation" - In rare instances, it may be possible to have a case dismissed because there is insufficient proof of operation. To "operate" a motor vehicle, a person must be in "actual physical control" over the vehicle. This means that if you are behind the wheel and the car is running, you are probably operating the vehicle. However, this determination will depend on the specific facts of your case because the Michigan Courts have indicated that "once a person using a motor vehicle has put the vehicle in motion, or in a position posing a significant risk of harm, this person continues operating the vehicle until it is returned to a position posing no such risk". Consequently, if your car is running, but does not pose a risk, then your attorney might be able to argue that you were not "operating".

  There is also a recently decided case in Michigan where an individual was found in a parking lot of a golf course, asleep at the wheel, with the engine running. For some reason this individual was charged with an attempt to drive while drunk, rather than the general crime of drunk driving. Here the Court concluded: "that this evidence fails to establish that defendant possessed the requisite specific intent. The evidence does not sufficiently establish that defendant was intending to use his truck as a motor vehicle as opposed to just a shelter. The mere fact that the engine was running does not sufficiently establish that defendant had or was intending to put the vehicle in motion. As one of the arresting officers conceded, it was possible that defendant was simply keeping the truck warm while he slept". This case is a bit of an anomaly however, because the intent requirement for an attempt (specific intent) is different than for the general intent required for a typical drunk driving offense.

  Keep in mind though that the facts of your case must be carefully scrutinized by your attorney because circumstantial evidence can also be used to prove this element of the crime. What this means is that if the police find you in a motionless car, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that the car must have been driven by you to that location at some point earlier in time (such as the mere location of the car, tire tracks, warm hood, etc.), then the charge can sometimes be sustained using this evidence of prior operation. Sometimes a case with an issue of "operation" must be taken to trial so that the jury can make the final determination of these fact questions. The jury might not want to convict where the driver did the "right thing" and tried to sleep it off.

This list is not exhaustive, and there may be different or additional defense specific to your case. The point is that you should not simply walk into court and plead guilty without first having your case evaluated by competent counsel. This is because almost all cases can be defended in some manner. This is not to say that all defenses lead to a dismissal or even a substantial reduction in the charges, nor does it mean that it makes sense to vigorously fight every case. However, you should have every opportunity to make fully informed decisions about all of these things, and this decision making process will most likely require the advice of legal counsel.