Nicolle Ramsey - Driving Under the Influence

State v. G.A., Clayton County State Court

The Client was pulled over for speeding. The officer noticed signs of intoxication and the Client performed some field sobriety testing. After performing the field sobriety evaluations, the Client was arrested for Driving Under the Influence. A Motion was filed challenging probable cause and the reading of implied consent. The Judge granted the motion as to an implied consent issue and Client's case was reduced to reckless driving.

State v. C.H., Clayton County State Court

The Client was pulled over for failing to maintain his lane. During the traffic stop, the Client admitted to drinking alcohol and performed poorly during the field sobriety evaluations. The Client was arrested and took a breath test. Despite being slightly under the legal limit of .08, the State proceeded with the Driving Under the Influence charge due to the Client's performance of the Field Sobriety Tests and his driving. During trial, counsel pointed out many errors made by the officer and after 15 minutes of jury deliberations, the Client was found not guilty on all charges.

State v. H.K. Henry County State Court

The Client was pulled over for failing to maintain his lane, which was clearly seen on the officer's in-car camera. After the traffic stop, the officer requested that the Client perform field sobriety examinations. The Client did not immediately comply and questioned what examinations would be given to him. The officer did not answer the Client's questions, and placed him under arrest. The officer claimed that the Client had slurred speech, red glassy eyes, had a smell of alcohol on his breath, and mentioned that he was stumbling once he was out of the vehicle. During the jury trial, counsel pointed out, using the officer's video, that the Client did not appear to be stumbling or that he had slurred speech. Counsel also questioned why the officer would not answer the simple questions that the Client had regarding the field sobriety examination. Counsel pointed out many inconsistencies during the trial and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the Driving Under the Influence charge.

State v. M.F., Clayton County State Court

The Client was pulled over after avoiding a roadblock. After the traffic stop, the officer noted a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red glassy eyes. The Client performed the field sobriety examinations and exhibited multiple clues. The officer arrested the Client, read implied consent, and the Client consented to a breath test. The Client blew well over the legal limit of .08. The Client then asked the officer about his right to an independent test. The officer replied that he didn't have the funds and refused his request. Counsel filed a motion to suppress the breath results based upon the officer's refusal to comply with the Client's right to an independent test. The Court agreed and suppressed the Client's breath result. The State was adamant about going forward with the trial due to other evidence of intoxication. On the morning of trial, the State offered to reduce the Client's Driving Under the Influence charge to Reckless Driving which was accepted by the Client.

State v. D.C., Fulton County State Court

The Client was pulled over after avoiding a roadblock. The officer claims that the Client smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and had red glassy eyes. The Client refused to perform field sobriety tests. During the jury trial, Counsel pointed out that the State had no evidence of intoxication due to Client's refusal to perform field sobriety tests, and that based upon the officer's testimony, the Client made no admissions of drinking and had said very little during the traffic stop. Counsel's closing argument focused on the burden of proof being on the State and that they had to prove that the Client was Driving Under the Influence. The jury agreed and returned a verdict of not guilty.

City v. D.M., McDonough Municipal Court

The Client came into contact with the police after a dispute occurred in a gas station parking lot. After admitting that he had driven to the scene and had been drinking with friends at a club, the officer began investigating the Client for Driving Under the Influence. The Client performed field sobriety examinations and exhibited multiple clues and tested positive for alcohol on the portable alcohol device. The Client was arrested and submitted to a breath test yielding a result of .123. During the Client's arraignment, Counsel spoke with the prosecutor and pointed out many errors made by the police. The prosecutor agreed to reduce the driving under the influence charge to reckless driving.