As a criminal defense attorney, I often encounter cases where the evidence appears strong on the surface, only to reveal hidden issues upon closer scrutiny. Today, I want to share a case where a seemingly straightforward DWI breath test case unraveled due to procedural errors by law enforcement. This case highlights the importance of meticulous review and investigation, even when the evidence initially looks airtight.
The Background
My client was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after a breath test showed a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.12. While this result was not extreme, it was enough to charge my client with DWI. On the face of it, everything about the breath test looked legitimate—there were no immediate red flags, and all the documents seemed to be in order. However, as with any DWI case, it’s crucial to examine the details to ensure that proper procedures are followed.
The Observation Period
In any DWI case involving a breath test, one of the key elements the state must prove is that the officer followed the correct protocol during the administration of the test. Specifically, the officer is required to conduct a 15-minute observation period before the test. During this time, the officer must observe the subject to ensure that nothing interferes with the accuracy of the breath test. This includes checking for any substances in the subject’s mouth, ensuring that there is no vomiting or burping, and confirming that the subject doesn’t introduce anything into their mouth during this period.
The observation period is critical because any interference, such as mouth alcohol, can skew the test results, leading to false readings. To ensure that the observation period is properly conducted, officers are supposed to make a note of the start time, perform a mouth check, and observe the subject continuously for the full 15 minutes.
Uncovering the Issue
As I prepared for the pretrial hearing, I meticulously reviewed the evidence, including the police report, squad car video, and body camera footage. During this review, I noticed that something didn’t add up. The officer’s report indicated that he had conducted the mouth check and observation at 3:19 a.m., but the video evidence told a different story.
At the time when the officer claimed to be performing the mouth check and observation, the body camera footage revealed that the officer was actually patting my client down and placing him in the back of the squad car. This discrepancy raised a significant red flag: if the officer wasn’t observing my client, then the validity of the breath test could be called into question.
Digging Deeper
Knowing that this discrepancy could be crucial to my client’s defense, I decided to dig deeper. I submitted a supplemental discovery request, asking the prosecutor to provide additional records, including the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) logs, which track the officer’s activities in real-time. I needed to confirm whether the officer had misrepresented the timing of the observation period or if there was simply an issue with the time stamps on the video.
When the CAD logs were produced, they confirmed my suspicion: the officer had falsely reported conducting the observation period. The logs showed that at the time the officer claimed to be observing my client, he was engaged in other activities, making it impossible for him to conduct the observation as required by law.
The Result
Armed with this evidence, I presented my findings to the prosecutor. It was clear that the officer had not followed proper procedure, and as a result, the breath test could not be considered reliable evidence. The prosecutor, recognizing the severity of the error, agreed to a favorable plea deal, effectively dismissing the DUI charge for my client.
This case underscores the importance of not simply accepting the state’s evidence at face value. Even when a breath test result appears to be valid, there can be procedural errors that undermine the legitimacy of the test. By thoroughly reviewing the evidence and pursuing every potential issue, I was able to secure a positive outcome for my client.
CHARGED WITH A DWI? WHAT NOW?
Download our FREE checklist.
Key Takeaways
- Observation Period is Critical: In any DWI case involving a breath test, the officer must conduct a proper 15-minute observation period. Failure to do so can invalidate the test results.
- Scrutinize the Evidence: Even when the evidence seems straightforward, it’s essential to carefully review all documentation, video footage, and other records to ensure that proper procedures are followed.
- Supplemental Discovery Requests: When something doesn’t seem right, don’t hesitate to request additional records. In this case, the CAD logs were essential in proving that the officer had not followed the correct procedure.
- Don’t Assume Guilt Based on a High BAC: A high breath test result does not always mean a client is guilty of DWI. Procedural errors, faulty equipment, and other factors can affect the accuracy of the test.
- The Importance of a Thorough Defense: It’s easy to assume that a breath test result is irrefutable, but this case shows that with careful investigation, even seemingly strong evidence can be challenged.
If you or someone you know is facing DWI charges, it’s important to have an attorney willing to dig deep and uncover every potential issue in the case. At Ryan & Marie Pacyga Criminal Defense, we don’t just take the state’s evidence at face value. We investigate, analyze, and fight to ensure that every client gets the best possible defense. If you need help with a DWI case, don’t hesitate to reach out.