DUI Case Results

207-571-8146

STATE v. A.R.

Offense: OUI .14

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 6 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine, 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Client was on a date when the car ran out of gas. Client was not driving the vehicle while it was running but did "steer" the vehicle while her date pushed the car. The car was pushed downhill in an attempt to reach the gas station when she lost control of the vehicle, striking and knocking down 2 traffic signs. Law Enforcement officers arrived on scene and charged the Client with OUI based on here "admission" that the vehicle was running while she was steering it, despite the fact that she told the officer it was out of gas. The officer based his arrest decision on the fact the technical term of "running", which the Client obviously didn't understand.

Result: Case dismissed prior to request for a jury trial.


State v. P.A.

Offense: OUI with low breath test result

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 6 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500.00 fine, 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Client was stopped for a minor traffic infraction. Client performed relatively well on field sobriety tests and admitted to consuming alcohol. Client was arrested and given a breath test at the station and blew a .07% BrAC and summonsed for court. Officer indicated that the Client was impaired despite the low breath test result.

Result: We spoke with the DA prior to arraignment and got him to agree to dismiss the case based on a lack of evidence.


STATE v. M.M.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 6 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail, $700.00 fine, total of 1 year loss of license

Synopsis: A BMV hearing was held on the issue of whether or not the Defendant failed to submit to a breath test as required by law. The officer failed to comply with the Implied Consent laws as evidenced by his testimony when he admitted that he failed to read the implied consent form to the Defendant.

Result: 9 month suspension for refusing to submit to a breath test was dismissed at the hearing. Client was of course, very happy.


STATE v. S.M.

Offense: OUI (.29%) & Endangering the Welfare of a Child

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, six year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 270 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was driving her child home after a long day on the lake with family when a concerned citizen called her car in as a possible drunk driver. The client was stopped by the Maine State Police on the Turnpike where the trooper witnessed what he believed to be imparied driving. The client was given sobriety tests and performed poorly on those tests. The client was then arrested and administered a breath test where she blew a .29% BrAC, which was nearly 4x the legal limit.

Result: In return for a plea of guilty to the OUI, the Endangering the Welfare of a Child charge was dismissed. The client was ordered to pay a fine of $2,000.00, a license suspension of 90 days was imposed and the client was required to attend the Alternative Sentencing Program. Considering the facts in the case as well as the high breath test and that the client had a child in the car, this was an excellent outcome .


STATE V. C.M.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 270 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 270 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped for erratic operation of his car. Officer relied on the erratic operation as part of his stop. Upon stopping the client, the officer learned that the client was under the age of 21 years old. The remainer of the investigation was solid and the client was arrested for OUI.

Result: We argued to the DA that the erratic operation was not apparent from the video and that there was no basis for the stop. The DA was sympathetic to the client's age and lack of criminal record and ultimately agreed to impose the lesser charge of Driving to Endanger in return for a fine of $750.00, a license suspension of 30 days and attendance at the Alternative Sentencing Program for 48 hours.


State v. A.N.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped for speeding. Officer alleged that the client was weaving all over the road at the time of the stop. Client allegedly performed poorly on field sobriety tests and client was arrested as a result. Client blew a .07%.

Result: DA agreed to dismiss the case following a discussion of the merits of the case at arraignment. The DA agreed that there were serious proof problems in the case. Client was ecstatic as the client was a public service officer and a conviction would have likely cost the client their job.


State v. C.V.

Offense: .19% OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client lost control of her vehicle due to slippery conditions on the road. Client attempted to contact 911 to report the accident but due to cell phone coverage issues, was unable to complete the call. Client walked to a friend's home where she stayed for a period of time and consumed alcohol. Client was given a ride back to the scene of the accident by her friends where she met with a police officer who placed her under arrest for OUI.

Result: Client pled guilty to Driving to Endanger for a fine of $575 and a license suspension of 30 days. DA agreed that the State would have a difficult time proving the client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why a DTE was offered.


State v. B.E.

Offense: .17% OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped for allegedly speeding. No erratic operation was observed. Officer testified that as part of his practice, he turns off the video camera prior to starting his shift. Officer had some credibility issues during testimony at a motion to suppress hearing.

Result: The DA's Office was unable to provide us with a copy of the Intoxilyzer room video as requested back in 2012. As a result of their failure to preserve said evidence, the judge agreed that the Intoxilyzer result would have to be excluded. DA agreed to dismiss the OUI charge in return for a plea of guilty to Driving to Endanger for a 30 day license suspension and a fine of $750. Client was extremely relieved as an OUI conviction would have affected his employment.


State v. D.C.

Offense: 2nd offense OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 3 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 7 days jail, 3 year loss of license, $700.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped on an 80cc dirt bike while attempting to cross the road in his local town. The reason for the stop was that there weren't any "marked trails" within 500 yards of where the client was operating his dirt bike. The client performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for suspicion of OUI. He blew a .13% and was taken to jail where he posted bail.

Result: We filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained in violation of my client's constitutional rights. Specifically, we argued that no "reasonable articulable suspicion" existed for the stop. The judge agreed and all evidence from the time of stop was suppressed, which resulted in a dismissal of the charge. Click here for an actual copy of the court's decision.


State v. J.F.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped for suspicious behavior and erratic operation. When confronted by the officer about his drinking earlier in the evening, the client denied consuming any alcohol. Client was driving a company vehicle and held an out of state license. Client performed poorly on all field sobriety tests and blew a .13% BrAC.

Result: Based on the uncertainty of the outcome on a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence, the DA agreed to drop the charge to a Driving to Endanger. Client was fined $750.00 and a license suspension of 30 days was imposed. Client was able to maintain his employment since the OUI was dismissed.


State v. L.R.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped at a closed sandwich shop when a local police officer pulled up behind her to question her about why she was in the lot. Client saw the officer approach and attempted to leave the parking area. The officer got back into his car and initiated a traffic stop. The client performed extremely poorly on field sobriety tests and was given a blood test where she tested at a .17%.

Result: Case dismissed immediately prior to hearing on a motion to suppress evidence based on an illegal stop.


State v. U.M.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped for weaving across the dividing lines on a major road as well as for having her highbeams on while facing oncoming traffic that included the arresting officer. Client was over the age of 65 yet was requested to perform field sobriety tests. Client performed poorly and admitted to consuming alcohol earlier in the evening. Client blew above the legal limit.

Result: Deferred disposition for 1 year. At the end of the 1 year period the case would be dismissed. This was an excellent outcome in light of the fact that this jurisdiction has a NO deferred disposition policy!


State v. J.W.

Offense: OUI .17%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was pulled over for erratic operation. Client was from out of state and trying to "Google" directions on his smart phone. Erratic operation was captured on video. Client performed field sobriety tests and performed moderately well. Client admitted to consuming one beer earlier in the evening. Client was arrested and brought to the station for a breath test where he blew a .17%.

Result: Case dismissed prior to docket call. Prosecutor agreed that the HGN test was invalid as well as the breath test due to a .XXX error that was unaccounted for. Prosecutor dismissed based on an inability to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Client was a surgeon whose surgical privileges were in jeopardy if convicted. Client also avoided any suspension time by prevailing at the BMV hearing that was conducted prior to docket call.


State v. A.E.

Offense: 5th OUI within 10 years

Maximum Sentence: 5 years prison

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 6 months jail, 6 year loss of license, court ordered ignition interlock requirement, 6 year right to register a motor vehicle suspension

Synopsis: Client was a professional who suffered from a serious alcohol addiction. During the course of a 2 year period, he completely turned his life around by entering into a detox program, then an intensive out patient program, then on to regular counseling and now maintains his sobriety through daily AA meetings. Client was a productive member of society who did a tremendous amount of good through volunteering efforts, even before he was arrested for the recent charge.

Result: As a result of his efforts and the fact that a conviction would mean a loss of ability to hold a position as a professional in the future, the State agreed to impose a sentence that included 6 months jail, a 6 year loss of license and that the Defendant would be placed on deferred disposition for 5 years. If at the end of 5 years the client maintained his sobriety and remained out of trouble, the felony charge would be dismissed and the client would be allowed to plead guilty to a simple misdemeanor OUI.


State v. A.M.

Offense: 2nd Offense OUI, .17%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 3 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 7 days jail, 3 year loss of license, $700.00 fine

Synopsis: Client had pulled to the side of the road when an officer pulled up behind her with his blue lights on. Officer stated he was concerned for client's safety and he was checking on her well-being. Client was ulitmately arrested and charged with a 2nd offense OUI after blowing more than double the legal limit.

Result: Client agreed to plea guilty to the OUI in return for the State striking the prior conviction language, which resulted in a 1st offense sentence to the following: NO jail, 90 day loss of license and $500.00 fine. The reason for this outcome was due in large part to a strong argument that my client's rights were violated as a result of the officer's actions, ie, that he had no right to prevent her movements by putting his blue lights on while behind her. Due to the uncertainty of the outcome on a motion to suppress all evidence, both sides agreed to the negotiated outcome.


State v. K.O.

Offense: 1st Offense OUI .13%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was driving on Rt. 95 when he was stopped for speeding by the Maine State Police. Client submitted to field sobriety tests and performed fairly well. In fact, client's performance on the field sobriety tests were inconsistent with the BrAC measurement taken at the station, which was a .13%.

Result: Client's case was dropped down to a Driving to Endanger due in large part to his well documented history of GERD as well as a hiatal hernia. Client's medical records were provided to the State for review prior to trial and the DTE was negotiated.


STATE v. J.M.

Offense: 1st Offense OUI .16%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped by local law enforcement for weaving within his lane and crossing over the center divider and fog lines numerous times. Client was administered field sobriety tests and performed poorly. Client admitted to consuming alcohol and made numerous self-incriminating statements. Client was placed under arrest for OUI and given a breath test. Client's blew a .16% BrAC.

Result: A motion to suppress evidence for lack of reasonable suspicion was filed and argued before a Superior Court justice. During the hearing, the officer testified to the existence of a cruiser video that purported to show client's earlier poor driving. This video was never provided to the Defendant and therefore, a motion to dismiss for discovery violations was filed. Ultimately, the judge agreed that the failure by the state to provide defense counsel with the video was a serious breach of the rules of discovery and therefore, the OUI WAS DISMISSED.


STATE v. M.S.

Offense: 2nd Offense OUI .27%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 3 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 7 days jail, 3 year loss of license, $700.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was passed out drunk behind the wheel of her car in a restaurant parking lot. Client's car was running and her headlights were on. Officer feared that she had a medical issue as she was unresponsive. Once client was awakened, she admitted to drinking and was asked to perform field sobriety tests. Client was ultimately placed under arrest and administered a breath test back at the police station where she blew a .27%. As an aside, an empty liquor bottle was found on the seat of the car.

Result: A hearing before the BMV was held on the issue of probable cause. The hearings adminstrative officer agreed with my argument that because no one knew how long she'd been there and that there was evidence she may have consumed alcohol after arriving in the parking lot, the suspension was rescinded. Client was allowed to continue to drive and avoided a 3 year loss of license.


STATE v. K.D.

Offense: OUI .13%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 1 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was at a McDonald's drive through placing an order. A McDonald's employee who had a brief opportunity to observe the client's mannerisms called the police as she suspected the client was impaired. The police arrived prior to the client exiting the parking lot and confronted the client. Client admitted to consuming alcohol and performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. Client was placed under arrest and brought to the county jail for a breath test and blew a .13%.

Result: Client elected to have a jury trial. Client had a host of medical issues including COPD, GERD, asthma and chronic neck and back pain. Client suffered from a severe disability as he was dyslexic. We retained a physiologist and GERD/COPD expert on the case who provided the state with a report that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the breath test was completely unreliable and that his true BrAC was well under the legal limit. As a result, the State decided to go forward with trial based solely on impairment and chose not to mention that a breath test was administered, which precluded the defense from arguing that the test was invalid. The jury heard the evidence and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY!


STATE v. C.B.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 1 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail, 1 year loss of license, $700 fine

Synopsis: Client's vehicle was reported in a hit and run incident in another state. Local law enforcement had a plate number and ultimately traced the plate number back to the client's home. Client was visibly intoxicated and an investigation ensued. Client performed poorly on all of the field sobriety tests, admitted to consuming alcohol but denied recent consumption and admitted to driving the vehicle. The client was ultimately arrested for suspicion of OUI and given an opportunity for a breath test. Client attempted to submit a breath sample but there were problems with the machine. Client ultimately refused to submit to a blood test.

Result: State agreed to dismiss the refusal and client pled guilty to a non-aggravated OUI. Client avoided jail time and no alternative sentencing provision was imposed.


STATE v. J.K.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine, 90 day loss of license

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Client was stopped for a tail light out. Client admitted to consuming alcohol and based on the information at hand, the client was asked to submit to field sobriety tests. Client ultimately was arrested and blew a .11% on the Intoxilyzer. A motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the time the client stepped out to perform field sobriety tests was submitted and a hearing date was set by the court.

Result:Client pled guilty to Driving to Endanger and the OUI was dismissed prior to hearing. The DTE result was based largely on the strength of the motion to suppress previously filed with the court.


STATE v. S.D.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine, 90 day loss of license

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Client was stopped for a minor traffic infraction. Client had been drinking earlier in the evening and admitted to drinking to the officer. Client performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of OUI. Client was administered a breath test and blew over the legal limit of .08% and was charged with OUI.

Result: Client pled guilty to the crime of Reckless Conduct. As a result, no license suspension was imposed and the client remained free to drive. Considering that the client had an out-of-state license and would have been suspended for 1 year had he been convicted of the OUI, this was an excellent outcome for the client.


STATE v. D.M.

Offense: OUI (blood test obtained)

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine, 90 day loss of license

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, $500 fine, 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Local police stumbled upon a serious accident scene where client appeared to be greviously injured. Client's car went off the road and struck a telephone pole. The pole was sheared in half and the client was partially ejected from the vehicle. The officer called for an ambulance and put Life Flight out of Central Maine Medical Center on alert for a possible emergency pickup.

Client was brought to a hospital where he was worked on by a local team of doctors. Miraculously, the client's injuries turned out to be fairly minor and he was released less than 24 hours later. Prior to the client's release from the hospital and while he was being attended to by the ER staff, the investigating officer ordered that a blood sample be taken and shipped off to the State Lab for testing.

In Maine, a police officer can order a blood draw if there is probable cause to believe death has or will occur. The blood draw is mandatory in those cases and is supported by statute and case law.

Result: We filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood test and argued to the court that there was no probable cause to believe death had or would occur for the purposes of the blood draw. A hearing was held where the only witness who testified was the original officer who stumbled upon the accident scene and ultimately ordered the blood draw. The Court agreed with our position and ordered that the blood test result was inadmissible and was the product of an illegal search. The State's best chance at obtaining a conviction evaporated as a result of the judge's decision. As a result, the State dismissed the OUI charge leaving the client's record intact and unmarred.

Click here to view the actual written decision


STATE v. C.D.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine, 90 day loss of license

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Client was the lead vehicle in a 2 car "caravan" travelling from Bangor to Dover-Foxcroft. Client's boyfriend (Car #2) was driving the car behind her and was extremely intoxicated. A US Border Patrol Agent observed Car #2 operating in an erratic fashion and called the local PD. Local law enforcement fell into line as vehicle #4 (vehicle #3 is the Border Patrol) and began to observe extreme operational impairment issues with car #2. Car #1 (client) and car #2 pull into a closed gas station. Client pulls up to the gas pumps to get gas and local PD initiates a stop on car #2.

During the OUI investigation of car #2 the US Border Patrol Agent assists the Dover-Foxcroft PD investigation and arrest of the driver of car #2. During that investigation, the US Border Patrol Agent unholstered his pistol and threatened to shoot the car #2's dog. The client observed this unusual and frightening episode and attempted to start her car in order to drive away. The Border Patrol Agent ordered her to shut her vehicle off and began a 2nd OUI investigation.

Result: As a result of this incident, we brought a motion to suppress all the evidence obtained from what we characterized as an illegal seizure. A testimonial hearing was held and both the police officers testified. The client was not present for the hearing. The judge ruled in the client's favor finding that the order to shut her car off was an illegal seizure, unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. All evidence was suppressed and as a result, the OUI charge was dismissed.

Click here to view the actual decision


STATE v. M.T.

Synopsis: Local police went to an accident scene to investigate a possible OUI. Client was a police officer. Arresting officer believed client was operating the vehicle at the time of the crash and instituted an extremely aggressive investigation. Client never made any admissions to driving but was ultimately arrested upon suspicion of OUI. The Chief of Police administered the breath test.

Chief of Police testified under cross-examination that client was known to him as a tobacco chewer. Chief testified that while he didn't perform an "official" mouth check, that he could tell client had nothing in his mouth at the time of the breath test (in spite of fact that Chief ALWAYS trained local law enforcement to perform a proper mouth inspection). Finally, Chief testified that he never left client's presence during the 15 minute wait period. Counsel obtained video evidence that the Chief left the client's presence two separate times during the wait period; once for more than 2 minutes.

Result: Following a lengthy, 3 hour hearing before the BMV, the hearings administrative officer allowed Counsel for the Defendant to submit a written argument. Upon submission of the written argument the BMV suspension was dismissed.

Click here to view the written decision.


STATE v. C.R.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Synopsis: Client stopped for speeding. Admitted to consuming alcohol and showed visible signs of impairment. Client performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested. Client brought back to the police station where the officer attempted to administer an Intoxilyzer test. Client balked at taking the breath test and asked what type of penalty would be imposed if she refused. Officer told her it would be a 90 day suspension whether she took the test and failed or she refused to take the test. Client refused.

Client was then read implied consent. When client questioned the officer about the statutory minimum suspension of 275 days for a refusal, the officer informed the client that that was only for persons previously convicted for OUI. Client signed the refusal form and was subsequently suspended for refusing to submit to a breath test.

Result: Following a hearing before the BMV, the 9 month administrative suspension was dismissed due to the officer providing the client with false information regarding the length of suspension, which the client relied upon to her detriment.


STATE v. J.E.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Synopsis: Client was stopped for allegedly exceeding the speed limit by greater than 30mph. Arresting officer testified that the client exhibited signs of impairment that included slurred and slow speech, clues on the SFSTs, including 6 clues on HGN as well as difficulty with completing the ABCs. Client was subsequently arrested for suspicion of OUI and subsequently refused to submit to a breath test.

Client testified in his defense and was found to be a reliable and credible witness. Client testified as to being legally blind in one eye which disqualified him as a candidate for HGN and upon hearing his speech pattern, it was determined that the slurred speech the officer observed was just a nuance of his particular speech pattern. Client further testified to chemicals that he was exposed to during the course of his employment which mimicked the odor of alcohol and was present on his clothing on the day of the stop.

Result: Following a lengthy hearing before the BMV, the 9 month administrative suspension was dismissed for a lack of probable cause to believe the client was operating a motor vehicle under the influence.


STATE v. B.A.

Offense: 2nd Offense OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $700 fine, 7 days jail and a 3 year loss of license.

Synopsis: Client was stopped for erratic operation. Client failed the field sobriety tests and a breath test result of .12% was obtained. The breath test was captured on departmental video and showed that the client had all of his mental/physical faculties, in spite of the officer's testimony. Client suffered from a chronic case of GERD and had severe problems with his knees and back.

Result: Based on the employment of an expert witness to testify to the GERD issue and his debilitating physical issues, the state agreed to dismiss the 2nd offense OUI charge and he pled guilty to Driving to Endanger. Client had an out-of-state driver's license and an OUI conviction would have resulted in a loss of his license and employment.


STATE v. E.H.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was stopped for speeding. Client failed the field sobriety tests and a breath test result of .11% was obtained.

Result: Case dismissed based on a Motion to Suppress Evidence due to the stop constituting an extraterritorial stop.


STATE v. S.R.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was called in as possible drunk driver by a concerned citizen. Client had been traveling home from out of state and when questioned by the officer allegedly made damaging admissions such as "I'm too drunk to take this test" and performed poorly on the entire batter of field sobriety tests. Following cross-examination of the arresting officer, Counsel learned that the arresting officer was "green" and administered every field sobriety test in the incorrect manner, thus violating the standardization principles and calling the results of those tests into question. Client also suffered from chronic heartburn and took Prilosec for his acid reflux on a daily basis. As a result of the officer's testimony at the BMV hearing and in light of the credible explanations for the client's performance on the SFSTs, the State agreed to resolve the case through a plea to the charge of Reckless Conduct. As a result, the client was able to keep his license and there was no impact to his insurance as it was a non-driving offense.

Result: Client pled guilty to the charge of Reckless Conduct for a fine of $700 and the OUI charge was dismissed.


STATE v. S.C.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was reported as a drunk driver by an off-duty police officer. Client was stopped by another officer and ordered to perform field sobriety tests. Client had physical issues that prevented him from performing the tests to the satisfaction of the officer.

Result: Client pled guilty to the charge of Driving to Endanger for a fine of $750 and a 30 day loss of license.


STATE v. A.J.

Offense: OUI & Possession of Marijuana

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days on the OUI and a fine of $400 on the possession of marijuana charge.

Synopsis: Client was stopped for speeding. Client performed the field sobriety tests to the officer's satisfaction but failed the HGN portion of the SFSTs. However, it was learned during the course of the BMV hearing that the officer failed to shut down his flashing blues which may have actually caused optokinetic nystagmus which is not alcohol induced. As a result of the BMV hearing, a favorable disposition on the criminal case was obtained.

Result: Client pled guilty to the charge of Driving to Endanger for a fine of $575 and a 30 day loss of license. The OUI and marijuana charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.


STATE v. N.B.

Offense: Aggravated OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine, 48 hours jail and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was stopped for suspected drunk driving and submitted to field sobriety tests. Client failed the SFSTs miserably and submitted to a breath test where a result of .27% was obtained. Client subsequently enrolled in a residential drug and alcohol treatment program where he spent nearly 90 days dealing with his addiction issues. On advice of counsel, client wrote a letter of responsibility to the District Attorney summarizing what he had been through, the impact of the OUI charge on his life and what he had learned from the experience.

Result: Client pled guilty to the charge of OUI with a sentence of no jail, a fine of $500 and a license suspension of 90 days. The sentence imposed was extremely lenient in light of the client's driving behavior and breath test but was reasonable in light of the enormous amount of work the client performed to ensure future success in overcoming his alcohol addiction.


STATE v. L.T.

Offense: Aggravated OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine, 48 hours jail and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: A BMV hearing was held on the issue of whether or not a valid breath test was obtained. The officer who operated the intoxilyzer obtained a breath test result of .24%. However, that test result was preceded by an invalid sample (.XXX) error message. Because the officer failed to restart the wait period as proper procedure would dictate, the test result was excluded and the client's license was restored. The criminal case included an independent witness who called the client's car in as a suspected drunk driver to 911 and gave a statement. Field sobriety tests were conducted and there were apparent issues with the administration of HGN as well as performance issues with the client.

Result: Client pled guilty to the charge of Driving to Endanger (DTE) for a fine of $600 and a license suspension of 30 days. The OUI charge was dismissed in light of the plea agreement. Had the client gone to trial and lost, it is likely that the court would have imposed a more severe jail term than was required by statute due to the driving issues reported by the eyewitness motorist.


STATE v. M.T.

Synopsis: A BMV hearing was held on the sole issue of whether or not the client refused to submit to a breath test. The arresting officer, a Maine State Trooper, testified that the client was blowing intermittently during the test and was trying to "defeat" the test by "blowing around the mouth piece." Under cross examination the trooper testified that he did not know what a .XXX error message was and had no idea about the requirement that the two breath samples be within .02% of each other. On the basis of the .XXX result and the failure to obtain two breath samples within .02% of each other, the Hearings Administrative Officer dismissed the case. The client was spared having to serve the 275 day suspension for a refusal to submit to a breath test.


STATE v. D.D. PART 1

Synopsis: Client was exceeding the speed limit by more than 30mph in a speed restricted part of town. Client allegedly "resisted arrest", was tazed and charged with a multitude of crimes including OUI. During the BMV hearing which took place over the course of 2 days, testimony from all parties indicated that the client had consumed alcohol while using chewing tobacco. The arresting officer did not conduct the Intoxilyzer test and therefore couldn't specifically recall whether or not the client had tobacco in his mouth. Client testified to the presence of tobacco and provided the Hearings Administrative Officer with medical documentation supporting that same assertion. An expert witness testified to serious reliability issues with the breath test in light of the presence of the tobacco.

Result: Suspension was rescinded. Client had a CDL and was able to maintain his employment and his life remained intact. The Hearings Administrative Officer was extremely skeptical as to the effect of tobacco on a breath test but was ultimately convinced by Counsel's evidence including his expert witness testimony.

Click here to view the written decision.


STATE v. M.H.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $700 fine and a license suspension of one year.

Synopsis: Client was stopped for erratic operation. Client refused to submit to field sobriety tests and following a complaint of chest pains, was shipped to the hospital. Client refused to submit to a blood test.

Result: Client litigated the issue of both the refusal and the stop but was denied relief by the court. Client subsequently pled guilty to a no-jail OUI for a fine of $500 and a license suspension of 90 days.


STATE v. A.C.

Offense: OUI with an elevated breath test

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail; $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was found passed out behind the wheel in the travel lane of a major roadway at 2am. The car was in gear, the client's foot was on the brake and the vehicle was running. The client performed extremely poorly on the field sobriety tests and blew above a .15% on the breath test.

Result: Client pled guilty to a Driving to Endanger for a fine of $575 and a license suspension of 30 days to run concurrently with the previously imposed BMV suspension.


STATE v. J.D.

Offense: OUI & Leaving the Scene of an Accident

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $3,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was an out-of-state driver and a member of the military who was called in by an anonymous tipster. The client had struck a number of mail boxes with his vehicle as his car continually drifted off of the road. Client went off of the road where he was ultimately found by the arresting officer. Client performed extremely poorly on the field sobriety tests and admitted to "being drunk". Client submitted to a breath test and blew above the legal limit.

Result: Client was placed on deferred disposition for a period of one year. At the conclusion of one year the client's OUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident charges were dismissed and he pled guilty to Driving to Endanger for a fine of $575 and a license suspension of 30 days to run concurrent with the previously imposed BMV suspension.


STATE v. J.G.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was a Canadian citizen who was stopped for OUI. Case was unremarkable. Field sobriety tests were properly administered and there were no issues with the breath test.

Result: Client was placed on deferred disposition for a period of 6 months with the end result being that the OUI would be dismissed following the expiration of the 6 month period.


STATE v. R.F.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was an out-of-state college student who was involved in a single car accident. Client suffered a concussion when his head hit the windshield. Client subsequently vomited in his car. Investigating police officer administered field sobriety tests in spite of the client's concussive state. Client subsequently refused to submit to a breath test.

Result: Client pled guilty to a Driving to Endanger for a fine of $750 and a license suspension of 30 days to run concurrently with the previously imposed BMV suspension.


STATE v. P.W.

Offense: OUI Refusal with a single car accident

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 96 hours jail, $700 fine and loss of license for one year (BMV and court suspensions).

Synopsis: Client was an out-of-state college student who was involved in a single car accident. Client suffered a concussion when his head hit the windshield. Client subsequently vomited in his car. Investigating police officer administered field sobriety tests in spite of the client's concussive state. Client subsequently refused to submit to a breath test.

Result: Client pled guilty to a Driving to Endanger for a fine of $750 and a license suspension of 30 days to run concurrently with the previously imposed BMV suspension.


STATE v. D.R.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 days loss of license and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine and a license suspension of 90 days.

Synopsis: Client was stopped for "erratic operation" by the Maine State Police. Client allegedly failed his field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for OUI. Client blew above the legal limit. Cruiser video was obtained that showed the trooper improperly administered the field sobriety tests and that the client performed much better than what the trooper wrote in his report.

Result: Client pled guilty to Driving to Endanger for a fine of $575 and a suspension of his privileges for 30 days. The officer was made on the day of jury selection and subsequently accepted by the client.


STATE v. S.F.

Offense: 2nd offense OUI with a breath test above .15%, Failure to Stop for a Police Officer

Maximum Sentence: 1.5 years total on all charges, 3 year loss of license on the OUI and a total fine of $3,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 7 days jail, $700 fine and loss of license 3 years on the OUI.

Synopsis: Client was operating erratically and was reported to 911 by another motorist. Client was signaled to stop by law enforcement but failed to stop until he pulled into his driveway. Client refused to submit to field sobriety tests but made some damaging admissions about his level of impairment. Client submitted to a breath test, which resulted in an elevated test result.

Result: Client pled guilty to 1st offense OUI for a fine of $700, a 90-day loss of license and 48 hours alternative sentencing (non-jail disposition). The prior offense was stricken from the complaint and the Failure to Stop for a Police Officer was dismissed.


STATE v. S.B.

Offense: OUI with a breath test of over 3x the legal limit (.27%)

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 days loss of license and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, $500 fine and loss of license 90 days.

Synopsis: Client had an extreme case of gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. Client performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and there was credible evidence that she was operating her car in an extremely erratic fashion.

Result: Client pled guilty to a non-aggravated OUI charge for a fine of $500 and a suspension of her driving privileges for 90 days. Due to the extremely high BrAC level, a judge could have imposed a much harsher sentence than the mandatory minimum of 48 hours. Therefore, a plea agreement to no jail and no alternative sentencing was in her best interests. The evidence collected concerning her GERD issue was key in this particular case and gave credence to our argument that while she may have been impaired, she wasn't over a .15%.


STATE v. J.F.

Offense: OUI with a breath test above .15%

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 days loss of license and a fine of $2,000.00.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, $500 fine and loss of license 90 days.

Synopsis: Client lost the BMV hearing and her license was subsequently suspended for 90 days. Good issues with performance on the field sobriety tests and an argument could be made about the reliability of the breath test. Client was a college student she had concerns about the effect of a conviction on her future.

Result: Client pled guilty to Driving to Endanger for a fine of $575.00 and a license suspension of 30 days to run concurrent with the previously imposed BMV suspension.


STATE v. M.T.

Offense: OUI Refusal… 30 days later client was arrested for a second OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail on each charge as well as a fine of $2,000.00 on each charge and a total license suspension of 3 years if convicted of both offenses.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 96 hours jail, $700 fine and loss of license on 1st OUI of 1 year… on the second charge, 7 days jail, 3 year loss of license and a fine of $700 as well as a 3 year suspension of the client's right to register a motor vehicle.

Synopsis: On the OUI Refusal, the client actually submitted to a breath test for which the result was a .XXX% error message. The officer failed to restart the 15 minute wait period and thus the case was dismissed at the BMV level. This was used as leverage for negotiating a global resolution of both cases in criminal court.

Result: Client pled guilty to a non-aggravated OUI charge for a fine of $500 and a suspension of her driving privileges for 90 days. The Refusal charge was dismissed. The client avoided jail time as well as a 3 year loss of license.


STATE v. G.C.

Offense: OUI Manslaughter; Aggravated OUI; Aggravated Leaving the Scene of an Accident; OUI

Maximum Sentence: 30 years on the manslaughter… 10 years on the Aggravated OUI… 5 years on the Aggravated Leaving the Scene of an Accident… 1 year on the OUI… equals TOTAL possible exposure of 46 years

Synopsis: Client was accused of striking a pedestrian while under the influence and fleeing the scene. The victim was found dead in a snow bank the next morning. The facts were heavily contested and resulted in a two-week trial with dozens of witnesses, including 8 different experts. Ultimately, the jury found the client guilty of all of the aforementioned charges.

Result: While the client was found guilty of the crimes, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 15 years prison with all but eight years suspended; meaning the client was incarcerated for a period of 7 years. By fighting the case and raising a tremendous amount of doubt about his guilt, all issues for appeal were preserved and are being litigated. Furthermore, the sentence imposed was less severe than the sentence recommended by the prosecutor as part of a plea bargain.


STATE v. B.F.

Offense: 1st offense OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail; $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail; $700 fine; 1 year loss of license

Synopsis: Client was driving back to a local hotel with his finance after viewing different wedding venues. Client had been consuming alcohol and was stopped for speeding. Client refused to submit to field sobriety tests and subsequently refused to submit to the breath test.

Result: A fine of $575 and 30 day loss of license was imposed following a plea of guilty to the charge of Driving to Endanger.


STATE v. C.C.

Offense: 1st offense OUI with a .17% BrAC

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail; $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail; $500 fine; 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Officer followed the Client as he drove home from a local bar. Client pulled into a parking area after being signaled to stop by the officer. Video showed that client was operating erratically and client performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. Client made admissions to drinking including the admission that he was too impaired to drive.

Result: Plea agreement that included the mandatory minimum fine and a 90 day loss of license that ran concurrently to the previously imposed BMV suspension. The allegation of a specific BrAC was stricken, thus saving the Client from serving any jail time.


STATE v. K.K.

Offense: 1st offense OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Facts: Client's car was called in by a concerned motorist who indicated that the client was driving "all over the road". Client was stopped by the Sheriff's Department and ultimately arrested for OUI. Client admitted to drinking and performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. Client blew a .17%. During our background check on the deputy we learned that the deputy's Intoxilyzer certification had expired, which resulted in the invalidation of the test results.

Result: BMV suspension rescinded and client pled guilty to a Driving to Endanger charge for a fine of $575.00 and a suspension of his privileges for 30 days.


STATE v. R.F.

Offense: 1st offense OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Facts: Client was stopped for speeding, which resulted in his arrest for OUI. Police officer did a very good job with the investigation and there were no issues with the test. We relied on a margin of error argument combined with a rising BrAC argument in order to convince the DA to drop the charge down to Driving to Endanger. The DA agreed and the client was able to keep his job as he would have been fired for an OUI conviction.

Result: OUI dismissed and client pled guilty to DTE for a fine of $575.00 and a suspension of his privileges for 30 days.


STATE v. C.T.

Synopsis: client was facing a 3 year loss of license through an administrative suspension hearing with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. We prevailed at the hearing due to the issue raised that my client had been chewing tobacco and the officer failed to have him spit the tobacco out and rinse his mouth with water. Client had a sensitive job with the US Military and any suspension of his license would have resulted in immediate termination of his position. The suspension was rescinded after hearing and the client was able to keep his job.


STATE v. L.G.

Offense: 1st offense OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Facts: Client suffered from sever GERD. The arresting officer asked the client, who spoke a foreign language, if he had any medical issues. The client informed the officer of his medical problems and the officer administered the breath test in spite of that knowledge. The test result was .17%. Client was facing a 90 day loss of license as well as a mandatory jail sentence of 48 hours.

Result: Client won the BMV hearing and pled guilty to the criminal charge of Operating Without a License. The OUI was dismissed in return for the plea to the no license charge.


STATE v. S.F.

Offense: 1st offense OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, 1 year loss of license, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail, 1 year loss of license, $700.00 fine

Facts: The client was legally blind without his glasses and had a hearing loss of greater than 50% in each ear. During the administration of field sobriety tests, the trooper took the client's glasses and never gave them back. All field sobriety tests were invalidated as a result. Furthermore, the client had a difficult time providing a good breath sample due to cracked ribs. The trooper tried to put him down as a refusal and instructed the client to sign the refusal form. Client signed the form without the benefit of his glasses and therefore, was unaware of what he was signing.

Result: We prevailed at the BMV suspension hearing and the 275 day suspension was rescinded. In addition, the DA agreed to file the case for $500.00, which resulted in a dismissal after 12 months. Client served no jail and avoided a suspension of his driver's license.


STATE v. J.H.

Synopsis: J.H. was arrested for a drug OUI offense and was ultimately given a DRE evaluation. Through careful examination of the officer's training records and DRE evaluation, I was able to determine the officer failed to follow protocols. DA agreed to drop case down to a Driving to Endanger which was a huge relief for my client as it saved the client a lengthy suspension that would have been imposed by the client's out of state motor vehicle department.


STATE v. R.Y.

Synopsis: Client was arrested for a 2nd offense OUI with a test above a .15%. Client had a security sensitive job and was facing a 3 year loss of license. Officer failed to show at the BMV hearing so we won that by default. Client ultimately pled guilty to a 1st offense OUI with no aggravating factor. Saved him the 3 year loss of license and jail time. Client was extremely happy because the lengthy loss of license would have equaled a loss of his employment. Issues were his documented gastroesophageal disease as well as the officer's failure to properly administer the field sobriety tests.


STATE v. M.D.

Synopsis: Client was arrested for a first offense OUI refusal. Client was facing a 9 month suspension by the BMV and a 3 month suspension by the courts. Client was facing a mandatory minimum penalty of 4 days jail. Issue in both the BMV and court case revolved around a .xxx result obtained by the officer. The officer "padded" his testimony and appeared less than truthful at the hearing. The BMV suspension was dismissed and the client's driving privileges were restored. Client ultimately pled guilty to a driving to endanger charge. Client travelled frequently to Canada and a conviction for OUI would have prevented him from going back and forth freely across the border.


STATE v. G.K.

Synopsis: G.K. was arrested for OUI while operating a tractor trailer. G.K. was facing a 1 year loss of license for a 1st offense OUI for his CDL by the Maine BMV. A loss of license would have cost G.K. his career and his ability to earn a living for his family. Upon reviewing G.K.'s case I discovered that there was an error on his breath test. We got a forensic chemist involved who provided us with an affidavit that indicated a .xxx result would invalidate the test and call the reliability of the test into question. The Hearing's examiner held off on issuing a ruling until she reviewed the affidavit. Due in large part to the officer's testimony under cross-examination coupled with the chemist's affidavit, the Hearing's officer rescinded the suspension and G.K.'s CDL privileges were preserved. G.K. never spent a single day under suspension.


STATE v. S.R.

Synopsis: S.R. was arrested for a 3rd offense OUI, which is a felony. He faced a 6 year suspension by the BMV. If suspended for the 6 year period, S.R. would lose his job and thus his ability to support his family. Upon reviewing S.R.'s case, I discovered that there was a problem with the breath test. The machine registered an error message which required a full restart of the 15 minute wait period. During my cross-examination of the police officer I got him to admit that he didn't know what the error message meant nor did he understand its importance to obtaining a valid breath test. Furthermore, the officer testified at the hearing that he had to turn away from the defendant when entering his information into the Intoxilyzer. Ultimately, the hearing's officer reserved his decision and later found in my client's favor. According to the hearing's officer, I was one of the most skilled OUI defense attorneys he had ever met and that most of the local defense attorneys would have missed the issue we prevailed on.

While not every breath test will have an error message that will invalidate the breath test, these issues to crop up occasionally. That's where a seasoned DUI attorney can make a huge difference in your case. I've reviewed countless numbers of these breath tests throughout my career and know the issues to exploit to your benefit. If you've been arrested for OUI/DUI/DWI you need an experienced OUI defense attorney to fight for your rights. Call my office to discuss your case.

Click here to view the written decision.


STATE v. K.M.

Synopsis: K.M. is a commercial truck driver who was charged with an OUI with a BrAC level of .13%. K.M. was facing a one year suspension of his commercial driver's license (CDL) in addition to a 90 day suspension of his driver's license. K.M. contested the suspension and prevailed following a 2 day hearing and a written decision. The client had an extremely complex medical defense that required high degree of expertise by the attorney as well as the testimony of a gastroenterologist and breath testing expert. The suspension was rescinded due to Attorney Bly's skilled cross-examination of the state police officer whereby the field sobriety test results were completely disregarded and a skilled direct examination of the defense expert. if the client had failed to prevail at the BMV hearing, not only would his CDL have been suspended, but his business would have been ruined as he could no longer drive and he would be banned from entering Canada, which is where a great majority of his business originated. Winning a BMV hearing is extremely difficult as the standard of proof for suspending your license is extremely low. A tremendous amount of effort, time, expertise and expense went into defending my client's case. This is an example of what I do every day for my clients… which is to fight for the best possible outcome.

Click here to view the written decision.


STATE v. J.S.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail , $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail, 90 day loss of license, $500 fine

Synopsis: Client was accused of OUI with a breath test exceeding a .15% blood alcohol content. Client was involved in a 2 car accident in the middle of a severed snow storm. Client admitted to drinking when questioned by the police. Police officer administered Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) incorrectly. Police officer greatly exaggerated his observations in his police report and was exposed during cross examination.

The defense brought in the foremost expert in the country to testify about the affect of breathing patterns on the accuracy of the machine. Since the client suffered from bronchitis and was coughing notably during the administration of the test, the defense expert was able to successfully argue that the test result was invalid and that the police officer should have elected to conduct a blood test.

Damaging statements about impairment were successfully excluded by Attorney Bly through an earlier suppression hearing.

Result: Hung jury. DA later dismissed the case and the client walked away with a clean record.


STATE v. G.K.

Offense: OUI Refusal & Operating after Suspension

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail on each count, consecutive (DA offered a year total prior to trial due to client's long criminal DUI history), $3,000.00 fine.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 12 days jail on the OUI Refusal

Synopsis: Client was stopped for suspicion of DUI while swerving down the road in his pink '57 Chevy convertible. The arresting officer testified that the client had poor balance throughout the sobriety tests, smelled heavily of booze and refused to submit to a breath test.

Client testified that he had driven 4 hours from a car show and was extremely tired, which explained his difficulty performing the sobriety tests. Client further testified that he was swerving the car back and forth in a serpentine fashion in order to "swish" the gas around in the tank because he was out of gas and trying to nurse the car to the nearest gas station. Through a lengthy cross-examination, Attorney Bly demonstrated that the arresting officer had know idea how to properly administer field sobriety tests. Attorney Bly was able to successfully argue to the jury that what the officer observed was purely innocuous behavior and not the intoxicated state the officer thought he observed.

Result: Hung jury. Client agreed to serve 45 days jail. State initially sought two years total for the two separate offenses based on the client's lengthy DUI history.


STATE v. R.C.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail, $700.00 fine, 1 year loss of license

Synopsis: Client was parked on the side of rural road in northern Maine. Client was from out of state and was on his way to his camp. Investigating officer was an extremely qualified police officer with nearly 30 years of law enforcement experience. Officer testified that he was qualified as an instructor in field sobriety testing as well as a drug recognition expert. Officer testified that the client failed every single field sobriety test and that he refused to submit to a breath test.

Through a thorough cross-examination of the arresting officer, the jury learned that the officer conducted a shoddy investigation and that he failed to follow his own training manual. The officer admitted on the stand that while he knew how to properly conduct field sobriety tests, the tests he performed on the client were substandard and, according to his own training manual, were invalid.

Result: Not Guilty verdict.


STATE v. K.N.

Charge: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was traveling down a major thoroughfare in town when he was stopped by local law enforcement. The reason for the stop was "erratic operation". The officer testified that the client performed poorly on field sobriety tests, smelled of alcohol and admitted to recent alcohol consumption.

The video clearly contradicted much of the officer's testimony as exaggerated at best or an outright lie at worst. The client was an immigrant from an Asian country who had a limited grasp of English. The officer came across as pompous and his treatment of the client was demeaning. Officer's inexperience was exposed through aggressive cross-examination.

Result: Not Guilty verdict.


STATE v. J.R.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 2 days jail, 90 day loss of license, $500.00 fine

Synopsis: Client was stopped for allegedly failing to dim his high beams. Police officer was an experienced DUI enforcement officer who testified to being a former instructor at the police academy. Client had moderated difficulty with the field sobriety tests and was arrested after admitting to recent consumption of alcohol. The client had difficulty giving a proper sample for a breath test and was brought down to the local hospital to provide a blood sample. Test result was a .16% blood alcohol content.

Police officer admitted on cross-exam that he improperly administered Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and that aside from the performance on physical tests, appeared to have all of his mental and physical faculties. Nurse who drew the blood testified that he failed to invert the tubes in accordance with the manufacturer's directions. The end result was that the anti-coagulant and preservative powders couldn't thoroughly mix with the blood.

State's chemist testified that there were no problems with the analysis of the blood sample through a gas chromatograph. The defense expert, a forensic chemist, testified that the proper testing procedures were not followed and that the blood test was unreliable.

Result: Not Guilty verdict.


STATE v. L.B.

Offense: Felony OUI Refusal, Felony Operating after Revocation, Theft of a Motor Vehicle

Maximum Sentence: 5 years on each count, $5,000.00 fine on each count

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 18 months on the Operating after Revocation and 30 days on the OUI

Synopsis: Client was arrested for allegedly stealing a motor vehicle and driving drunk while on a revoked license. Client insisted from day one that he was innocent and that the police arrested the wrong individual.

Arresting officer testified that he was sure that he had the right individual. However, upon cross-examination it was learned that the officer couldn't observe what he thought he saw from his location. A professional photographer was brought in early in the defense to photograph the location of the arrest and the perspective of the arresting officer. The exhibits used tarnished the officer's credibility as a witness.

The officer's credibility was further damaged when he admitted that he knew of an altercation between the client's friend and another police officer where the friend was assaulted. The friend testified about the events that night leading up to his assault. The assault was conveniently left out of the officer's police report and the jury drew the conclusion for themselves that the officer was biased.

Result: Not Guilty verdict.


STATE v. T.C.

Offense: 4 counts of Aggravated Assault with a Motor Vehicle, 1 Count of felony OUI, 1 Count of Reckless Conduct with a Deadly Weapon

Maximum Sentence: 46 years prison, $55,000.00 fine, 6-year loss of license

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 6 months prison, $2,100.00 fine, 6-year loss of license

Synopsis: Client was arrested but never indicted until four years after the event. The client was involved in an accident where he was accused of smoking marijuana and playing chicken with his car and another car filled with four teenagers. The ensuing accident resulted in serious bodily injury to all four occupants of the other car.

During the four-year period prior to indictment, both vehicles were crushed and scrapped at the junk yard, the underlying data for the accident report was destroyed and little useful evidence beyond a report was left for the defense.

Attorney Bly brought in an expert accident reconstructionist to testify during a motion for sanctions to exclude admission of the state's accident report. The defense expert testified that without the underlying data, it was impossible to verify whether or not the state's accident reconstructionist conducted a proper accident reconstruction or if gross errors were made in the compilation of the report. The trial court ruled in favor of the defense and excluded the state's accident reconstruction report. Without the accident reconstruction report, the state had very little to use to prosecute their case.

Result: ALL felony charges dismissed and client pled guilty to a Class E misdemeanor charge of Driving to Endanger and a fine of $750.00.


STATE v. S.M.

Offense: OUI & Operating after Suspension

Maximum Sentence: 364 days on the OUI and 6 months on the OAS

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours on the OUI (.17% BAC), $500 fine on the OUI & $250 fine on the OAS, 90 day loss of license

Synopsis: Client was stopped for allegedly swerving as she drove down a major thoroughfare in southern Maine. Police officer testified that when she exited the vehicle, she used the car for balance; stumbled as she walked and performed poorly on all field sobriety tests.

Through cross-examination, Attorney Bly demonstrated that the police officer's report was grossly exaggerated and did not reflect the evidence as presented through cruiser video.

Result: Immediately following the hearing on the motion to suppress and prior to receiving a ruling from the bench, the State offered to dismiss the OAS & OUI in return for a plea to Driving to Endanger.


STATE v. D.C.

Offense: OUI Refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail, $700 fine, 1-year loss of license

Synopsis: Defendant was stopped for erratic operation. During the course of the investigation, the arresting officer failed to follow any of the standardized testing protocols for the administration of field sobriety tests. The officer also mocked the client during the arrest sequence.

During the ride back, the client made numerous damaging statements and appeared to be impaired throughout the video. A motion to suppress was filed and heard on Miranda violations and a Motion in Limine was heard on the issue of whether or not Implied Consent was followed. Attorney Bly argued that it was the state's burden of proof to show that a refusal occurred in absence of any signed document, prior to admission at trial.

Result: The trial court ruled in favor of the client and suppressed the statements and refused to allow the state to admit evidence of a refusal to take a breath test. As a result, the State offered to dismiss the OUI refusal in return for a plea to Driving to Endanger.


STATE v. R.P.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 48 hours jail (.21% BAC), $500 fine, 90-day loss of license

Synopsis: Defendant was arrested for OUI and given a breath test. Upon review of the police report and cross-examination of the police officer at the BMV hearing, Attorney Bly learned that the officer failed to conduct a proper wait period.

Result: BMV suspension rescinded and OUI charge dismissed prior to trial. Client walked away with a clean record.


STATE v. A.B.

Offense: OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: $500 fine, 90-day loss of license

Synopsis: Client had been out drinking earlier in the evening with her boyfriend. Client and boyfriend came back to get her car and decided to "hang out" in the parking lot in boyfriend's car. Police observed boyfriend's car in parking lot and decided to investigate because car "appeared to be suspicious".

After approximately 45 minutes and refusing to allow client to leave in her own vehicle, law enforcement decided to conduct an OUI investigation. Client was ultimately arrested and charged with OUI.

Attorney Bly won the BMV hearing as the officer testified that two breath tests were given that evening (boyfriend and client) and that a proper 15-minute wait period was not conducted in between the two tests.

Attorney Bly filed a motion to suppress all evidence based on the fact that the state did not have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime had been committed. A hearing was conducted on that sole issue.

Result: Court agreed with Attorney Bly's view of the law and suppressed ALL evidence in the case. The state was forced to dismiss the case against the client and she walked away with a completely clean record.


STATE v. R.O.

Offense: 2nd offense OUI

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail, $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 7 days jail, $700 fine, 3-year loss of license

Synopsis: Defendant was stopped while driving a 6-wheeled dump body truck. Police officer testified that he stopped the vehicle because he thought it was doing donuts in the middle of the road.

Police officer arrested client for suspicion of OUI. While administering the breath test, the police officer failed to have the client spit out his chewing tobacco prior to the start of the wait period. This issue ensured that the BMV suspension was rescinded.

Attorney Bly filed a motion to suppress all evidence in the criminal case based on a total lack of articulable suspicion that a crime or traffic violation had been committed. A hearing was held on the motion.

Result: Court agreed with Attorney Bly's view of the law and suppressed ALL evidence in the case. The state was forced to dismiss the charges against the client. Client was a self-employed contractor and if he had lost his license he would have been forced out of business.


STATE v. J.D.

Offense: 1st offense OUI refusal

Maximum Sentence: 364 days jail; $2,000.00 fine

Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 4 days jail; $700 fine; 1 year loss of license

Synopsis: Defendant was stopped for going the wrong way down a one way street. Defendant was from out of town and unfamiliar with the area. Officer testified that the Defendant failed all standardized field sobriety tests and appeared impaired. Defendant admitted to consuming 3-4 beers prior to driving. Defendant and one witness testified. Both the Defendant and witness testified that the testimony presented by the officer was patently untrue. The case came down to witness creditability borne out by direct and cross-examination.

Result: Not Guilty verdict.


STATE v. P.L.

Offense: 1st offense OUI – BMV hearing

Synopsis: Officer arrested the client on suspicion of OUI. In her report, the officer noted that the client had chewing tobacco in his mouth and directed him to remove it. Through cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Bly learned that the officer failed to direct the client to rinse the residual tobacco particles from his mouth.

Result: BMV suspension rescinded and client's right to operate restored.

"I want to thank you for all your help. I was in a bad place when I first came to you. You really helped me through a terrible time. I would definitely recommend you to anyone that needs help. I just wanted to say thank you for everything. You really helped me a lot. Thank you and take care."

WTB Law

Here at WTB Law, we provide professional and aggressive criminal defense representation that exceeds the expectations of our clients and secures their freedom and their future.

Contact Us Today

What distinguishes our firm from the numerous law firms throughout the state is that we genuinely care about the well-being of our clients. Because Attorney Bly is a sole practitioner, every client receives hands-on and personalized attention from Attorney Bly and our staff throughout the entirety of their case.

50 Adams Street
Biddeford, ME 04005
(207) 571-8146
Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri: 08:00am - 05:00pm

Menu