Client was charged with drunk driving after being arrested with a .15 blood alcohol level. Attorney Joseph Awad requested and received the police report and videotapes of the incident that had been recorded by the police during the arrest process. In scrutinizing the contents of the tape, it was determined that the client had performed very well on all field sobriety test that the police officer asked him to perform. It was also determined that the roadside preliminary breath test had been administered improperly. After an aggressive cross examination and presentation of the video evidence in the case, the State Prosecutor offered to dismiss the drunk driving charge in exchange for a simple careless driving ticket. The client paid a mere $150 fine and never needed to return to court.

Client was asleep in his vehicle after consuming alcoholic beverages the entire previous night. State troopers found him in his vehicle the next morning with the engine not running but nevertheless conducted an investigation and arrested the client for OWI (drunk driving). After retaining the firm, Attorney Awad prepared a legal brief citing the illegality of the stop and arrest. In particular, it was argued before the judge that no evidence of “operating” the vehicle had been presented, and further, that no evidence existed to show that the client had driven while under the influence. When the judge agreed with Defense Counsel’s position, the drunk driving charge was dismissed.

Client was charged with drunk driving after erratic driving caught on police video and after failing all field sobriety tests. Once retained, Attorney Joseph Awad carefully reviewed all documents and noticed an illegal variance in the breath test results the client provided at the police station. Attorney Awad argued successfully that the breath tests results were inadmissible in court, since the proper procedure of the administration of the test had not been complied with. When the City attorney reluctantly agreed with the reasons cited by Defense Counsel, the DUI charge was dropped.

Client was arrested for his second drunk driving offense in a two year period. Officers had approached the client after he had exited his vehicle and was properly parked. Client hired Attorney Awad argued to the prosecutor and judge that the legally required “reasonable suspicion” needed to stop his client had not existed, as there was no evidence to suggest that his client had committed a crime. After attorney Awad subpoened the officer’s videotape of the incident, the argument and videotape was reviewed by the judge, who agreed with Attorney Awad. The drunk driving charge was therefore dismissed, despite the fact that the client had a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit when arrested.

Client was observed by police driving erratically and ultimately arrested for drunk driving. Attorney Awad requested and received the in-car videotape of the incident as well as the videotape capturing his client’s breath test at the police station. When reviewing the breathalyzer video, Attorney Awad observed his client place something in her mouth and retrieve items from her purse. As the law required that nothing be placed in an individual’s mouth prior to the test, Attorney Awad viewed the tape in court and cross examined the arrested officer regarding the improper administration of the breath test. The judge ultimately ruled in favor of the client and prohibited the use of the breath test results in the case. Faced with a major loss of evidence, the city attorney dismissed the drunk driving charge and amended the offense to a simple non-alcohol related traffic ticket.

Client was charged with drunk driving after being observed swerving all over the road and failing all field sobriety tests. After viewing the videotape of the breathalyzer’s administration, attorney Awad challenged the validity of the test based upon an inadequate observation period of the client, as required by law. The prosecutor dismissed the drunk driving offense and the client, in exchange, pleaded to reckless driving instead.

In a breath test refusal hearing (Implied Consent hearing), the officer obtained a search warrant to draw the client’s blood because he alleged the client refused to submit to the breath test that was offered. At the hearing, Attorney Awad determined that the officer who pulled over the client was a different officer than the one who arrested the client and offered the breath test. Attorney Awad proved that the officer requesting the breath test did not have reasonable grounds to believe the client committed a drunk driving, since the officer who made the initial stop did not cooperate in the arrest and was not present at the license hearing. As a result, the case was dismissed and client’s driving privileges were not suspended for the standard one year period.

In a breath test refusal hearing (implied consent hearing), the police sought to take away the client’s right to drive for a full year because of an alleged refusal to submit to the breath test. At the hearing, Attorney Awad thoroughly cross-examined the arresting officer who admitted that the search warrant to draw blood, ordinarily reserved for after a person refuses the test, was prepared well before the client had a right to try to contact an attorney, as he requested. Since the warrant was complete before the client had a chance to talk to a lawyer, Attorney Awad successfully argued that the refusal to submit to the breath test was reasonable. The hearing officer for the Secretary of State agreed and ruled in favor of the client, saving his right to drive.