Yesterday in Towson District Court in Baltimore County a client was acquitted of DUI where she was slipped Rohypnol or another date rape drug at a business meeting. She had a complete blackout and had no recollection of driving, SFSTS, refusing the breath test, or events after she was released by the police. The arresting officer was a former EMT and thought she was just like other DUI defendants he has arrested. I had her friend that picked her up from jail and her grandson testify about her condition for the almost day and a half post arrest. She was taken to Patient First the morning of her release but they did not do a Tox Screen. A day later Qwest Labs found nothing. I won the Administrative Refusal Hearing because I proved she was unable to agree to submit to the breath test. The trial judge acquitted on the DUI. On July 17, 2009 at the HuffingtonPost.com there was an article by a woman similarly drugged. This is not an easy defense because the chances of getting a timely blood test is remote. You need witnesses who have seen your client drunk and can distinguish their “drunken behavior” and the “Stupor” Patient First diagnosed. It was easy to defend since I didn’t care about how she performed on the SFSTS or how she was asked to perfrom them. I almost stipulated to the State’s case. It was a fair verdict at both hearings and fortunately the predator was not successful. Must have been too many people around.
Archive for July, 2009
Date Rape DUI
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009Police make up their own versions of the SFSTS
Monday, July 20th, 2009Twice in the last month in Towson District Court in Baltimore County I have had police officers tell me that their NHTSA Field Sobriety Test Manual doesn’t say what mine says. You think maybe they send one to the police and put extra requirements in the ones they sell to defense attorneys? You can show it to them in black and white and they claim not in the one they received in training. I told one of them I have every manual ever published and it’s in all of them. No answer. Well today the trooper said instead of having the defendant keep her foot with 4 inch stiletto heels parallel to the ground as per the manual, he had her point the foot up at a 45 degree angle so he could see better. Judge’s reaction was basically, “Huh?” The reason she wore heels? It was her choice. Since she never did these exercises before how would she know that it would be better to remove them? No answer for that either. AND she did the test perfectly except she swayed while balancing on this smaller than an M&M sized heel. Judge found her Not Guilty at the end of the State’s case. Now the trooper was not venal and he thought he was being fair by modifying the test, but he cannot do that and expect the judge to figure out if the client “passed.”