Kunes Law Office

1. State of Georgia v. S.A. (State Court of Tift County, Georgia)

1. State of Georgia v. S.A. (State Court of Tift County, Georgia) The defendant was stopped by a State Trooper for speeding and failure to maintain lane. The trooper testified that the defendant was traveling 73 miles an hour in a 55 mile an hour zone. The trooper testified that the defendant wove in and out of his lane numerous times, including straddling the lane divider for 300 yards at one time. The defendant was also charged with open container in that there was a spilled drink with ice cubes on the floor board of the defendant's pick up truck. The defendant admitted drinking but refused to participate in any field sobriety testing or to take the breath test on the Intoxilyzer 5000. The officer testified that the defendant's speech was slurred, he was unsteady on his feet and almost incoherent. The officer said the defendant was too drunk to be driving. Cross-examination of the trooper revealed several discrepancies between the trooper's testimony and the incident report prepared on the night of the arrest. The jury acquitted the defendant of DUI and open container after 10 minutes deliberation. 2. State of Georgia v. R.C. (State Court of Dougherty County, Georgia) The defendant was followed into his driveway by an officer who testified that he had been attempting to pull the defendant over for a traffic violation, and that he wouldn't stop. The officer testified that the defendant smelled of alcohol and failed several field sobriety tests. An argument ensued when the officer tried to arrest the defendant for DUI. A fight later began and the defendant was also charged with obstruction. The defendant took the Intoxilyzer 5000 test at the jail and registered 0.145. The defendant testified and his testimony conflicted greatly with that of the officer. Evidently, of interest to the jury was the dispute about whether the defendant fled from the officer, or merely tried to go into his house and use the bathroom. The jury acquitted the defendant of all charges, after deliberating for a little more than an hour. 3. State of Georgia v. K.L. ( State Court of Tift County, Georgia) This defendant was unfortunate enough to arrive at a Georgia State Patrol roadblock at approximately 12:10 a.m. One of the State Troopers noticed a smell of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and had him pull his vehicle off to the side of the road for further investigation. The officer later testified that the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, was unsteady on his feet, and slurring his speech. The officer requested the defendant take a breath test, but since this was the third DUI arrest for the defendant within the past 6 month period, he had learned from his attorney (me) that it was not in his best interest to take the test, if he had been drinking. A Motion to Suppress Hearing was held wherein we discovered that the roadblock was only authorized to operate up until 12 o'clock midnight. As the defendant was arrested 10 minutes after the roadblock should have been closed down, all of the evidence was suppressed and all charges against the defendant were dismissed. 4. State of Georgia v. R.B. (Superior Court of Ben Hill County, Georgia) The officer testified that he was patrolling one Saturday night when a pick up truck almost side swiped him. He clocked the truck at 93 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. He turned around and chased the defendant for 6 miles before pulling him over. The video showed the defendant's vehicle driving in and out of his lane of traffic. The officer testified that the driver was slurring his words and tested positive on the roadside field sobriety test. He stated that the defendant was holding onto his truck so he wouldn't fall down. At the jail, the defendant gave 4 breath samples on the Intoxilyzer 5000, the lowest of which registered 0.233. The officer further testified that he went back to talk to the defendant in the holding cell, and he had passed out. We were successful in getting the radar speed results and the results of the Intoxilyzer tests thrown out, at a Motion to Suppress Hearing. The State then agreed to accept a plea to reckless driving with a small fine and no jail time. 5. State of Georgia v. C.M. (State Court of Lowndes County, Georgia) The officer pulled the defendant over because he squealed his tires twice while passing the officer. Upon talking with the defendant the officer noted a smell of alcohol and testified that the defendant kept avoiding blowing in his face which indicated a sign of impairment. He also testified that the defendant was a less safe driver in the officer's opinion. At the Motion to Suppress Hearing, we all viewed the video tape of the driving and the encounter with the officer. On cross-examination, the officer admitted that the defendant operated his vehicle safely on the video. He also admitted that the conversation with the defendant concerning the gear ratios on the manual transmission indicated that the defendant appeared to be coherent. The judge agreed with us that the defendant showed no signs of impairment on the video. Even though the defendant refused to take any field sobriety tests, or the Intoxilyzer test, the judge granted our Motion to Suppress all evidence gathered subsequent to the traffic stop, leaving no evidence for the State to proceed with the trial of this defendant. This was the third successful DUI defense we conducted for this defendant over the last 2 year period in 3 separate counties. 6. State of Georgia v. C.H. (Superior Court of Cook County, Georgia) The defendant was charged with a DUI after having been involved in a one vehicle accident on Interstate 75 in Cook County. In talking with the defendant, the trooper recognized him as a nurse from the emergency room in a local hospital. The officer testified that his eyes were glassy, he was very nervous acting, and had a very strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant admitted that he had been drinking, but claimed that a tractor-trailer had run him off the road. The officer took the defendant to a local hospital where the blood test result indicated 0.184. We filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence on the grounds that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving under the influence, in hopes of suppressing the blood test result. We appeared for Motion Hearings on three different occasions ready to proceed, but the State had problems lining up all of the witnesses. At our last appearance we had a Pre-Trial Conference with the judge who heard both sides' contentions prior to the beginning of the Motion Hearing. Although the State finally had all their witnesses lined up, they chose to offer the defendant a plea to public intoxication, which he readily accepted. The defendant paid a fine but did not have to do any jail time, community service, or probation.

2. State of Georgia v. R.C. (State Court of Dougherty County, Georgia)

3. State of Georgia v. K.L. ( State Court of Tift County, Georgia)

4. State of Georgia v. R.B. (Superior Court of Ben Hill County, Georgia)

5. State of Georgia v. C.M. (State Court of Lowndes County, Georgia)

6. State of Georgia v. C.H. (Superior Court of Cook County, Georgia)

The defendant was charged with a DUI after having been involved in a one vehicle accident on Interstate 75 in Cook County. In talking with the defendant, the trooper recognized him as a nurse from the emergency room in a local hospital. The officer testified that his eyes were glassy, he was very nervous acting, and had a very strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant admitted that he had been drinking, but claimed that a tractor-trailer had run him off the road. The officer took the defendant to a local hospital where the blood test result indicated 0.184. We filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence on the grounds that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving under the influence, in hopes of suppressing the blood test result. We appeared for Motion Hearings on three different occasions ready to proceed, but the State had problems lining up all of the witnesses. At our last appearance we had a Pre-Trial Conference with the judge who heard both sides' contentions prior to the beginning of the Motion Hearing. Although the State finally had all their witnesses lined up, they chose to offer the defendant a plea to public intoxication, which he readily accepted. The defendant paid a fine but did not have to do any jail time, community service, or probation.

The defendant was followed into his driveway by an officer who testified that he had been attempting to pull the defendant over for a traffic violation, and that he wouldn't stop. The officer testified that the defendant smelled of alcohol and failed several field sobriety tests. An argument ensued when the officer tried to arrest the defendant for DUI. A fight later began and the defendant was also charged with obstruction. The defendant took the Intoxilyzer 5000 test at the jail and registered 0.145. The defendant testified and his testimony conflicted greatly with that of the officer. Evidently, of interest to the jury was the dispute about whether the defendant fled from the officer, or merely tried to go into his house and use the bathroom. The jury acquitted the defendant of all charges, after deliberating for a little more than an hour.

The defendant was stopped by a State Trooper for speeding and failure to maintain lane. The trooper testified that the defendant was traveling 73 miles an hour in a 55 mile an hour zone. The trooper testified that the defendant wove in and out of his lane numerous times, including straddling the lane divider for 300 yards at one time. The defendant was also charged with open container in that there was a spilled drink with ice cubes on the floor board of the defendant's pick up truck. The defendant admitted drinking but refused to participate in any field sobriety testing or to take the breath test on the Intoxilyzer 5000. The officer testified that the defendant's speech was slurred, he was unsteady on his feet and almost incoherent. The officer said the defendant was too drunk to be driving. Cross-examination of the trooper revealed several discrepancies between the trooper's testimony and the incident report prepared on the night of the arrest. The jury acquitted the defendant of DUI and open container after 10 minutes deliberation.

The officer pulled the defendant over because he squealed his tires twice while passing the officer. Upon talking with the defendant the officer noted a smell of alcohol and testified that the defendant kept avoiding blowing in his face which indicated a sign of impairment. He also testified that the defendant was a less safe driver in the officer's opinion. At the Motion to Suppress Hearing, we all viewed the video tape of the driving and the encounter with the officer. On cross-examination, the officer admitted that the defendant operated his vehicle safely on the video. He also admitted that the conversation with the defendant concerning the gear ratios on the manual transmission indicated that the defendant appeared to be coherent. The judge agreed with us that the defendant showed no signs of impairment on the video. Even though the defendant refused to take any field sobriety tests, or the Intoxilyzer test, the judge granted our Motion to Suppress all evidence gathered subsequent to the traffic stop, leaving no evidence for the State to proceed with the trial of this defendant. This was the third successful DUI defense we conducted for this defendant over the last 2 year period in 3 separate counties.

The officer testified that he was patrolling one Saturday night when a pick up truck almost side swiped him. He clocked the truck at 93 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. He turned around and chased the defendant for 6 miles before pulling him over. The video showed the defendant's vehicle driving in and out of his lane of traffic. The officer testified that the driver was slurring his words and tested positive on the roadside field sobriety test. He stated that the defendant was holding onto his truck so he wouldn't fall down. At the jail, the defendant gave 4 breath samples on the Intoxilyzer 5000, the lowest of which registered 0.233. The officer further testified that he went back to talk to the defendant in the holding cell, and he had passed out.

This defendant was unfortunate enough to arrive at a Georgia State Patrol roadblock at approximately 12:10 a.m. One of the State Troopers noticed a smell of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and had him pull his vehicle off to the side of the road for further investigation. The officer later testified that the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, was unsteady on his feet, and slurring his speech. The officer requested the defendant take a breath test, but since this was the third DUI arrest for the defendant within the past 6 month period, he had learned from his attorney (me) that it was not in his best interest to take the test, if he had been drinking. A Motion to Suppress Hearing was held wherein we discovered that the roadblock was only authorized to operate up until 12 o'clock midnight. As the defendant was arrested 10 minutes after the roadblock should have been closed down, all of the evidence was suppressed and all charges against the defendant were dismissed.

We were successful in getting the radar speed results and the results of the Intoxilyzer tests thrown out, at a Motion to Suppress Hearing. The State then agreed to accept a plea to reckless driving with a small fine and no jail time.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/how-to-avoid-loss-of-drivers-license-pending-dui-trial


1: Get the information to request a hearing

You should have been issued a 30 day temporary driving permit. Look at the reverse side of this document and read the important information as to what to ask for and when.

2: Mail or fax the request.

You must request the hearing within 10 business days of your arrest. Send it certified mail or fax it but retain copies and proof that it was sent within the required time period. You will be notified of the date and place of your hearing, usually within 30 days. Better yet, contact us and we will do this for you.