In this OUI case, our client faced both a BMV hearing and a trial. Challenging the arresting officer’s knowledge gaps during the BMV hearing led to rescinding a 275-day suspension. The subsequent trial emphasized the officer’s flawed administration of field sobriety tests, pivotal for the not guilty verdict, leveraging earlier cross examination. Thorough defense strategies at various legal stages secured the acquittal.

Our out-of-state client faced OUI charges in Maine after a long workday with minimal sleep. He consumed three beers, attributing any signs of intoxication to exhaustion, not alcohol. At trial, we argued that the officer mistook exhaustion for intoxication. The client’s credible testimony about his exhausting day resonated with the jury. The officer, despite experience, faltered under cross-examination, highlighting poorly administered field sobriety tests and omitted details favoring innocence. The jury delivered a NOT GUILTY verdict.

Our client faced OUI charges after a wrongful stop for alleged high beam use. Contesting the case at every phase, we found success. Positive sobriety observations in the BMV hearing and an officer’s admission of improperly administered HGN test led to suspension rescission. Despite the DA’s refusal to negotiate, trial cross-examination exposed unreliable testing methods and blood sample errors. The jury returned a NOT GUILTY verdict, swayed by flawed evidence and methodology, highlighting the case’s deficiencies.

Client, facing OUI charges, disclosed significant medical issues during a traffic stop, including blindness in one eye, recovery from double-knee surgery, an inner ear disorder, and medications. Despite this, the officer insisted on field sobriety tests. In a BMV hearing, we exposed the officer’s lack of discretion in administering roadside tests, leading to a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, granted by the BMV examiner. Subsequently, a successful Motion to Suppress resulted in the immediate dismissal of the OUI charge. The officer’s inflexibility on testing was pivotal in dismantling the case.

Following a late-night traffic stop, our client faced OUI charges after leaving a bar. Despite the court upholding the stop, our focus shifted to the deputy’s actions during the BMV hearing. Under cross-examination, the deputy admitted the client performed well on field sobriety tests but cited HGN and other test clues for probable cause. The refusal claim was debunked as the client had requested a blood test, leading to the BMV granting dismissal. At trial, we emphasized fairness and innocence, highlighting the client’s willingness for a blood test. The jury, deliberating briefly, swiftly returned a NOT GUILTY verdict.

P.P., under a 3-year IID program post-OUI conviction, faced over two dozen alleged violations. The defense meticulously gathered evidence, analyzing maintenance logs and interviewing witnesses. Successfully disputing all but two violations as machine errors, the Hearings Examiner granted the client’s petition for reinstatement. With nearly 20 months left, this victory spared severe travel restrictions, potentially averting business closures. This notable success may mark the first successful IID violation defense in southern Maine.