Articles Posted in DWI Defense Lawyer

One of the most common general philosophical discussions concerning law and crime in Texas involves what is known as the “necessity defense.” The necessity defense allows for certain criminal conduct to be excused when the conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm. Self-defense is a type of necessity defense, as is the violation of traffic laws in order to prevent a serious accident. The Texas Court of Appeals recently evaluated a DUI defendant’s claim that she was behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated because it was necessary to safely get the car off the road after the driver had fallen ill.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant visited a bar and club district in College Station and consumed several alcoholic beverages, rendering her unfit to drive her vehicle back home. Her brother drove her vehicle with her in the passenger seat and her sister-in-law in the back. At some point, the brother became ill and stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road, prompting the defendant to switch seats with him in an attempt to move the vehicle to a nearby parking lot. Despite being intoxicated and feeling unsafe to drive, she attempted to move the car but was unsuccessful, and a police officer later found the vehicle stopped in traffic with the defendant in the driver’s seat, and she was arrested and charged with DUI.

At trial, The defendant argued that her actions were justified under the necessity defense, contending that she was only attempting to move the car off the road for safety reasons, not to drive it home. However, the trial court denied her request for a necessity instruction. On a first appeal, the court evaluated whether the defendant satisfied the requirements of the necessity defense, including demonstrating a reasonable belief that her actions were immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm. The court found that her intoxication compromised her ability to form a reasonable belief and that there was no evidence of specific imminent harm.

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a criminal offense that one should never take lightly. Collin County is known for its zero-tolerance approach to DUI, which means that even a single drink can lead to an arrest. If you or a loved one has been charged with DUI in Collin County, it is fundamental to know the laws, penalties, and consequences. Additionally, building a strong DUI defense strategy and working with an experienced Collin County DUI attorney can significantly increase your chances of securing a favorable outcome.

Understanding Collin County DUI Laws

Before we delve deeper into how to build a strong DUI defense strategy, it is essential to understand the DUI laws in Collin County.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits

In Collin County, the legal limit for BAC is 0.08%. However, drivers under the age of 21, commercial drivers, and individuals on probation for a previous DUI charge cannot have any alcohol in their system while operating a vehicle. It is important to note that BAC can be affected by a variety of factors, including the individual’s weight, gender, and the rate of alcohol consumption. For example, a person who weighs less may reach the legal limit faster than someone who weighs more. Furthermore, alcohol can impair a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely, even if their BAC is below the legal limit. This is why law enforcement officers may still arrest individuals for DUI if they exhibit signs of impairment, such as erratic driving or slurred speech.

Implied Consent Law

Collin County has an implied consent law that mandates drivers to take a chemical test if they are arrested under the suspicion of DUI. This means that if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the driver must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test. Refusing to take the test can lead to an automatic driver’s license suspension for up to 180 days. It is important to note that even if a driver refuses the test, they can still be charged with DUI based on other evidence, such as field sobriety tests or witness testimony.

Continue reading

Cases involving DWI arrests are some of the most common criminal cases in Texas, with tens of thousands of people being arrested for DWI each year. These crimes, while usually considered misdemeanors, can result in life-changing consequences if you’re convicted. However, just because you’ve been arrested doesn’t mean you’ll be convicted, especially if the dedicated Forney DUI defense attorneys at Guest & Gray are involved in your case.

Facing a first-time DUI charge can be stressful. Part of the reason for this is that there are a lot of uncertainties about what you could face if you’re convicted. Read on to learn more about first-time DUI offense penalties in Texas.

Immediate Consequences

After a first-time DWI conviction, you may face the following immediate consequences:

Driver’s License Suspension: Your driver’s license may be suspended for a specific period of time, typically between 90 days and one year, depending on the circumstances of your case.

Continue reading

In a recent case before the Texas Court of Appeals, the State asked the court to reconsider an originally unfavorable verdict. After a defendant had been charged with driving while intoxicated, he quickly filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to police officers after the incident. The lower court granted this motion, deciding the defendant’s statements to police officers could not be introduced at trial. On appeal, however, the State argued this decision was unconstitutional; ultimately, the higher court agreed and reversed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a 911 caller one evening reported that he had seen a car crash into a utility pole and immediately drive away. The caller told the 911 operator that the car’s driver, who turned out to be the defendant in this case, had emerged from his car to survey the damage, and he appeared to be bleeding from his ear. The caller followed the defendant to his house to check on him, giving the 911 operator the defendant’s address.

Soon, police officers arrived at the defendant’s home and knocked on the door. The defendant answered, and he was holding a cloth to his bleeding ear. The officer asked the defendant several questions, and the defendant was eventually asked to take field sobriety tests. Soon after, the defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. At the station, the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration came through as .173, well over the legal limit of .08 in Texas.

Continue reading

In a recent DWI case coming out of a Texas court, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed her conviction of driving while intoxicated. Originally, the defendant had been found guilty after a police officer stopped her based on a traffic violation. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer did not actually have reason to conduct the initial traffic stop, and thus the evidence of her intoxication should have been suppressed. The court, considering the circumstances of the stop, disagreed with the defendant and denied her appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when she passed through a “no through traffic” sign at the edge of a construction zone. A police officer began following her through the construction zone and pulled her over once she had driven from one end of the zone to the other end.

As the officer spoke with the defendant, he smelled alcohol and observed behavior in the defendant that appeared to indicate she was intoxicated. The officer asked the defendant to complete several field sobriety tests, which served as further confirmation that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant’s blood was drawn pursuant to a search warrant, and her blood alcohol content was .14.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion from a Texas court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted. Originally, the defendant was pulled over in a traffic stop, and the officer pulling him over arrested him for driving under the influence. When the defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence proving he was intoxicated, the court at first denied this motion. Later, though, a higher court agreed with the defendant, finding that the evidence should have been suppressed in the first place.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer was patrolling the roads one evening when he stopped the defendant’s vehicle for failing to maintain a single line of traffic. In the officer’s testimony, he stated that the only reason he stopped the defendant’s car was for this one reason – there were no other factors that went into his decision to pull the defendant over.

During the traffic stop, the officer saw that the defendant appeared to be intoxicated. He arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated, and the defendant soon after filed a motion to suppress the evidence of his intoxication. The defendant argued that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place, and since the officer should not have initiated the traffic stop, the subsequent evidence of intoxication was unfairly included in the State’s case. The court denied this motion to suppress, and later the defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. Continue reading

In a recent opinion from a Texas court involving a DWI, the defendant’s request for incriminating evidence to be suppressed was denied. The defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and appealed by arguing that the court improperly admitted his blood sample as evidence at trial. The court disagreed, ultimately denying the defendant’s appeal.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer in Texas stopped the defendant after observing his vehicle weaving from one lane to the other. The officer also saw that the defendant’s middle brake light was out and was concerned about the vehicle’s defective equipment. During his testimony, the officer explained that he originally looked for the defendant’s car because a bartender had called the police station saying she was concerned that the defendant might be heavily drinking and driving after having departed her establishment.

After stopping the defendant’s vehicle, the officer noticed the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and that the defendant was sleepy and swaying. While the defendant admitted to drinking alcohol, he refused to submit to a blood test. Based on the officer’s statements, however, a judge found that there was probable cause for a search warrant, and decided that the officer was legally allowed to take a sample of the defendant’s blood regardless of whether or not the defendant was willing to give it. The defendant’s blood sample was thus obtained and eight days later, was delivered to the Texas Department of Public Safety. An analysis of the sample showed that the defendant’s blood-alcohol level had been .170 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. He was convicted for driving while intoxicated.

Continue reading