Drunk Driving Cases
Attorney William C. Head

Case 8
State v. J.M.
Superior Court of Lumpkin County

Defendant was arrested at about 1:00 A.M. by the Lumpkin County Sheriff's Department for DUI (third offense in five years) and driving while suspended. The probable cause for the stop was an abrupt lane change without a signal. The arresting officer was standing outside his patrol car and visually observed the vehicle pass his location. The suspect vehicle was traveling within the 35 mph speed limit, at approximately 30 - 35 mph. The officer had about 1 to 2 seconds to look at the driver as the vehicle passed him.

At a hearing before the Department of Public Safety on the administrative license suspension (he tested 0.23 on an Intoximeter 3000), the arresting officer admitted numerous salient facts which became critical to later resolving the DUI criminal case. The sworn transcript from the DPS hearing was obtained for use at the criminal trial.

The DPS hearing lasted nearly two hours and rendered a substantial amount of valuable data on the case. The end result was that the hearing officer upheld the suspension of Defendant's license for five (5) years. In the criminal case, a speedy trial demand was filed to try to get a favorable resolution of the criminal charges. In Georgia, winning the criminal case "corrects" the administrative suspension.

Some of the salient facts of the case were as follows:

(1) The officer chased the vehicle but temporarily lost sight of it. Doubling back, he found three white males standing outside the red Cadillac in the parking lot of a public hospital, and one white male passed out inside the vehicle's rear seat. The officer testified that none of the three gentlemen outside the vehicle had the keys to the car in their possession, and that the keys had "hastily been thrown on the floor board of the car". Only one of the three had a valid driver's license. All three men were intoxicated.

(2) The officer admitted that when he initially approached the three men, he asked "who was driving this vehicle?", and that no one admitted being the driver. He further stated that the Cadillac had a North Carolina tag and registration, and that one of the three men was the owner of the vehicle. This person was suspended from driving by his home state, and had no license to drive.

(3) Another of the men (the only one with a license) constantly berated the officer about trying to question them without advisement of their rights. He cajoled the officer and instructed the others that they could and should remain silent. He told the officer that none of them would perform voluntary field tests, and berated the officer for trying to compel them to identify the driver of the car. [NOTE: This person was familiar with his rights by virtue of knowing William C. Head and being familiar with Mr. Head's Driver's Rights Cards].

(4) The officer then selected the other person (Defendant) and said. "I saw you driving when you passed my location", and, over protest, arrested him for DUI and driving while suspended. Defendant vehemently insisted that he was not the driver, and that he had no license. He further pointed out that the car didn't even belong to him. Nevertheless, the officer persisted with his identification of Defendant as the driver. Despite threats of dire consequences and substantial intimidation by four officers (who eventually came to the scene) no one ever admitted to driving the car.

At the criminal case, the assistant district attorney was confronted with the arresting officer's indecision about who was "driving" the vehicle. Because the sworn testimony of the officer indicated that he was not sure which person had been driving, the prosecutor agreed to allow a "reckless driving" plea with a $1,000 fine. All DUI charges were dismissed.  The Defendant's license was reinstated the next day.

You can read other cases by clicking below

Get a Free Evaluation of your drunk driving case NOW