Our DUI defense team is here to help.

Our Raleigh DUI lawyers are ready to help you through your DUI case and provide aggressive defense to bring about the best possible outcome in your case.

Being charged with a DUI (driving under the influence) or DWI (driving while impaired) can leave you feeling anxious, fearful, and confused. There can be significant legal ramifications from an arrest, including jail time and court fines, loss of driving privileges, increased insurance rates, employment consequences, and financial uncertainty.

Our Raleigh DUI lawyers are here to help! We will investigate your unique case and guide you through every step of legal process. Our office is conveniently located within 5 minutes walk of the county court.

Common Defenses Against DWI Charges

When facing DWI charges, understanding the potential defenses can be crucial. There are several common strategies used to contest these charges effectively.

Lack of Reasonable Suspicion

Police officers must have a reasonable and clear reason to stop a vehicle in the first place. If you were pulled over without any legitimate basis, such as erratic driving or a visible traffic violation, this could be seen as an unconstitutional stop. Proof that the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion might lead to dismissal of your case.

Absence of Probable Cause for Arrest

Before making an arrest, there needs to be probable cause. This means the officer should have valid reasons to believe the driver is impaired. The arrest can be contested if the evidence used to support this claim—like signs of swerving or failing sobriety tests—is insufficient or improperly gathered. Officers typically assess impairment by observing driving behavior, interaction with the driver, and results from field sobriety tests.

Field Sobriety Tests Considerations:

• Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): The officer observes eye movement for involuntary jerking.
• Walk and Turn Test: The driver must walk in a straight line and turn around.
• One Leg Stand: The driver stands on one leg while counting.

Cross-examining the officer’s administration of these tests can sometimes expose procedural mistakes, strengthening the defense.

Deficiency in Evidence of Driving

During a trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving. In situations where the officer arrives to find a stationary vehicle or after an incident like an accident, this becomes challenging. The identity of the driver may be unclear, especially if multiple people were present. Admissions of driving without corroborating evidence, such as keys possession or witness statements, may not suffice.

Contesting Evidence of Impairment

The prosecution must demonstrate impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with high breath or blood alcohol readings, defenses can emerge:

Refusal of Breath or Blood Tests: If no tests are conducted, the State relies heavily on observational evidence. The lack of concrete test results can be a strong defense.

Marginal Test Results: For blood alcohol levels at or near .08, defenses can argue the results are inconclusive, emphasizing the importance of field sobriety test outcomes and their correct execution during cross-examination.

Defense Based on Preparation Rights

Defendants have a right to prepare a competent defense, particularly urgent in DWI cases due to the ephemeral nature of impairment evidence. Based on the precedent set by cases like State v. Knoll, three situations can lead to a defense rooted in this right:

• Excessive Bail: A high bond may unjustly restrict the defendant’s ability to gather evidence and access witnesses.
• Faulty Judgment of Danger: If wrongfully detained for being a danger to society, this can be challenged.
• Denied Witness Access: If witnesses are prohibited from assessing the defendant’s state while detained, this may lead to evidence suppression or case dismissal.

Understanding and employing these defenses can significantly impact the outcome of DWI cases, highlighting the importance of experienced legal representation.

DUI Lawyers Raleigh, NC

Our Raleigh DUI lawyers provide compassionate support and direction throughout the legal process. We care about you and your well-being, and we will work relentlessly to give you the best possible defense in your case.

Being native to North Carolina, our DUI lawyers are intimately familiar with the inner workings of this complex legal area, as well as local nuances in the NC court systems.

We deliver aggresive, strategic DUI defense.

When you work with Minick Law, P.C., you are not just hiring an attorney. You are getting a team of professional and passionate DUI lawyers who have your best interest in mind.

It is our goal to work with you to develop a strategic plan of action to achieve the best possible outcome in your DUI case, and we will make sure you understand how the legal process works. We want you to be prepared and confident throughout this difficult time.

No matter the specifics of your unique case, our Durham DUI lawyers are standing by to help. We handle all types of Driving While Impaired (DWI) charges, including: Habitual DWI, Felony Driving While Impaired, Federal Driving Under Influence (DUI charged on Federal lands or parkway), and Drug Related Impaired Driving cases (including marijuana DWI charges).

Minick Law, P.C. of Raleigh

Address: 555 Fayetteville St Suite 201 Raleigh, NC 27601 (By Appointment Only)

Phone: (919) 229-8108

Cities We Serve: Raleigh, Garner, Holly Springs, Morrisville, Wendell, Apex, Fuquay-Varina, Knightdale, Zebulon, Rolesville
Counties We Serve: Wake County.

While jail time is a possibility for any person convicted of a DWI, the realistic likelihood of jail time depends on a whole number of different factors. The vast majority of people charged with their first DWI are not sentenced to do any active jail time. Jail time is more likely for a person with prior DWI’s, a child in the car, an accident which causes injury to another person or driving on a license which is suspended for a DWI.

There are many driving consequences that can arise from a DWI. The length of suspensions related to DWI and the requirements for license reinstatement vary greatly depending on a number of factors, including: prior DWI charges, the blood/breath alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of the DWI charge, and whether the driver’s license was suspended at the time of the charge. For a first offense DWI case in North Carolina, a person’s license will be suspended for one year. Most people convicted of their first offense will be able to get a limited driving privilege that will allow them to drive for work, educational, treatment, and religious purposes.

The financial consequences of a DWI are significant and can include: attorney’s fees, court costs and fines, increases in auto insurance premiums, the cost of obtaining an alcohol assessment and completing any recommended treatment, continuous alcohol monitoring, inpatient treatment, and impact on employment.

In North Carolina, officers frequently do not read Miranda rights at the time of a DWI arrest and often a suspect is never advised of Miranda rights during the entire encounter with police. In the context of a DWI arrest, the lack of Miranda warnings is not likely to result in a dismissal of charges. Most of the time statements made by a DWI suspect after arrest are not particularly important in the State’s prosecution. The suspect’s statements and field sobriety tests prior to arrest combined with a blood or breath alcohol result may be enough for the State to proceed to trial on a DWI charge.

Challenging Evidence of Impairment in DWI Cases

In DWI cases, challenging evidence of impairment can be approached in several strategic ways. Understanding these methods can provide a robust defense for the accused.

1. Refusal of Breath and Blood Tests

One common scenario involves the refusal to take a breathalyzer test. If the police do not pursue a blood test subsequently, the prosecution faces an uphill battle. They must rely on observational evidence to prove impairment. This can include erratic driving, slurred speech, or difficulty standing. Without concrete test results, crafting a defense that highlights reasonable doubt becomes significantly more achievable. The absence of scientific evidence can serve as a notable advantage.

2. Disputing Marginal Blood Alcohol Levels

Another area for challenge arises when a breath or blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is near the legal limit, such as .08 or .09. While reaching .08 is generally sufficient for establishing impairment, attorneys can argue the margin of error in these tests. Calibration issues, testing procedures, and even physiological variables between individuals can be scrutinized to question whether the reading accurately reflects the level of impairment.

3. Observational and Circumstantial Evidence

In scenarios where neither breath nor blood tests are administered, the prosecution relies heavily on observational evidence. Challenging this evidence involves questioning the credibility and observations of the arresting officer. Was lighting sufficient? Was the area noisy or distracting? These factors can sometimes be overlooked, but they are critical in framing an effective defense.

4. Physical and Medical Conditions

It’s also possible to challenge impairment claims based on physical or medical conditions. Conditions such as diabetes or neurological disorders can mimic impairment signs. Presenting medical evidence or expert testimony can explain these symptoms convincingly and cast doubt on the impairment allegations.

In summary, challenging evidence of impairment in a DWI case requires a keen understanding of legal standards and a strategic approach in cross-examinations and evidence presentation. By leveraging these defensive strategies, one can effectively question the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

How is Probable Cause to Arrest Evaluated in DWI Cases?

Evaluating probable cause in DWI cases involves a meticulous three-phase procedure that law enforcement follows. This ensures a fair and evidence-based approach to determining impairment. Let’s break down each phase:

1. Vehicle in Motion

The initial phase involves observing how the vehicle is being driven. Officers look for signs that suggest impairment, such as:

• Erratic Driving: Observations like weaving across lanes, abrupt stops, or erratically speeding up or slowing down are critical.
• Failure to Respond: Not pulling over promptly upon seeing emergency lights could indicate impairment.
• Collisions: Minor incidents like hitting a curb or other objects are telling signs.

While actions like modest speeding or rolling through stop signs may not strongly indicate impairment, they still play a role in the overall assessment.

2. Personal Contact

The next phase occurs once the officer approaches the vehicle. Several indicators are assessed at this stage:

• Odor and Speech: The smell of alcohol and slurred speech are classic indicators.
• Physical Appearance: Red, glassy eyes can suggest intoxication.
• Documentation Difficulty: Struggling to provide a driver’s license and registration may raise suspicion.
• Exiting the Vehicle: Any trouble getting out of the car adds to the evidence of impairment.

3. Field Sobriety Tests

The final phase involves conducting field sobriety tests, which are crucial in assessing whether there is probable cause for an arrest. The three standardized tests are:

• Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): The officer checks for involuntary eye jerking while the suspect follows a moving object.
• Walk and Turn: The suspect must walk nine steps, heel-to-toe, along a straight line, pivot, and return.
• One Leg Stand: Standing on one leg and counting tests balance and focus.

These tests are vital as they provide structured and objective assessments. The performance in these exercises can significantly influence the decision to arrest. Effective legal representation often challenges the execution and interpretation of these tests to defend against unjust charges.

In summary, probable cause in DWI scenarios relies on a systematic observation of driving patterns, personal interaction, and execution of standardized sobriety tests. Each phase builds on the previous to create a comprehensive assessment of the driver’s condition.

The Importance of Evidence in DWI Trials

In DWI trials, evidence of driving plays a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the case. The central question usually faced by the court is whether the prosecution can convincingly establish that the defendant was driving while impaired, meeting the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Proving the Act of Driving

For the prosecution, demonstrating that the defendant was driving at the time of the incident is often straightforward. Typically, law enforcement officers might witness the vehicle in motion and conduct a traffic stop, directly linking the defendant to driving. In such situations, solid evidence of driving can be readily documented, as officers usually approach the vehicle while the accused is still behind the wheel.

Challenges in Establishing Proof

However, complications arise when officers arrive on the scene after the vehicle has stopped. This scenario is common in incidents involving accidents, particularly single-vehicle crashes. For instance, finding a car in a ditch with multiple individuals standing outside can muddy the waters regarding who was driving. Here, the state faces a more complex task of proving who was behind the wheel at the time of the incident.

Corroborating Admissions and Collecting Evidence

Even if a person admits to driving, this admission alone often lacks the weight needed for a conviction. The admission must be supported by additional evidence, such as:

• Possession of keys: Determining who holds the car keys can offer substantial support to a confession.
• Vehicle registration: Identifying the registered owner of the vehicle can help link the driver to the car.
• Witness statements: Testimonies from bystanders can provide additional context and corroborate claims.

In sum, evidence of driving is not merely a formality in DWI trials—it’s a fundamental element that can make or break the case, requiring thorough and varied proof to satisfy legal standards.

The Role of Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion in DWI Cases

Understanding the concept of reasonable and articulable suspicion is crucial in the context of Driving While Impaired (DWI) cases. Under the U.S. Constitution, law enforcement officers must have a justified reason—a reasonable and articulable suspicion—to stop or seize a vehicle. This standard is intended to protect citizens from arbitrary stops and ensure that law enforcement actions are based on observable facts.

Why It Matters

• Legal Safeguard: Reasonable and articulable suspicion acts as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that stops are not just based on intuition but backed by clear, observable behavior.

• Case Dismissal Potential: If a stop is conducted without this standard being met, it can lead to the dismissal of a case. Defense attorneys often scrutinize the circumstances of a vehicle stop to determine if this criterion was met. If it’s found lacking, they can challenge the legality of the stop in court.

Common Misinterpretations

Many drivers are stopped for actions such as weaving within their lane or slightly veering out of their lane. However, these actions alone may not always provide a sufficient basis for suspicion. Courts frequently evaluate whether such behavior visibly signals impairment, often resulting in dismissals if deemed insufficient.

Impact on DWI Defense

In DWI defense, proving that the police lacked reasonable suspicion can be a powerful strategy. Attorneys question the observations that led to the stop, often resulting in a judge deciding in favor of dismissing the charges if the suspicion was not adequately justified.

In summary, reasonable and articulable suspicion serves as a fundamental legal standard that ensures fairness in DWI cases. Protecting individuals from unlawful stops, it remains a pivotal consideration in defending against charges of impaired driving.

What is a Knoll Motion, and How Can it Affect a DWI Case?

A Knoll motion is a legal strategy rooted in the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which can significantly impact the outcome of a Driving While Impaired (DWI) case. Here’s how it works and the potential issues it addresses:

Understanding the Knoll Motion

The Knoll motion is derived from the case law established by State v. Knoll. It is designed to protect the rights of DWI suspects when their ability to gather evidence or contact witnesses is compromised. This motion can be crucial in ensuring a fair trial by potentially dismissing or suppressing evidence.

Key Issues Addressed by a Knoll Motion

Excessive Bond Setting
If a magistrate sets an excessively high bond, it could prevent the defendant from securing their release promptly. This impedes their ability to gather evidence and connect with potential witnesses, who might help in their defense.

Improper Assessment of Danger
A defendant may be wrongfully deemed a danger to others, leading to unjustified detention. When release is refused on these grounds, it can hinder evidence collection and prepare a sound defense.

Denial of Witness Access
If a potential witness is denied the ability to observe the defendant’s condition at the jail, it can undermine the defense’s evidence regarding sobriety or behavior at the time of arrest.

Impact on a DWI Case

If any of these situations occur, a Knoll motion can be filed. The implications might include:

• Suppression of Evidence: If the motion is successful, certain incriminating evidence could be deemed inadmissible in court.
• Case Dismissal: In some scenarios, the entire case might be dismissed if the defendant’s rights were severely compromised.

By addressing these potential legal pitfalls, a Knoll motion can play a critical role in defending against DWI charges, ensuring that the rights of the accused are upheld in court.