DUI & Traffic Offenses

State v. E.D. – Driving While Under The Influence – “Not Guilty” Verdict. E.D. was charged with driving under the influence of Ambien, a prescription sleep medication. In order to properly defend E.D., Mr. Levin engaged a forensic scientist, who formerly worked as the Chief Forensic Scientist for New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety. At trial, the forensic scientist provided expert testimony that, at the time of driving, E.D. was not under the influence of the medication. At the conclusion of trial, Mr. Levin successfully argued that E.D. was not under the influence. The court found E.D. “not guilty” of the driving under the influence charge.

State v. S.S. – Driving While Intoxicated And Refusal To Submit To Breath Testing – Motion To Dismiss Granted. S.S. was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to breath testing arising out of an accident, after which the police officers suspected that S.S. was intoxicated. In order to defend S.S., Mr. Levin obtained expert reports from a board-certified pulmonologist and board-certified internist. The experts opined that S.S. was suffering from a medical condition and, as a result, was unable to generate the forceful expiratory flow necessary to complete the breath alcohol analysis. Mr. Levin successfully presented the reports, as well as other evidence, to the prosecutor and court. The court dismissed the driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to breath testing charges.

State v. B.S. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. B.S. was charged with driving while intoxicated even though she had a blood alcohol reading below the legal limit. The state alleged that she was under the influence of narcotics at the time. Mr. Weinstock successfully argued that there was insufficient proof that B.S. was under the influence and attacked the credibility of the state’s drug recognition expert. The judge dismissed the case.

State v. J.S. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. J.S. was charged with driving while intoxicated even though he had a blood alcohol reading below the legal limit – the state alleged that he was under the influence of narcotics at the time. Mr. Weinstock successfully argued that there was insufficient proof that B.S. was under the influence of any foreign substance. The judge dismissed the case.

State v. L.L. – Driving While Intoxicated – “Not Guilty” Verdict. L.L. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully asserted that L.L. was not under the influence of alcohol while driving. As a result, L.L. was found “not guilty” of the driving while intoxicated charge.

State v. J.D. – Driving While Intoxicated – “Not Guilty” Verdict. J.D. was charged with his third driving while intoxicated offense, which required a mandatory sentence of six months in jail upon conviction. Mr. Levin successfully argued that, although J.D. refused to submit to breath, urine or blood testing, J.D. was not impaired on the date-in-question. J.D. was found “not guilty” of the driving while intoxicated charge.
State v. J.D. – Driving While Intoxicated – Directed Verdict Of “Not Guilty.” J.D. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully procured a dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge, as the court granted a directed verdict of “not guilty.”

State v. T.T. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. T.T. faced a driving while intoxicated charge. Mr. Weinstock demonstrated that T.T. was not the operator of the vehicle and that the state would not be able to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge dismissed the case.

State v. M.G. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. M.G. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin engaged a forensic scientist to analyze the breath-testing machine. The forensic scientist provided expert opinion and report that opined that the machine was not operating properly. Based on the report, Mr. Levin successfully obtained a dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge.

State v. K.G. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. K.G. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully maintained that the state’s evidence was insufficient to convict K.G. The state agreed and the matter was dismissed.

State v. G.W. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. G.W. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully challenged the evidence from both the breath-testing machine and the police observations. The state conceded and dismissed the driving while intoxicated charge.

State v. A.P. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. A.P. was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to breath testing. Mr. Levin successfully challenged the testing procedures, demonstrating that A.P. had provided a sufficient breath sample and that A.P. was not intoxicated. The state agreed and the case was dismissed.

State v. R.B. – Driving While Intoxicated – Case Dismissed. R.B., a senior citizen, was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully challenged the State’s intoxication evidence, arguing that the police officers had mistaken R.B.’s health issues as intoxication. Ultimately, the driving while intoxicated charge was dismissed.

State v. C.M. – Driving While Intoxicated – Motion To Suppress Granted/Case Dismissed. C.M. was charged with driving while intoxicated. Mr. Levin successfully litigated a motion to suppress, contending that the police officers unlawfully stopped C.M. while he was driving in violation of his rights under the federal and state constitutions. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case.