Tactics In Oklahoma DUI cases.

K.S., a preacher, was arrested for DUI in Oklahoma City and taken to the jail for a breath test. His reading was considerably over the legal limit of .10%. Because of his position, he did not want this matter taken to jury trial, so we negotiated the criminal charge to a reduction to a speeding ticket. The DPS revoked his license. We convinced him that he MUST fight them over this and we appealed the revocation of license. We were going to show that the test was inadmissible.

At the trial of the appeal, C. Jeffrey Sifers, Mr. Sifers' son and legal assistant/expert witness, introduced evidence of the computer records of the particular Intoxilyzer 5000 upon which K.S. was tested. Jeff had, at that time, compiled more that 70,000 breath test records from all over the state, affecting each machine that the State of Oklahoma owns. The maintenance on this machine had NOT been properly done, in that, at least three (3) had NOT been put on the logs. K.S.'s test was indicated on the written logs as the 25th test, the LAST test that can be done before a NEW maintenance cycle is started. However, Jeff's records showed K.S.'s are the 28th test on that maintenance cycle!! The judge dismissed the case and restored K.S.'s license.

R.R., an Oklahoma City truck driver, drank WAY too much and ended up in an area of Oklahoma City where there are several large houses on very large lots. Lost, he turned onto what he thought was a street, but was a family's driveway which proceeded about 1/8 of a mile to the house and then A ROUND the house into their back yard. He could not find his way back to the street. The owner of the home called the police about this car driving around in his large backyard. When they arrived, he was stopped just as he was about to drive back onto the street from this driveway. At the Implied Consent hearing (the driver's license revocation hearing), all of this was brought out and recorded under Oath. Since we showed that the officer NEVER saw him drive on a city street, but only private property, the license WAS NOT revoked! When the D.A. read our transcript of this hearing, she dismissed the DUI.

A nationally known American Indian style artist (JD) was arrested for DUI (his third) in Norman, OK by the Norman Police Department. A field test was done which the officer said JD failed. An Intoxilyzer 5000 test was taken with a result of greater than .10%. The DPS ordered his license revoked for one year. Our firm requested an administrative hearing to contest the revocation.

JD had been at a show of his work at an art gallery all of the evening in question. He had been with several persons, including an ABLE (Alcoholic Beverage Licensing Enforcement) officer, a Probation Officer (who was in the car with him at the arrest), an Assistant District Attorney from Oklahoma City, and the ADA's (Assistant District Attorney) mother (a PhD in learning disorders) up to within five minutes of the stop by this police officer.

Each testified on his behalf at the hearing that he could not have drunk more than two glasses of wine the entire evening and appeared completely normal - and sober. The PhD further testified that she was aware that he suffered from dyslexia and that this problem would cause a person with it to perform poorly on these field tests.

Two opinion witnesses testified at this hearing. Ed Ondac, a pharmacist and expert on drug absorption and elimination, testified that, based upon the facts, JD could not have ANY MORE than .04% in his blood at ANY time that night. C. Jeffrey Sifers, certified in field tests and 5000 operation, testified that JD had natural nystagmus (eye jerk - one of the field tests he allegedly failed) and that erroneous reading on the 5000 was caused, or contributed to, by JD's use of items he used in his paintings, not alcohol, that interfered with the machine and gave false readings as alcohol.

After the longest administrative hearing on record (to that date) was finished, the DPS set aside the order and gave JD his license back.

The District Attorney in Cleveland County, after hearing about the above license trial, wanted NO part of this case. He dismissed it outright.

A client originally from Oregon was charged with a DUI involving a personal injury, a charge ordinarily a misdemeanor. Under Oklahoma Law, previous DUI convictions in other states CAN be used to enhance a misdemeanor DUI case to a felony. Seeking to prosecute him as a SECOND TIME felony (which carries up to seven (7) years), the D.A. filed the charge listing his three prior convictions of DUI in Oregon, one of which was a felony. The D.A. offered a plea bargain to our client of four (4) years in jail and three (3) years probation after he got out. However, Oklahoma requires that the other state's law be similar to Oklahoma's DUI statutes. Oregon's DUI law requires an alcohol level of .08% or higher. Oklahoma's law (at that time) required a .10% level or higher. After research on the states' laws and a call to fellow National College for DUI Defense lawyer in Oregon, we got ALL of the prior convictions DISMISSED from the case and it was re-filed as a misdemeanor. The case was then closed with a one (1) year suspended sentence and a small fine. This client DID NOT go to jail.

M.M., a college student, after hitting a parked car and leaving the scene, was arrested in Weatherford and charged with DUI in the District Court in that county. This was FOURTH DUI in three years. It was, amazingly, filed only as a misdemeanor. At the license hearing, we were able to prove that the DPS DID NOT have sufficient evidence to revoke his license (the probable cause was extremely "thin") and won the licens back for him. The assigned D.A., however, wanted our client to be convicted, do 20 days in the county jail, and pay a large fine. Mr. Sifers, who does not practice in that county as frequently as he does in other counties, had never met this particular D.A. In an effort to be professional and to introduce himself to this young D.A., Mr. Sifers met with him at his office. Fully NOT expecting this young man to agree with him, Mr. Sifers suggested that a deferred sentence (the case is dismissed at the end of probation) was the better way to close this case and avoid a trial for everyone. The D.A. quickly agreed with Mr. SIfers and the matter was closed with the deferred sentence. M.M. was NOT convicted of ANYTHING and DID NOT lose his license, either.

Prior to leaving the courthouse that day (but AFTER he had gotten the deal for his client!), Mr. Sifers went back by the D.A.'s office and expressed his surprise to this young D.A. of his acceptence of Mr. Sifers suggestion of a deferred sentence for M.M. When he asked him WHY he went along with it, the D.A.'s only response was, "I know who you are", turned and walked away.

J.J., a nursing student at Oklahoma University, was arrested for Actual Physical Control of motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, or APC. She was sitting on the bed of her truck when the officer approached and arrested her. We showed the prosecutor that she WAS NOT in control - nor COULD she have been - of the truck from the place that the officer found her, regardless of how drunk she was. This control issue is a critical element of this offense. The case was dismissed and her license was returned.

R.C. had a rear-end accident with another car which contained two (2) women who worked for a church in northern Oklahoma. He had just left a restaurant where he, his mother, and his wife had shared a carafe of wine while eating salads. R.C. had placed all of this on his credit card and had the receipt to prove what was drunk at the restaurant. The officer claimed that he had a strong odor of alcohol on him, could not do the field tests, and, generally, described a very drunk person. The two women in the other car did not smell alcohol at all on him, AND saw NOTHING that suggested R.C. was drunk. The D.A. would not dismiss this case even in the face of this evidence.

So, we set the case for trial. We secured an expert, Dr. Joe Citron, from Atlanta, to testify as to how much alcohol was likely in his system and the effects on R.C. of even this minor accident. C. Jeffrey Sifers was listed as an expert witness as to the attempted field tests on R.C. His testimony was going to show that the tests were NOT done properly, per the national standards, and could not be used to show any reliability as to R.C.'s alleged intoxication. Jeff was FURTHER going to testify that, according to the breath test records in the State of Oklahoma for the past two (2) years, the officer involved had made mistakes in arresting people (they had BELOW the arrestable level on their tests) for DUI over 17% of the time. A friend of Mr. Sifers', and another Regent of the National College for DUI Defense, J. Gary Trichter from Houston, Texas, became interested in this case and agreed to come to Oklahoma as co-counsel to assist Mr. Sifers in the trial. Trichter, the co-author of the DUI Defense Manuals for Texas and countless articles on DUI, was approved by the court in Oklahoma to try this case. The D.A. was made aware of ALL of this.

The D.A. first offered, as to avoid this trial, a "plea bargain" of a one (1) suspended sentence and a fine. This was turned down, out of hand. As we got closer to trial - AND after we filed numerous motions in the case - the "deal" went to a three (3) year deferred sentence (case dismissed at the end of the 3 years), fines, and other stuff to do. Again, we turned this down. Three (3) days before the hearing on these motions, Mr. Sifers received a call on his cell phone, after hours, from the D.A. He offered to reduce the charge to Driving While Impaired (a lesser offense than DUI), 6 months deferred, dismissal at the end of the 6 months and expungement from the records, no fine, and court costs with a no contest plea (no admission of wrong doing), if we would not make him fight this.

As of that date, no attorney with which Mr. Sifers had spoken had EVER heard of this D.A.'s office bending THAT MUCH to avoid trial with a defense attorney. The client decided to accept this offer with the blessing of both Mr. Sifers and Mr.Trichter.

Earlier this year, DS was arrested for DUI and given a battery of field tests by the officer. He refused the breath test. After hiring Mr. Sifers' office, the appropriate pleadings were filed for a hearing and it was conducted in the case.

At the hearing, the officer testified as to DS's bad driving (speeding) as the reason for the stop. He testified that DS had an odor (not a strong odor) of alcohol on him, had slightly slurred speech, and "appeared to be intoxicated" to him. He, further, testified that DS "failed" all of the field sobriety tests that the officer had given him. Based upon ALL of this, he placed him under arrest for DUI and brought the charge against him. Sounded pretty solid, didn't it?

During cross examination, however, this changed. Mr. Sifers got the officer to admit that he had never heard DS speak before and he could not, honestly, state that the speech he heard from DS was not normal for him.

He admitted that, even based upon his training, odor ALONE was not enough to come to the conclusion the person was intoxicated. He went on to admit under cross that speeding is NOT one of the "Cues" of which officers are trained to associate with drunk drivers.

Mr. Sifers had endorsed his assistant, C. Jeffrey Sifers, as an opinion witness in the case. The younger Mr. Sifers is a nationally certified field sobriety test INSTRUCTOR. He had already reviewed this case and heard the officer's testimony. He provided several questions to Mr. Sifers to ask the officer about the tests he gave DS.

When Mr. Sifers finished with the officer, the officer was forced to agree with him that the client had actually PASSED the tests based upon the standards for scoring performance on them!

The result? The evidence NOW showed for that there was no reason for the officer to have arrested DS at all! Mr. Sifers' motion to dismiss the matter was granted.

K.A., had been arrested for DUI and taken to the jail for a breath test. The results exceeded the legal limit. The DPS was going to revoke his license. Mr. Sifers requested a hearing with the DPS.

At the hearing, the officer testified that he arrested K.A. at a certain time and tested him almost exactly 45 minutes later. The officer had K.A. wait for 15 minutes before he gave him the test (the deprivation period), just like he was supposed to do. He gave the client the test in the proper manner. The test was within two hours of the arrest. Everything to which he testified was, for the State, almost perfect.

During cross examination, Mr. Sifers got the officer to testify that the location of the arrest was no less than 30 minutes from the jail. He got him to testify that he had waited to transport K.A. to the jail until the tow truck arrived to pick up K.A.'s truck.

The tow truck records showed it arrived about 15 minutes AFTER the officer arrested K.A. Therefore, K.A. COULD NOT have arrived at the jail until the time of the test. If that was true, the officer COULD NOT have given him the deprivation period before the test like he testified.

In short, without this deprivation period given to K.A. before the test, the test COULD NOT HAVE done in accordance with the rules governing these tests! The DPS did not revoke K.A.'s license. The DA offered K.A. a deferred sentence (dismissed after the probation). K.A. did not lose his license OR get convicted of the DUI.