Tag Archives: operating while intoxicated

Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell Scores Major Indiana Court of Appeals Victory

In a surprising reversal, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a decision of the Porter Superior Court denying a Motion to Suppress filed by Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell.  In Marshall v. State of Indiana, 64A05-1710-CR-2368, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Attorney Campbell’s Motion to Suppress Evidence based on an improper traffic stop.

In the early morning on October 29, 2016, a Reserve Officer with the Hebron Police Department initiated a traffic stop of the Defendant’s vehicle based on the Officer’s observation that the Defendant “was going over the posted speed limit.” The Officer did not issue a citation for speeding, but instead decided to pursue an investigation for Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (“OWI“).  The Defendant was eventually charged with Class A Misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, Endangering a Person and Class C Misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle With an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent to .08 But Less Than .15.

In the Porter Superior Court on August 4, 2017, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell filed a Motion to Suppress, alleging the traffic stop was unlawful. The trial court denied Attorney Campbell’s motion on August 8, 2017.  On August 9, 2017, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell filed a Renewed Motion to Suppress, again alleging the traffic stop was unlawful, and requested a hearing on the motion. The trial court granted Attorney Campbell’s request for a hearing and held a hearing on Marshall’s renewed motion to suppress on August 17, 2017. The trial court ultimately denied Attorney Campbell’s renewed motion to suppress on August 18, 2017, and certified the Order for interlocutory appeal.

For the first time in Indiana history, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals that an officer’s testimony of his “visual speed estimate” was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to believe a defendant was exceeding the speed limit.

In its Order denying Attorney Campbell’s renewed motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that “an officer’s testimony of speeding, without radar, pacing or some number, when based upon his or her expertise and ability to draw conclusions about the excessive speed of the vehicle, in general terms, is sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of a traffic infraction justifying a stop.” In support of its conclusion, the trial court cited four cases from other jurisdictions.  The Indiana Court of Appeals found this neither controlling nor persuasive.

In this case, the Officer was using a radar, but he could not testify at hearing or at deposition what speed the Defendant was actually traveling and what the radar showed as Defendant’s speed.  During a pre-trial deposition, the Officer could not recall the posted speed limit at the location of the traffic stop, but he claimed he knew at the time of the stop what the speed limit was in the area, but testified he “thought maybe it was forty miles an hour[.]” Later at the suppression hearing, the Officer indicated he had visited the location of the stop prior to the hearing and that the speed limit was fifty miles per hour. The Officer testified he did not pace the vehicle, did not write down the speed at which he observed the vehicle traveling prior to the traffic stop, and did not observe the Defendant commit any other traffic infractions.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reasoned that because the Officer could not testify regarding the speed of the vehicle in more specific terms, he did not have specific articulable facts to support his initiation of a traffic stop, and therefore the traffic stop violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.   The case has been remanded back to the trial court to determine what, if any, charges can be substantiated absent the now suppressed evidence gathered after the traffic stop was initiated.  The State of Indiana is expected to dismiss the case based upon a lack of evidence due to the evidence that was suppressed by the Opinion, but as of the time of this article, no motions have yet been filed by the State.

If you have been charged with Operating While Intoxicated in Indiana or you feel your rights have been violated, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell will fight to preserve your innocence!  CALL TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION. (219) 841-5683.

Get Back on the Road with a Hardship License *

Hardship_License

 

 

 

 

Hardship License s Are Now Called “Specialized Driving Privileges”

January 1, 2015 the Indiana law changed regarding suspended licenses and what were formerly known as “hardship licenses” or “probationary licenses“.  The new law (now found at I.C. 9-30-16 et. seq.) allows what are now called “Specialized Driving Privileges” which allow a person to drive for any period of license suspension including suspensions for habitual traffic violator.

Hardship License s, (a.k.a Specialized Driving Privileges) Now Include Almost Everyone

Under the old Hardship License law, only certain individuals could qualify for a Hardship License. Each person had to make a showing to the court an actual and unusual financial or other hardship, and certain criminal and traffic offenses were prohibited altogether from getting a hardship license. The current hardship license law (a.k.a. Specialized Driving Privileges law) includes suspensions for failing to provide financial responsibility (driving without insurance) suspensions, suspensions for operating while intoxicated (“OWI“), as well as some criminal offenses involving accidents or injuries to others. The suspensions can either be issued by a particular court, or suspensions could be administratively issued by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The new hardship license law even includes habitual traffic offenders who may face a five (5) year, ten (10) year, or lifetime suspension of driving privileges in Indiana.  The only instance that is excluded from the new hardship license (a.k.a. Specialized Driving Privileges) is when a person refuses a breathalyzer upon the lawful request of a police officer. These are often one (1) year mandatory suspensions, and cannot be served on a hardship license (a.k.a Specialized Driving Privileges).

Hardship License: So–What is the Catch?

Hardship licenses (a.k.a Specialized Driving Privileges) require a petition to the court including detailed personal information. If a hardship license petition does not meet the requirements under the new hardship license law, it will likely be rejected. Hiring an attorney is highly recommended for filing hardship license petitions. Once a hardship license petition is filed, the court may grant your hardship license (specialized driving privileges) for a minimum of six (6) months. The court may grant full driving privileges, or the court may limit driving privileges (i.e. only to/from work, church, child visitation, etc.) depending on your offens(es), needs, and driving history.  The court may impose other hardship license conditions such as the ignition interlock device (for repeated OWI offenders) or driving only during certain hours.  Please consult an attorney to discuss your options when filing a hardship license petition.

SFT Lawyers Has Experienced Attorneys Eager to Assist You in Getting Your Hardship License

The Lawyers of SFT have filed numerous hardship license (“SDP”) petitions before many courts in Indiana. They have the experience necessary to get you back on the road, and as quickly as possible. CALL TODAY or contact us via our CONTACT US PAGE for a FREE CONSULTATION to get on the road and to get your driving privileges back. (219) 841-5683.

*SFT Lawyers and its licensed Indiana attorneys make no guarantee of eligibility for hardship license or specialized driving privileges and do not guarantee any particular outcome or result. Determinations of eligibility for hardship licenses and/or specialized driving privileges are made on a case-by-case basis by a licensed attorney and are ultimately within the discretion of the court(s) of competent jurisdiction. This article is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship.