Why ALR Hearings are Important: Because they can TKO the State's Case!

Posted on February 6, 2009 by Troy Burleson

As we have reported here before, the first thing a person must do after his or her DWI arrest is to request an ALR hearing.  This MUST be done within 15 days of your arrest.  For more explanation on the ALR process see our former post.

Clients often ask why an ALR hearing is important for good reason.  Most attorneys put little effort into the ALR process because they see them as lost causes.  State-wide, people lose about 85% of ALR hearings.  At our office, we WIN close to 60% of our ALR hearings. The reason we have such a high success rate (60% compared to the state average of 15%) is because of our aggressive tactics in these hearings.

TKO'ing the State's Criminal Case at an ALR Hearing.

Last week, one of our client's was found NOT GUILTY of a DWI.  The client in this case gave a breath sample of .170 which is over twice the legal limit of 0.08 AND admitted to the officer that he was intoxicated.

 

How did we get a not guilty verdict?  Because we destroyed the State's case during the ALR hearing.  Here are some things you need to know about the ALR hearing:

1) They are mini-trials.  We get to cross examine the officer about the facts of your arrest;

2) The testimony is given under oath.  This means that whatever the officer testifies to in the ALR hearing is under oath and on the record.  Therefore, we can pin the officer's testimony down in the ALR hearing.  If he/she changes their story at the criminal trial, we can use the ALR transcript to impeach the officer;

3) The officer has not been "coached" by the prosecutors yet at the ALR hearing.  The criminal prosecutors do not handle ALR hearings for the State.  An attorney for the DPS does.  Typically, the state's prosecutor will meet with officers prior to the criminal trial to go over the facts of the case and "remind" the officers of certain facts.  In other words, coach the officer on what to say on the stand.  This is not the case in the ALR hearing.  As such, the defense has a tremendous advantage in these hearing because we get to cross-examine the officer before he/she has been coached by the state.

How Did the ALR Hearing Allow Our Client to Be Found Not Guilty?

My partner, Hunter Biederman, handled the ALR hearing is this particular case.  Hunter reviewed the police report prior to the hearing and found that the officer made a huge mistake.  In the report, the officer’s only listed reason for stopping our client was that he failed to stop behind a designated line at a stop sign.  Hunter then reviewed the video and saw that the officer was correct, our client did not stop and the designated stop line.  However, there was a crosswalk and our client DID STOP behind the crosswalk.

Hunter then did a little legal research and discovered that our client committed no violation of the law.  Under Texas law, as long as you stop behind a crosswalk there is no violation.  Therefore, the officer made a mistake of law.  As such, this was an illegal stop and, under the law, any evidence gathered against our client (including the breath test) would be inadmissible in trial.

Hunter cross examined the officer at the ALR hearing about the stop and got her to admit that our client stopped behind the crosswalk and that there were no other traffic violations that would warrant stopping the client.  We then got the ALR transcript and set the case for a jury trial.

What Happened at Trial?

On the day of trial we filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence against our client due to an illegal stop.  In the motion, we presented the court with the ALR transcript and law regarding stop signs and crosswalks (Section 544.010(c) of the Texas Transportation Code).  We then had a hearing on the motion.

The State tried to "Coach" the Officer but it was TOO LATE

Once the State read our motion, they meet with the officer and tried to figure out a way around the officer's prior testimony.  The State tried to have the officer offer an alternative reason as to why she stopped our client.  After the State's presentation, the trial judge read the ALR transcript and dismissed the State's argument.

As a result, the judge granted our motion and suppressed all evidence gathered during our client's illegal stop, including the breath test result.  Thus, the State had no evidence against our client and he was found NOT GUILTY.

What Would Have Happened Without the ALR HEARING?

If my partner, Hunter Biederman, would not have fought as hard in the ALR hearing, the results would have been much different.  The State, most likely, would have coached the officer prior to trial and the officer would have offered an alternative excuse for why she stopped our client.  However, since we had pinned her testimony down at the ALR hearing, this was not an option for the State.  Our client was found NOT GUILTY because of how we handled the ALR hearing.  So, don't let anyone tell you that ALR hearings are not important.  Our client would beg to differ.  After being TKO’d on a breath test case, the State would disagree as well.

 
Tags:
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.dallasdwilawblog.com/admin/trackback/111362
Comments (1) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Brandon Borden - February 12, 2009 6:34 AM

"An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection."

The above is from your link to the Traffic Code regarding the stop line ALR case. Seems to contradict, no?

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.