PK was stopped by police after officers observed her speeding and then her car stalled on the road. At the time of the stop, officers concluded PK’s driver’s license was suspended and she was arrested for driving on a suspended license. Following the arrest, the officer smelled alcohol on PK’s breath and once in custody PK started to act belligerently. As a result of the officers ‘observations, PK’s actions and the scent of alcohol on her breath the officers cited PK for driving under the influence of alcohol.
After our office was contacted by PK we started our investigation into her case. We discovered that PK’s license was reinstated prior to the date of the arrest. We also discovered there was a video which showed her driving.
Prior to trial, we brought proof from to the Assistant State’s Attorney about the status of PK’s license and the charge for driving on a suspended license was dismissed. Therefore, when we went to trial it was only for the charge of driving under the influence. At trial we were able to cross exam the arresting officer about the facts and circumstances of the arrest. On cross examination we were able to elicit testimony where the officer admitted he could not tell that PK was under the influence based on the way she was driving the vehicle. The officer further testified that he only believed PK was under the influence after the arrest due in large part to her ‘belligerent’ behavior. The Judge ruled that he thought it was possible that PK was driving under the influence but he had doubt and therefore he must rule “not guilty.” RESULT- NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL.
