On July 29, 2007, I was stopped by a police officer while leaving a parking lot where I had been parked at a nearby store. The officer said that he wanted to question me about an incident where another vehicle had been harassed by a man driving a truck matching my description. After politely answering the officer’s questions, the officer determined there was no problem. He said I hadn’t done anything wrong. He was right, I hadn’t done anything wrong. Or had I? That’s where everything went downhill!
The officer then said he smelled alcohol coming from my truck. I told the officer the smell coming from my truck was the air freshener I had used that day when I had detailed my truck. I told the officer I had the bottle of the air freshener in my tool chest, and asked him to smell it. He said he had no interest in checking out the air freshener, and asked me to step out of my truck. I complied. The officer then asked me if I had been drinking that day. I told him I had not been drinking any alcohol that day. He then asked me to perform some field sobriety tests. I told the officer I would perform the tests. I performed the field sobriety tests as requested. I first performed the HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) test and was told I had failed. Although my balance was excellent, I had difficulty performing the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg stand tests. I was told I also failed these tests. I’m almost sixty years old and have some lower back problems which make these tests difficult for me to say the least. Not to mention the fact, that I was wearing flip flop sandals while performing these tests on an un-even parking lot.
I was then asked to perform a portable breathalyzer test. I told the officer I would perform the portable breath test, but I would also like to have an independent alcohol blood test. The officer told me I would have to perform the portable breath test and could not have the independent blood test. He said it was his call on which test I did, not mine. Once again, I requested a blood alcohol test. He said I would have to get the blood test on my own time. I then took the portable breath test which I failed. I was then arrested and taken to the police station where I failed another breath test, and was then given a free ride to jail!
Within the next seven months I would make an initial court appearance, be appointed a public defender, and plead guilty (PLEA HELD IN ABEYANCE) at a bench trial in the city justice court.
Within a few days of my guilty plea, I knew I needed help. I had to find a top notch DUI attorney if I had any chance of survival. I did extensive research and kept coming up with one name, Glen Neeley.
I set up an appointment with Glen, and he agreed to defend me. Little did I know what chain of events would unfold over the next twenty months!
Within a few days of my first meeting with Glen on February 25, 2008, my guilty plea had been withdrawn and defense motions were being filed in preparation for a possible jury trial to come in the justice court. Glen had put the court on notice!
After six suppression motions and hearings on the motions, a jury trial, and an appeal, the arresting officer walked into the district court on June 22, 2009, with the arrest video that he had testified did not exist in previous hearings, because his video equipment was broken. The video was played in court and contradicted the officer’s previous testimony and police report. I did not appear at all intoxicated in the video, nor were the entire field sobriety tests performed properly as was testified to in previous hearings!
After the hearing, Glen immediately filed a motion to dismiss with the court, under a case called Brady v Maryland. The government can not conceal or hide evidence!
The District Court Judge studied the motion for almost two months. On November 4, 2009, Glen received a ruling on the motion in the mail ending with “CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
A ruling of this magnitude is a rare occurrence, and will no doubt affect future court cases for other defendants. Justice has been well served!
Thanks again so much Glen. Without your hard work, dedication and expertise, this monumental win would not have been possible!
I had just left Idaho where I had been hunting black bear. While passing through Utah, Utah highway patrol stopped me. After a couple of field sobriety tests, they arrested me, impounded my vehicle, and kept my self defense and hunting guns as evidence. I was charged with failing to stay in one lane, DUI, and being in possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. I lived out of state and did not know where to turn. If you are reading this, then you know how I found Mr. Neeley.
I was fortunate enough to select Glen Neeley to represent me. That was the only smart thing I did in Utah; but it was brilliant! Mr. Neeley soon discovered an error was made while conducting my breathalyzer test, which registered a .13. In the driver’s license suspension hearing, the decision was to suspend my license despite the error. We decided to appeal.
Prior to trial on the three charges, the prosecutor and arresting trooper agreed a serious error was made. They agreed to drop all three charges. This was only the first act of magic!
Utah Highway patrol continued to be reluctant to return my guns. Mr. Neeley worked with them and finally convinced them to turn them over to him for him to send to me. This was no small feat. The magic continued.
For the appeal of the DL suspension, Mr. Neeley showed the results of the criminal charges, the evidence and errors, and was able to convince the attorney on the other side that an appeal trial would not be worth the effort. She stipulated to no action on the DL. More magic!
Initially my case, it seemed to me, was very dismal. I was expecting the worse but the results were the best they could be. I deserve the credit for selecting Mr. Neeley. He deserves ALL the credit for stellar the results.
Harvey S. Testimonial
“Being arrested for a DUI is a miserable experience. For many people this is the first introduction into the bowels of the criminal justice system in Utah. When this unfortunate experience happened to me, I was traumatized but not immobile. Even though it is a misdemeanor for a first offense, my experience observing the court here is that if you put yourself in a position where you have a record, a second offense in Utah could be devastating. From my limited experience living in Utah, I knew that I did not want to trust my fate to the mercy of the court as there is none. I immediately began researching the best DUI lawyers available in Utah. All paths kept leading back Glen. He was totally upfront, professional, kept my morale up, and did everything he promised. Although my day in court was a truly miserable experience, the nine month wait preceding it was even more disconcerting. But all stories are incomplete until the ending. Glen’s closing arguments in my jury trial were the work of a maestro. The only thing more enjoyable that day was when the jury came back in less than an hour and I heard the words, “NOT GUILTY”! Thanks Glen, you were worth it.”
Jason P. Testimonial
Heather B. TESTIMONIAL
Robert O TESTIMONIAL
This was my second offense. I thought I had a good case in my first offense. I went with an attorney that was convenient. He did absolutely nothing. He showed up ten minutes before I was to appear before a judge. He met with the prosecutor for about five minutes came out and said congratulations I got it reduced to an ARR(Alcohol Related Reckless). After fines and fees I spent over 3800.00 plus alcohol evaluation, 20 AA meetings, 40 hours community service and probation.
My second offense I didn’t think there was any hope. The prosecutor had several witnesses. There was a witness that said I could barely get into my truck, and a witness that called 911 after she saw me swerving down the road in addition to the cops that administered the tests…which I failed.
Glen met with the prosecutor and was offered an ARR. Glen said either dismiss the case or we are going to trial…we went to trial. He is amazing in the court room. I never thought we would win until he started redirecting the prosecutor’s witnesses. The prosecutor was very prepared but Glen made him look like a law student. When it was all said and done the verdict came down “NOT GUILTY”
Glen met with me several times and spent many hours on my case. This was money well spent. I don’t think you could find a better lawyer. He will do all that is possible to defend you.
Robert O. Salt Lake City, Ut.
January 15, 2009
Mr. S was pulled over in Park City. The officer claimed that S failed to use his turn signal twice. The video confirmed at least one failure to use the turn signal. The officer claimed S smelled of alcohol, had poor dexterity, slurred speech, failed all field sobriety tests, and refused to take a breath test. S took the stand and testified on his own behalf that he drank no alcohol that night, that he was the designated driver, that was getting directions from five people in the car, and that he would not take the breath test because he did not trust the officers after they told him he failed all field tests. A video was presented in trial of his demeanor and driving pattern. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty in less than an hour.
October 31, 2008
Mrs. P was pulled over for failing to maintain her lane of travel and weaving. The officer testified that she was weaving in and out of her travel lane, that she stopped eight car legnths before the traffic light, and did not pull over for 3 blocks once the officer put on his lights and sirens. The officer noticed slurred speech, poor balance, red eyes, and fine motor skill problems. Mrs. P failed all field sobriety tests horribly. Her blood test was positive for rx drugs, pain killers. Mrs. P defense was simply this, reasonable doubt. She didn’t hear the sirens because her radio was too loud. She couldn’t do the tests because she just had knee surgery. She was weaving because she was reaching for CDs in her car. The jury was out for three hours before rendering a verdict of not guilty.
Mr. P was pulled over earlier this year. The officer to Mr. P that he made a wide right turn. Later, Mr. P’s citation said he ran a red light. This month, Mr. P had the guts to turn down the city’s offers to plead to a lessor charge, and instead, take his case to trial before a jury. The officer described Mr. P has having a strong odor of alcohol on him, swaying with unsteady balance, slurred speech, 6/6 clues on the HGN, 4/8 clues on the 9 Step Walk and Turn, and 3/4 clues on the one legged stand. The officer gave Mr. P a breath test which was introduced at trial to be a .095. Mr. P testified in his own defense and told the jury what happened from his perspective. He told the jury how he was coughing the whole time the officer was supposed to be watching him prior to the breath test, which could have caused the breath test to give a false high reading. In essence, it was shown that the officer did not follow the proper procedures. The jury rendered a verdict of Not Guilty on the DUI in about 20 minutes. The jury found Mr. P guilty on running a red light, which Mr. P admitted while he was testifying.
Mr. S was accused of driving with no headlights, weaving, and taking a long time to pull over. The Murray City police described a man that had problems with his obtaining his license and registration, problems putting his car in park, slow and very slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol, and problems standing up. The cops described Mr. S as being very combative and trying to escape at least three times. As the trial went on, Mr. S testified in his own behalf and told the jury how the police attacked him when he tried to record the officers verbally and physically assaulting him. Despite all the officers efforts to paint Mr. S as a drunken driver, the jury found Mr. S Not Guilty in 1 hour and 30 Minutes.
Mr. R was charged with intoxication, assault with serious bodily injury, disorderly conduct, and criminal mischief. Mr. R was accused of breaking the finger of another person while being intoxicated. He was accused of destroying the phone of the other person, and he was accused of engaging in fighting behavior. Mr. R was found Not Guilty of all four charges.
Mr. R lost his driving privileges at the driver’s license hearing. The case was appealed to the District Court. R was accused of too much rx drugs in his system. He was found asleep in his truck, engine running, and not very responsive. He was asked to do field sobriety tests and failed. He was arrested. At the appeal, the judge gave him his driver’s license back based on the fact that the officer failed to show up.
Mr. S was accused of DUI and no license plate light. The officer pulled S over for no license plate light. He smelled alcohol and called another officer to investigate for DUI. Second officer did Field Sobriety Tests and ultimately arrested S for DUI. A breath test was taken and S was .09. Several motions were filed to suppress the breath test on the grounds the officer never checked S’s mouth prior to the test as required by law and motions were filed to dismiss the case for an illegal arrest. All motions were denied and the case was set for trial. The jury was seated and we were heading for opening statements. The State had four witnesses read to testify that S was drunk. The State offered a non-dui charge (reckless driving) after the State realized they made a serious mistake in prosecuting the case.
June 29, 2007
Ms. D was accused of DUI. This was a trial for her Driver’s License. The officer testified that she was all over the road in her driving almost hitting someone, she spoke slow, had red and watery eyes, poor balance, positive for alcohol on the PBT, failed miserably on the nine step walk and turn and the one legged stand. We argued that she was just plain emotional and upset. She took a breath test and received a result of .10. The judge ruled that the officer did not have the probable cause to arrest Ms. D. Therefore, she was able to keep her driver’s license.
June 8, 2007
The Trial of Mr. O (actual name omitted) actually began a month before. When the first witness was called, he had reports that he did not turn over to the defense. Rather than the judge declare a mistrial or strike the evidence, which is common in these instances, the judge continued the case for a month. We started right where we left off with the first witness. The officers accused Mr. O of driving erratically, stumbling around, having slurred speech, an extremely strong odor of alcohol, red eyes, and failing all of the field sobriety tests. Fortunately, the jury saw through the exaggerations. Mr. O did not testify according to my advice. After one hour and five minutes, the jury found Mr. O not guilty of DUI.
April 9, 2007
Ms. B was accused of DUI. The officer accused her of having slurred speech, poor balance, red and glassey eyes, and driving without headlights. The officer testified that she failed three field sobriety tests and blew over the legal limit on a Preliminary Breath Tester. The officer administered an intoxilyzer 8000 test to her, which rendered the result of .11. The prosecution called an expert to testify that the test result was accurate and reliable. The officer and the technician was cross examined and Ms. B testified on her own behalf. The jury rendered a verdict of Not Guilty in 45 minutes.
May 22, 2007
Mr. C was accused of possession of drug paraphernalia. The police searched Mr. C’s truck and found a syringe. The police then searched Mr. C’s home and found a box of syringes in the bathroom. The police testified that Mr. C admitted he was addicted to meth and other drugs. Mr. C did not testify on his own behalf. This case was heard before a judge, not a jury. The judge rendered a verdict of Not Guilty.
March 28, 2007
Mr. B was accused of DUI. Mr. B was traveling in a truck on a mountain road when it rolled. He was accused of slow and slurred speech, poor balance, red and glassy eyes, and failing all field sobriety tests. He took a breath test that rendered a .18 breath test. After the jury was seated, the prosecutor dismissed the DUI and Mr. B plead guilty to intoxication.
March 8, 2007
Mr. S was accused of DUI. His car was stuck in a snow bank. The officer accused him of slow and slurred speech, red and glossy eyes, poor balance, admitting he was highly drunk, and failing all field sobriety tests. Mr. S refused all chemical tests. The jury rendered a verdict of Not Guilty in 2 hours.
March 6, 2007
Mr. P was accused of DUI. The officers accused Mr. P of urinating on himself, slow and slurred speech, red and glassy eyes, poor balance, strong odor of alcohol, unable to stand up straight, and refusing all tests. On the day of trial, the prosecutor dismissed the DUI and Mr. P plead guilty to reckless driving (non-alcohol related).
January 6, 2006
Mr. K. was accused of DUI and rolling through a stop sign. The Trooper testified that Mr. K had slow and slurred speech, was very combative and rude, uncooperative, poor balance, red blood shot and glassy eyes, failed all attempts of field tests, refused to do most of the field tests, wreaked of alcohol, and “totally drunk” in the Trooper’s opinion. A second officer supported this testimony with backing up everything the Trooper testified to and emphasizing that Mr. K was talking real loudly. The prosecutor would not offer any sort of plea deal because it was Mr. K’s second offense. The jury rendered a verdict of Not Guilty in 1 hour 20 minutes.