Case Results

The following is a sampling of cases handled by our firm. These are actual case results and are verifiable to the California State Bar. These particular cases were chosen to demonstrate the wide spectrum of strategies and skills that we employ, as well as the variety of cases that we handle. When you’re facing criminal prosecution and your liberty is at stake it’s important to have a skilled, experienced Irvine DUI lawyer by your side.

PEOPLE V. DANNY E. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: DISMISSED ON SUPPRESSION MOTION

A partygoer called 911 and reported that Danny was starting fights at the party. The caller provided police with Danny’s license plate number and a description of his car and person.

As the police entered the housing area they saw Danny’s vehicle waiting at the light to leave. The officer pulled behind Danny’s car and shined his spotlight into Danny’s window. The officer walked to Danny’s open window and, as he spoke with Danny, smelled alcohol on his breath. After a DUI investigation, Danny was arrested for DUI. His blood-alcohol level was above a 0.20%.

Mr. Stopyro filed a suppression motion, challenging the legality of the stop. He argued that the “fights” that were reported by the caller may have simply been political arguments about the recent election. In that case the fights would be legal and protected conduct. Therefore, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime occurred. Although the officer never actually turned on his red and blue lights, Mr. Stopyro found case law holding that when a police officer shines his spotlight into a car it becomes a “detention”, which requires reasonable suspicion. The judge granted Mr. Stopyro’s motion and dismissed the entire case.

(Department H-6, Judge Hatchimonji presiding)

PEOPLE V. SUNNY A. (THIRD-OFFENSE DUI/REFUSAL)

RESULT: DISMISSED AFTER A HUNG JURY

Sunny was driving on the 55 freeway when two CHP officers saw her speeding and following too close. They pulled her over and she admitted to drinking and to “being intoxicated”. She refused to perform any field sobriety tests and refused to take a blood or breath test.

Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro convinced the jury that although Sunny had been drinking, she was not legally impaired at the time of driving. He pointed out that after the police officers turned on their red lights, Sunny was able to skillfully maneuver her car through a very busy freeway interchange that was under construction–moving across several lanes, exiting the freeway and parking perfectly. Moreover, at the roadside, she didn’t stumble or fall or have any balance problems. He also argued that the officer did not effectively advise his client of her requirement to submit to a test. The jury voted 11 to one in favor of “not guilty” and the judge dismissed the case. (Trial in Department W- 8 of the West Justice Center, Judge Ronald Owen presiding.)

PEOPLE V. KAYLEN H. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: REDUCED TO WET RECKLESS

Kaylen was driving through Huntington Beach when he ran into a car ahead of him at a traffic light. Kaylen and the other motorist pulled into a parking lot to assess the damage. Although the other motorist was upset, there was no damage to either vehicle. The police saw the two men in the parking lot and saw that one was angry. They came to investigate. Kaylen explained that there was no damage and attempted to walk away. But the officer asked both men for ID. The officer smelled alcohol coming from Kaylen and said his eyes were bloodshot. Kaylen took field sobriety tests and was ultimately arrested for DUI. He blew a 0.08% on the breath test several times.

Being a licensed professional, Kaylen’s professional license was in jeopardy if he were to be convicted of a DUI. An unsympathetic DA refused to reduce the charge to a wet reckless. Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro filed a motion to suppress all evidence in Kaylen’s case, arguing that the initial detention of Kaylen was illegal for lack of reasonable suspicion. In exchange for withdrawing the motion the DA agreed to drop the charge to a wet reckless. (West Justice Center, Department W-12)

PEOPLE V. DEBORAH C. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

While driving on the 405 freeway Deborah was pulled over by the CHP. The officer said he paced her on his speedometer exceeding the speed limit by a few miles per hour. The officer reported the usual signs of intoxication; a strong odor of alcohol coming from Deborah, red eyes, slurred speech, and poor balance. Deborah failed her field sobriety tests and had a blood-alcohol of 0.15 percent. (About twice the legal limit.)

Irvine DUI attorney Stopyro contested the legality of the initial stop. He filed a suppression motion requesting that all the evidence be thrown out. In exchange for withdrawing the suppression motion the District Attorney agreed to reduce the charge against Deborah to a wet reckless. (Department H-13 of the Harbor Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. SON A. (THIRD-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: JURY VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

When leaving a bar in Orange, Son pulled out in front of a semi truck, causing the truck to brake and narrowly miss her. The police pulled her over and she failed the field sobriety tests. She blew a .08% on the breath test.

At trial Mr. Stopyro showed that the officer did not conduct the breath-test properly. Mr. Stopyro also proved that the officer did not follow proper procedure at the scene and that although the client had been drinking, the alcohol had not yet reached her bloodstream at the time of driving and she was not legally impaired for driving purposes. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. (Trial in Department C-51 of the Central Justice Center, Judge John Adams presiding.)

PEOPLE V. MANUEL T. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: JURY VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

After arguing with a customer at a local store, the client drove home. The customer immediately called the police with the client’s license plate number and reported that Manuel was driving drunk. The police arrived at Manuel’s house several minutes after he got home and conducted a DUI investigation. Manuel failed his field sobriety tests and the police arrested him for DUI. His blood-alcohol was .13%.

At trial, Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro established the time gap between between Manuel’s return home and the arrival of the police. He then exposed the strong possibility that the client may have consumed some alcohol at home in the few short minutes before the police arrived. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. (Trial in Department W-7 of the West Justice Center, Judge Glenda Sanders presiding.)

PEOPLE V. CHRIS H. (HIT & RUN)

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

Chris accidentally struck three parked cars in a residential neighborhood, causing major damages to two vehicles. Chris panicked and drove home without leaving his information or attempting to contact the owners. Witnesses gave police Chris’s license number and description. The police went to Chris’s residence and Chris confessed. He was arrested for hit and run (California Vehicle Code Section 20002)

During pretrial proceedings, Mr. Stopyro made it clear that he would bring a motion to challenge the confession and would take the case to trial. Mr. Stopyro suggested a “civil compromise” whereby Chris would pay for any damage not covered by insurance if the DA would dismiss all charges against Chris. The DA agreed, all damage was covered by insurance, and the entire case against Chris was dismissed. (Department H-2 of the Harbor Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. JANE R. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI—DRUGS)

RESULT: CHARGE REDUCED TO A WET RECKLESS

A citizen saw Jane’s car weaving from lane to lane, occasionally “riding the reflectors” and almost strike the curb. The citizen called 911 and a police officer came and followed Jane. The officer saw Jane weaving across lanes and almost it the center divider several times. The officer stopped Jane and she badly failed all of her field sobriety tests. She admitted to taking Valium and was arrested for DUI Drugs. The blood test by the crime lab showed levels of drug well beyond the therapeutic range and into the toxic levels. This result was confirmed by our own expert in an independent analysis of Jane’s blood sample.

Jane’s biggest concern, aside from being convicted of a DUI, was the driver’s license suspension. As a driver, her employment was contingent upon having a valid driver’s license and avoiding a suspension from the DMV.

Mr. Stopyro met with the special drug DUI prosecutor assigned to Jane’s case. Mr. Stopyro appealed to the prosecutor to show leniency in Jane’s case since she had no prior record of any criminal convictions, worked full-time and needed a driver’s license to keep working. Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro provided the DA with letters of recommendation from friends and co-workers. He also showed that Jane initially started using Valium to beat an alcohol addiction. In addition, Mr. Stopyro pointed out that Jane had the flu at the time of driving, which could have caused the bad driving. The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to a wet reckless provided Jane attend self-help meetings. As a result, Jane avoided a DUI conviction and avoided any driver’s license suspension. (West Justice Center, Department W-12)

PEOPLE V. SHAHIN N. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

A CHP officer came upon a car parked in the center divider of the 73 Toll Road. The officer approached the car and found Shahin stretched out on the back seat fast asleep. After many attempts to awaken him by banging on the window, Shahin finally woke up. The officer reported a strong smell of alcohol, slurred speech, and red, watery eyes. Shahin failed some of the field sobriety tests and was unable to perform the rest. His blood alcohol was a 0.19%.

Mr. Stopyro got statements from Shahin’s wife as well as from two friends establishing that Shahin was not driving that night. Rather, Shahin’s wife had driven and when the car broke down, Shahin decided to stay with it and his two friends came and picked his wife up. Unfortunately, Shahin didn’t tell the officer that he had not driven of explain that his wife had driven. Irvine DUI attorney Stopyro argued that Shahin was simply too intoxicated to understand what was happening during his arrest and too intoxicated to explain his innocence. Mr. Stopyro’s argument was supported by the high blood-alcohol and Shahin’s performance on the field sobriety tests.

Rather than go to trial the District Attorney agreed to drop all charges against Shahin. (Department H-2 of the Harbor Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. BRIAN B. (DRUG TRANSPORTATION, DRUG POSSESSION AND DUI)

RESULT: DUI DISMISSED, NO JAIL TIME, DRUG TREATMENT ONLY.

After being stopped for traffic violations, Brian consented to a search of his car. The police found 13 separate balloons of heroine in Brian’s car as well as a pipe. Brian was charged with felony drug trafficking, felony drug possession, and DUI. Brian was facing four years in the state prison. Brian also faced additional jail time because he was on probation at the time.

During pretrial negotiations, Mr. Stopyro indicated that even though Brian consented to the search, the search still may have violated Brian’s 4th Amendment rights. In exchange for not litigating the search issue, the prosecutor agreed to immediately dismiss the DUI and to dismiss all the other charges against Brian once he successfully completed drug diversion. Brian also had to do 30 days of community service. (Department H-1 of the Harbor Justice Center)

MATTER OF ROD F. (DMV HEARING AFTER A DUI ARREST)

RESULT: SUSPENSION SET-ASIDE

The police stopped Rod after they clocked him on radar doing nearly 15 miles over the speed limit. Rod was arrested for DUI and a blood test showed his blood-alcohol was 0.12%. However, the officer incorrectly completed the DMV forms. At the DMV hearing Mr. Stopyro cited case law supporting his argument that the police report was not reliable evidence. The suspension against Rod was rescinded. (Irvine Driver Safety Office)

PEOPLE V. RICARDO D. (SECOND-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: 60 DAYS HOME CONFINEMENT

Ricardo was driving on the 91 freeway around midnight after a night of drinking. A CHP unit was following Ricardo in the number 4 lane (slow lane). Ricardo drifted three to four feet onto the shoulder of the 91 and then returned to his lane. He then drifted back onto the shoulder. The CHP stopped him and Ricardo failed all of his field sobriety tests. His two breath test results were both 0.14%. Ricardo has a prior DUI within the past ten years.

Ricardo’s drinking pattern (what he drank and ate and when he consumed it) was NOT conducive to a rising defense. Moreover, no other defenses were available in Ricardo’s case. The Orange County District Attorney offered to settle the case for standard DUI fines and programs PLUS 60 days in the Orange County jail. (a fairly standard offer for a second-offense DUI in Orange County) Irvine DUI attorney Stopyro met with the Judge in chambers and explained that Ricardo had a full-time job, had a young son to provide for, and was completely cooperative with and respectful toward the CHP. Moreover, EJ explained to the judge that Ricardo would lose his job if he was forced to do jail time.

The judge granted Mr. Stopyro’s request to allow Ricardo to do his sixty days in home confinement in lieu of jail time. During home confinement Ricardo was allowed to leave his home on work days to go to work. (Department N-9 North Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. STEVEN H. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: CHARGE REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

Steven was pulled over by the Orange County Sheriff’s for expired tags. Steven failed all his field sobriety tests and his blood test result was a 0.15%. (Nearly twice the legal limit.) Mr. Stopyro brought a suppression motion based on lack of choice between a blood or breath test. At the hearing Mr. Stopyro’s cross-examination of the arresting deputy showed that the deputy lacked credibility. Rather than go to trial the DA agreed to reduce the charge to reckless driving. (Department S-3 of the South Justice Center, Judge Louis Rodriguez presiding)

PEOPLE V. JOHN M. (FELONY DRUG POSSESSION)

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

John was sitting in his car in the parking lot of an Irvine park after the park had closed. He became argumentative with police when they questioned him and he wouldn’t follow their commands`. The police “patted him down” and found a small mint container with some Vicodin pills inside. The client was charged with felony drug possession.

Mr. Stopyro found and presented case law supporting his position that the evidence had been illegally seized since the police didn’t have the right to put their hands on his client in the first place. Case dismissed. (Department H-2 of the Harbor Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. ROBERT G. (SECOND-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: DISMISSED ON APPEAL

Robert crashed his car into a building in a downtown area at night. When the police arrived two witnesses pointed at Robert, who was standing near his car on his cell phone. His car was stuck up on a planter box. Robert exhibited a strong odor of alcohol, red, watery eyes, and trouble maintaining his balance. Robert refused to give a blood or breath sample or to take field sobriety tests. Robert resisted the officers and tried to leave the scene. Robert was convicted and sentenced to 90-days in the Orange County Jail.

Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro kept Robert out of jail while he filed an appeal on grounds of insufficient evidence and improper admission of evidence. The appeal was granted. The conviction was reversed and the entire case against Robert was dismissed without Robert ever serving a day of the 90-day jail sentence. (Appellate Divisioin, Central Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. EDWARD G. (SECOND-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: DISMISSAL OF CHARGES IN RETURN FOR PLEA TO DRUNK IN PUBLIC

Police found Edward asleep at the wheel at the side of the road. The engine was running, Edward’s seatbelt was on, the lights were on, the car was in gear, and Edward’s foot was on the brake. Police turned off Edward’s car and woke him up. Edward failed his field sobriety tests, admitted to being intoxicated, admitted to driving on a suspended license, and had a blood-alcohol level of .15%.

Edward was charged with DUI, driving on a suspended license, and driving without a license. In court, the prosecutor offered him a lengthy jail stay in the Orange County jail, a huge fine, and five years of probation.

Mr. Stopyro filed two pretrial motioins to exclude all evidence based on a violation of Edward’s 4th Amendment rights. Before the motions could be heard, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges against Edward if, in return, he pled guilty to being drunk in public and paid a small fine with no jail. (Department N-5, North Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. GREG M. (FELONY DRUG POSSESSION)

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

The client was at a bookstore when a Garden Grove police officer asked him for his consent to search his truck. Greg agreed and gave the officer consent. The officer found a container of methamphetamine under the floor mat. The client was charged with felony drug possession.

Mr. Stopyro filed a suppression motion, challenging the validity of the search on constitutional grounds. Mr. Stopyro argued that although consent appeared to be voluntarily given, the circumstances were such that an ordinary person wouldn’t really feel free to decline the officer’s “request”. The judge agreed with Mr. Stopyro’s argument and ordered the evidence suppressed. Without the evidence, the DA was forced to drop all charges against the client. (Department W-8 of the West Justice Center, Judge Ronald Owen presiding)

PEOPLE V. STEVEN H. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: DUI CHARGE REDUCED TO “RECKLESS DRIVING” WITH NO JAIL TIME

Steven was stopped for swerving out of his lane and other traffic violations. After failing all his field sobriety tests he was arrested for DUI. His blood-alcohol was .13%. We filed a motion to suppress the blood test result because Steve was not given the choice of a blood or breath test. The district attorney agreed to dismiss the DUI charge if Steven pled to a reckless driving charge and paid a $250.00 fine. (South Justice Center, Judge Louis Rodriguez presiding)

PEOPLE V. GABE H. (HIT AND RUN)

RESULT: (CASE DISMISSED AFTER DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT)

While maneuvering his vehicle through the crowded streets near his home in Laguna Beach, Gabe struck another vehicle that was unloading passengers at the beach. Gabe drove away from the scene and parked his vehicle several blocks away. The other driver got his license number and called the police. Gabe was arrested and charged with hit and run in violation of Vehicle Code Section 20002.

Mr. Stopyro met with the DA on behalf of Gabe. He pointed out that Gabe had no criminal record, worked full-time, had a family to support, and the offense was very minor. Moreover, Mr. Stopyro explained to the DA that they may have a hard time proving a case of hit and run against Gabe since Section 20002 of the Vehicle Code allows a driver to leave the scene if there is no place to safely park his car. Here, the street was indisputably crowded with people and cars. Also, by the time Gabe returned to the scene on foot, the victim was on the beach and nowhere to be found. Thus, Gabe could reasonably believe that the victim didn’t want his information.

Instead of going to trial, the DA agreed to dismiss the case if Gabe attended and completed a 12-hour class on personal responsibility and gave a saliva sample (DNA). Gabe completed the class and the charge of hit and run was dismissed with no conviction ever being entered on Gabe’s record. (Harbor Justice Center, Dept. H-7)

PEOPLE V. LINDA E. (THIRD-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: HUNG JURY, PLEA TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO JAIL TIME

Linda was driving home while her license was suspended for another DUI when she struck a parked car. She left the scene and continued home. A witness followed her and called the police. Officers arrived at Linda’s home irvine dui lawyerseveral minutes later, finding her extremely intoxicated. She admitted to driving drunk and to leaving the accident scent. Her blood-alcohol was .23%.

At trial Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro presented evidence that the client actually drank after she returned home from the accident. He argued that her confession was unreliable because she was extremely drunk when she made it. The jury was deadlocked—roughly half voting not guilty and the other half voting guilty. The judge declared a mistrial and in order to avoid retrying the case the DA accepted the client’s plea to reckless driving with a fine and NO JAIL TIME. (Trial in Department W-17 of the West Justice Center, Judge Nho Nguyen presiding.)

PEOPLE V. JOSE S. (THIRD-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: DUI PROGRAM, NO JAIL TIME

In 2011 Jose was stopped for numerous traffic violations, including speeding and swerving in and out of his lane. HIs speech was heavily slurred, he smelled strongly of alcohol and he failed all of the field sobriety tests he could complete. Both blood and breath tests revealed a blood-alcohol level of .22%. (Nearly three times the legal limit) Jose had two prior DUI convictions in 2004 and 2007 and was on probation for the 2007 DUI.

The District Attorney offered Jose one year in the Orange County jail. In chambers, Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro convinced the judge that Jose was an otherwise upstanding citizen but had an addiction to alcohol. Mr. Stopyro lobbied to have his client admitted to an alcohol program instead of jail and, upon successful completion, Jose would serve no jail time. The judge agreed and Jose was admitted to a DUI court program instead of jail. Jose agreed to attend counseling, test regularly for alcohol, do some community service and serve some time on “house arrest” instead of going to jail for a year.

PEOPLE V. MASURO N. (THIRD-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: HOME CONFINEMENT 8 MONTHS

With two prior DUI’s under his belt, Masuro was clocked speeding—going 70 in a 45 zone. He was too intoxicated to complete the field sobriety tests and two breath tests resulted in a reading of 0.18%. He was facing a year in the county jail plus an additional mandatory 60-day jail enhancement for the excessive speed.

Irvine DUI attorney Stopyro convinced the judge that it would be more beneficial to society to allow his client to serve 240 days of home confinement where his client could only leave his home to go to work, school, an alcohol program and for the necessities of life. (Department W-3 of the West Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. ROBERTO C. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: DUI CHARGE REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

irvine dui lawyerRoberto was stopped by the CHP for driving in excess of 90 miles per hour while passing other cars. He failed his field sobriety tests and submitted to a breath test with a result of a .08% and later to a blood test with a result of a .09% blood-alcohol content. In negotiations with the prosecutor, Mr. Stopyro explained that the two different results indicated that Roberto’s blood alcohol was rising at the time of the two tests. (rising defense) Therefore, Roberto’s blood-alcohol may actually have been below the legal limit at the time of driving. Mr. Stopyro said he would proceed to trial on this defense.

Rather than go to trial, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the DUI charge. In exchange Roberto plead guilty to reckless driving and paid a $250.00 fine.

PEOPLE V. SHAYNE S. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: CHARGE REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

The police noticed Shayne weaving while driving on surface streets. They followed him onto the freeway where he continued to weave. They paced him driving at 78 miles-per-hour. Shayne failed all of his field sobriety tests and had a blood-alcohol of 0.10%.

During a pretrial conference, when Mr. Stopyro met with the District Attorney (“DA”) handling the case, Mr. Stopyro pointed out that Shayne was stopped only minutes after finishing his last drink. The alcohol test, however, was taken long after he was pulled over. Therefore, there was a chance that Shayne could raise the rising defense at trial. Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro suggested that the DA reduce the charge to reckless driving and avoid trial. The DA agreed and Shayne pled to reckless driving. (Department W-3 of the West Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. RALPH B. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: CHARGE REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

Ralph was involved in a fender-bender. When sheriff’s deputies came, they smelled alcohol on Ralph and noticed he had poor balance and slurred speech. Ralph failed his field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. A blood test showed his blood-alcohol was 0.12%

Mr. Stopyro filed a motion to suppress the blood-test result on the grounds that the arresting deputy failed to give Ralph a choice between breath and blood. Rather than litigate the motion, the DA agreed to reduce the charge to reckless driving. (Department H-2 of the Harbor Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. CHAD P. (HIT & RUN, DUI)

RESULT: DISMISSAL OF HIT & RUN, NO JAIL FOR DUI

Chad was driving home when he struck the rear of a parked car, causing substantial damage. Chad left the scene without leaving his information. Several witnesses gave police Chad’s license plate number as well as a description of Chad.

Police went to Chad’s apartment and saw Chad outside. When they commanded him to stop he ran around back. irvine dui attorneyHe climbed up to his back balcony and hid in his apartment. The police broke the front door down and arrested Chad inside. His blood-alcohol was 0.16%.

During pretrial negotiations, Irvine DUI attorney Stopyro pointed out that the collision occurred close to Chad’s home and contended that Chad did intend to return in the morning and exchange information. Mr. Stopyro also relied on Chad’s otherwise clean record and his status as a full-time worker to convince the DA to dismiss the Hit & Run, not charge Chad with resisting arrest, and make a no-jail, probation-only offer for the DUI. (Department H-2 of the Harbor Justice Center)

PEOPLE V. RENEE L. (FIRST-OFFENSE DUI)

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

Police were called to check on a motorist who was slumped over the steering wheel of a parked car. When they arrived the police noticed that the car was parked at an angle to the curb so the back end stuck out. They found Renee asleep in the driver’s seat of her car, which was parked near her home. The police woke her up and found her to be disoriented and to smell strongly of alcohol. Her speech was heavily slurred and she said she was “going home”. Renee refused to take a blood or breath test. Renee was charged with DUI and Refusal.

Renee contended that she drank at home and went to sit in her car over an hour before the police arrived. Irvine DUI lawyer Stopyro conducted a thorough investigation of the scene and eventually discovered an independent witness corroborating that Renee had been sitting in her car for more than an hour before the police arrived. When Mr. Stopyro presented the witness the DA dismissed all charges against Renee. (Department H-2 of the Harbor Justice Center)