How I Beat a DUI Charge by Challenging Unreliable Police Evidence

When Cops Go the Extra Mile—Literally

One of the most interesting cases I recently handled involved a DUI charge where the officer went to great lengths to justify a questionable stop. After pulling my client over, the officer—who was clearly set on proving he made the right call—decided to go out and film himself making the same right-hand turn at the same intersection. He brought a buddy to film it, creating a taxpayer-funded roadside science experiment to bolster his claim.

While I commend his commitment to proving a point, the law doesn’t allow officers to manufacture reasonable suspicion after the fact. Reasonable suspicion must be based on the circumstances at the time of the stop—not on a carefully staged video demonstration made days or weeks later.

In this case, the prosecutor ultimately offered a non-DUI plea after I challenged the officer’s interpretation of the law and pointed out the flaws in his homemade evidence. It was a good outcome for my client and a reminder that knowing the law—and challenging police assumptions—can make all the difference.

Why This Matters: The Right Way to Challenge Police Evidence

When you’re facing a DUI charge—or any criminal charge—the prosecution often tries to make it seem like the officer’s word is gold. But cops aren’t perfect, and sometimes they misunderstand the law or go too far in trying to justify their actions. That’s where a thorough legal defense becomes necessary. Here are the key lessons from this case that could help you or someone you know:

1. Reasonable Suspicion Must Be Based on the Law, Not Opinion

In this case, the officer’s error began with his interpretation of Arizona’s right-turn statute. The law says that a right turn must be made "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb." But here’s the key: it doesn’t say the vehicle must be perfectly within the rightmost lane during the entire turn. It only requires that the vehicle enter the rightmost lane upon completion of the turn.

This distinction is crucial because, in my case, the officer believed my client had to maintain perfect lane discipline throughout the entire turn, without crossing into the adjacent lane, even momentarily. That’s not what the law requires, and Arizona courts have made this clear. In State v. Bouck, the court ruled that the law only requires the turn to end in the rightmost lane, not to be executed flawlessly from start to finish.

Challenging the officer’s misinterpretation was the key to undermining the entire basis for the stop. When officers base a stop on a misunderstanding of the law, they lack reasonable suspicion, and the evidence obtained from the stop must be suppressed.

2. Cops Can’t Create Evidence After the Fact

One of the most striking parts of this case was the officer’s attempt to justify the stop after the fact. He decided to go out and film himself making the same turn with a completely different vehicle—a quad cab pickup truck, no less—just to prove that it was possible to make the turn without crossing the center line. He brought a fellow officer along to film it, and together they created what I can only describe as a roadside science experiment at taxpayer expense.

This raises several issues. First, the Constitution doesn’t allow officers to create evidence after a stop to justify their earlier actions. Reasonable suspicion must exist at the time the officer initiates the stop. A post-hoc reenactment doesn’t change the facts as they existed at the time.

Second, the video itself was unreliable and misleading. The conditions weren’t the same, the vehicle wasn’t the same, and the officer’s “experiment” didn’t reflect the actual circumstances my client faced. Different vehicles have different turning radii and handling characteristics. Comparing a Dodge Charger to a full-sized pickup is like comparing apples to oranges. The fact that the officer believed this was valid evidence demonstrates how misguided his understanding of the law was.

3. The Right Argument Can Change the Outcome

When I received the prosecution’s response to my initial challenge, it was clear they were trying to use the video to paper over the officer’s mistake. But the reality is that no amount of video reenactment could change the fact that the stop was based on a flawed interpretation of the law.

Instead of letting the prosecution control the narrative, I focused on three key arguments:

• Misinterpretation of the Law: I highlighted how the officer’s belief that my client needed to make a perfect right turn throughout the entire maneuver was legally incorrect.

• Manufactured Evidence: I argued that the video created after the fact was not reliable evidence and could not justify the stop retroactively.

• Lack of Public Safety Risk: The officer admitted that no other vehicles were affected by my client’s turn, showing there was no immediate safety concern that would justify a stop.

After raising these issues, the prosecutor offered a non-DUI plea, which was a great outcome for my client. It was clear that the State didn’t want to risk arguing the suppression motion and losing the case altogether.

4. The Broader Implications for DUI Defense

This case isn’t just about one client. It’s about pushing back against the trend of using manufactured evidence to justify questionable stops. When police officers feel pressured to defend their actions by creating evidence after the fact, it not only undermines public trust but also violates constitutional rights.

DUI cases can be complex, and every detail matters. Just because an officer says something doesn’t make it legally correct. I take pride in carefully examining the facts, questioning assumptions, and ensuring that justice is served—not merely rubber-stamping police decisions.

5. Why You Need a Defense Attorney Who Knows the Law

This case was a perfect example of how important it is to have an attorney who knows the law inside and out. It’s not enough to just show up and take the police report at face value. You have to dig deeper, understand the legal nuances, and challenge assumptions.

If you or someone you know has been charged with DUI, don’t let the prosecution steamroll you with questionable evidence. Let me apply my knowledge and experience to your benefit. I’ll fight to make sure your rights are protected and that the evidence is held to the highest legal standards.

Reach out today for a consultation. Let’s discuss your case and how we can build a strong defense together.