Washington, DC & Maryland

10417_15.jpg
10418_15.jpg

TRAFFIC/DUI DEFENSE

HP Law’s Recent Results

The attorneys at The Law Offices of Joanne Roney Hepworth have extensive experience in representing clients accused of all types of traffic and DUI offenses. 

 

Recent Results

DISCLAIMER:  our website describes some of the legal matters that the attorneys of The Law Offices of Joanne Roney Hepworth have worked on in the past.  Our description of those cases is summary in nature.  You should be aware that the results obtained in each of the legal matters we have worked on was dependent on the particular facts of each case.  The results of other cases will differ based on different facts involved.  Nothing herein is intended to nor constitutes a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.  Every case is different and outcomes will vary depending on the unique facts and legal issues of your case. 

 

a.    Case #1 (C R DC Sup. Ct. 2014):  Defendant was pulled-over for allegedly making an illegal right turn on red, and was subsequently charged with was subsequently charged with: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of D.C. Code § 50-2206.11 (potential penalty: fine of $ 1,000, up to 180 days incarceration, or both); and (2) refusing to take a breath test in violation of D.C. Code § 50-1905 (potential penalty: Revoke his or her license or privilege to drive in the District of Columbia for a period of 12 months).  After conducting a thorough investigation, attorneys Joanne Hepworth and Michael Davis were able to get the stop of defendant’s car suppressed by establishing that defendant had not, in fact, broken any law by turning right on red.  As a result, the officer’s stop of the defendant’s vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion and was thus an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment.  Accordingly, all of the evidence obtained after the stop, including the refusal to take the breath test, was suppressed and the charge was dismissed.
i.    Here is one of our motions from that case:
•    Motion to Suppress on Fourth Amendment Grounds

b.    Case #2 (J M DC Sup. Ct.2012):  Defendant was pulled-over for allegedly having a license-plate light out and was subsequently charged with: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of D.C. Code § 50-2206.11 (potential penalty: fine of $ 1,000, up to 180 days incarceration, or both); and (2) refusing to take a breath test in violation of D.C. Code § 50-1905 (potential penalty: revocation of license or privilege to drive in the District of Columbia for a period of 12 months).  At the time, defendant was on federal supervised release.  After thoroughly investigating the matter, Attorney Hepworth established that defendant’s license-plate light was operating properly at the time of the traffic stop.  Attorney Hepworth filed a Motion to Suppress the Evidence and adjudicated the ticket for failed license tag light by mail. Ultimately the entire case was dismissed with no loss of driving privilege and, importantly, no violation of federal supervised release.

d.    Case #3(M J DC Sup. Ct 2010):  Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of D.C. Code § 50-2206.11 (potential penalty: 20-day mandatory-minimum incarceration because BAC more than .30) Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of testing was .33.  However, Attorney Hepworth was able to establish that the BAC test was not performed until 3 hours after the stop of defendant’s vehicle and that defendant had chugged a full bottle of wine immediately before getting behind the wheel.  As a defense expert Yale H. Caplan, Ph.D., DABFT explained, it was impossible for the alcohol from the wine to have been absorbed into the defendant’s blood stream at the time of the traffic stop; rather, the alcohol was not absorbed until a few hours later when the defendant was tested at the police station.  As a result, Attorney Hepworth was able to get the charge, which carried a mandatory jail sentence, dismissed.

i.    Here are few of our pleadings from this case:
•    Report of Expert Witness