The DUI Defense Team attorneys of Joseph Hollander & Craft in Wichita, Topeka and Lawrence Kansas aggressively represent individuals charged with DUI (driving under the influence) and related crimes. The experienced lawyers that comprise the “Kansas DUI Defense Team” include two former prosecutors and our lawyers have defended thousands of DUI cases with favorable success rates.
Even if you decide not to take your case to trial, it is important to have an experienced DUI attorney to review your case, file appropriate motions, and negotiate the best possible plea deal. If you decide to go to trial, you need an attorney who knows how to win. Our DUI/DWI attorneys can challenge all aspects of a prosecutor’s case, including the initial car stop, field sobriety tests, the arrest, and the results of a breath or other test to measure blood-alcohol concentration.
Our web site provides information about Kansas DUI laws, including the possible suspension of your driver’s license. It includes tips for responding to police questions and demands during a DUI car stop, including your option to refuse or take a breath test and field sobriety tests. There is also information about diversion, expungement, and house arrest. The information is not case-specific. It is intended to help you understand Kansas DUI law and recognize defenses and other issues to discuss with your DUI attorney.
DUI Penalties in Kansas
The potential penalty for a DUI conviction depends on whether you are charged with a first, second, third, fourth, or subsequent DUI. For arrests on or after July 1, 2012, only convictions after July 1, 2001 count as prior convictions. A prior diversion is considered a prior conviction. The rules for determining what counts as a “prior conviction” have changed over time. Talk to your DUI attorney about what rules apply to your specific case.
Conviction for a first DUI
A first DUI is a class B misdemeanor. You must serve not less than 48 consecutive hours in jail or, if the judge agrees, perform 100 hours of public service. Your jail sentence may be no longer than six months. You will be fined between $750 and $1,000. You will be required to complete an alcohol class.
Conviction for a second DUI
A second DUI is class A misdemeanor. By statute, the minimum jail sentence is 90 days. Your DUI attorney may be able to arrange for you to serve only 2 days in jail, followed by 120 hours (5 days) of house arrest within the boundaries of your residence, with the remaining 78 days to be served on “parole.” Your jail sentence may be no longer than 1 year. You will be fined between $1,250 and $1,750. You will also be required to enter into and complete a treatment program for alcohol and drug abuse.
Conviction for a third DUI
If you have not had a DUI conviction in the preceding 10 years, a third DUI is considered a Class A misdemeanor. The sentence is identical to that for a second DUI, except that you must serve a minimum of 2,160 hours (90 days) of confinement within the boundaries of your home if you are granted house arrest.
A third DUI is a felony if you have a prior conviction within the preceding 10 years. The minimum sentence is 90 days in jail. Your DUI attorney may be able to arrange for you to serve only 2 days in jail, followed by 90 days of house arrest. If placed on house arrest you must serve a minimum of 2,160 hours (90 days) within the confines of your home. If house arrest is not allowed, your DUI attorney may able to arrange for you to participate in a work-release program after you serve 2 consecutive days in jail. Your jail sentence may be no longer than 1 year. You will be fined between $1,750 and $2,500. You will be required to enter into and complete a treatment program for alcohol and drug abuse.
Conviction for a fourth or subsequent DUI
A fourth or subsequent DUI is a felony. The minimum sentence is 90 days in jail. Your DUI attorney may able to arrange for you to participate in a work-release program after you serve 3 consecutive days in jail. You may also be placed on house arrest after serving 3 consecutive days in jail. If placed on house arrest, you must serve a minimum of 2,160 hours (90 days) within the boundaries of your home. Any exceptions to leaving the house will not count towards the 2,160 hours. Your jail sentence may be no longer than 1 year. You will be fined $2,500. After you complete your sentence, you will be placed on parole, under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, for one year. You will also be required to enter into and complete a treatment program for alcohol and drug abuse.
Child under 14 in the car
If you had a child under 14 years of age in your car when your infraction occurred, your jail sentence will be increased by 30 days. Your DUI attorney may be able to arrange for this additional 30 days to be served on house arrest or in a work-release program.
What To Do If Stopped for a DUI
Exercise your right to remain silent. You do not need to answer any questions, such as whether you have been drinking. Exercising your right to remain silent may cause you to feel awkward, but it is important. You simply need to hand your driver’s license, insurance, and registration to the officer.
You are not required to take field sobriety tests (walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, etc.). The tests are difficult to pass, even when sober. The tests are given for the purpose of building a case against you. You should politely decline to take the tests.
While you might be fined for refusing, you are not required to take a “preliminary breath test.” This test consists of blowing into a small hand-held device. The test is given before an arrest. You may politely decline to take the test. Note that the preliminary breath test is different than the “blood, breath or urine” test that may be demanded after an arrest. The penalty for refusing to take a preliminary breath test is an a fine. The penalty for refusal to take a “blood, breath or urine” test is described on the “refusing or taking a breath test” page.
You should ask the officer for permission to leave, and you should make this request frequently.
If you are arrested, the officer will read you an “implied consent advisory” and then ask you if you will consent to a “blood, breath or urine” test. The officer gets to pick the form of the test and it is usually a breath test. Effective July 1, 2012, refusing to take this test is a crime if you have a prior test refusal or a DUI conviction or diversion after July 1, 2001. Additional information about taking or refusing the test can be found on the “refusing or taking a breath test” page.
If you take a breath test, ask for an independent blood test. The request triggers a requirement that police take you to get a blood test at a local hospital or other medical facility.
See a DUI Defense Team attorney right away. You have only 14 days to file a hearing request to challenge the suspension of your driver’s license
Note: These are generalities, not legal advice. For additional information, call us today. Also see our Estimating Your Blood Alcohol Level Chart as a quick reference.
Refusing or Taking a Breath Test
If you are arrested for DUI, you will be read an “implied consent advisory” and asked whether you will consent to take a blood alcohol test, usually in the form of a breath test. You should consider the following when deciding whether to refuse or take the test.
Effective July 1, 2012, it is a crime to refuse to take a blood alcohol test if you have a prior test refusal or a DUI conviction or diversion . The crime is independent of a DUI charge. In other words, you could be charged with both DUI and a test refusal.
You can only be charged with a refusal if you have a prior test refusal or a prior DUI conviction or diversion. Only test refusals and DUI convictions or diversions after July 1, 2001, are considered. If you have no test refusals or DUI convictions or diversions after July 1, 2001, refusal of a blood alcohol test is not a crime. If you have one prior test refusal or a DUI conviction or diversion after July 1, 2001, you could be charged with a first offense for refusal of a blood alcohol test.
The penalties for the crime of refusal of a blood alcohol test correspond to the penalties for a DUI conviction. Conviction for a first test refusal carries the same penalty as a conviction for a second DUI; conviction for a second refusal carries the same penalty as a conviction for a third DUI; and conviction for a third or subsequent test refusal carries the same penalty as a conviction for a fourth or subsequent DUI. For details on these penalties, see the “DUI Penalties in Kansas” page.
Refusing the test may result in longer suspension or restriction of your driver’s license. The suspension periods are set out in detail in the section of this site entitled “Suspension of Your Driver’s License.”
Under some circumstances, a refusal makes it less likely that you will be convicted of DUI. It certainly does not guarantee a “not guilty” verdict. You can be convicted even if you refuse the test. A test refusal means that there is less evidence of intoxication, but prosecutors often go forward with their case without test results. They rely on other evidence, such as the results of field sobriety tests and observations of the arresting officer.
Refusing Field Sobriety Tests
If you are pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, you will be asked to perform field sobriety tests. Failing the tests will almost certainly result in arrest. Your performance on the tests will be used against you in court. They are powerful evidence, and an officer’s testimony that you failed them can result in a conviction.
Here is the secret police do not want you to know: the tests are voluntary. Police cannot make you take them. You can, and probably should, decline to take the tests.
The three most commonly administered field sobriety tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, which requires that you follow an object (usually a pen) with your eyes; the Walk and Turn, which requires that you walk in a line, heel to toe; and the One Leg Stand, which requires that you balance on one foot for a certain period of time (usually 30 seconds).
Although the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is not admissible in court, officers routinely rely on the test in formulating their opinions of whether a driver has been driving under the influence. The test requires you to follow an object using your eyes only. If you move your head, or if the officer thinks your eyes “jerk” while following the object, you will likely fail this test.
The Walk and Turn test requires you to walk a straight line, heel to toe, for nine steps. Then, you must make a very precise turn and walk nine heel-to-toe steps back down the line. There are myriad ways to fail this test. If you step off the line at all, if you do not make heel to toe contact, if you use your arms to balance, or if you do not execute the turn properly, it is almost certain that the officer will determine that you have failed this test.
The One Leg Stand requires you balance on one foot for 30 seconds. You must hold your other foot six inches off of the ground. You must keep your arms at your sides. You must keep your eyes on your foot. Finally, you must count aloud in the 1-one thousand, 2-one thousand fashion until the officer tells you to stop. If you “hop” to keep your balance, use your arms to balance, sway, put your foot down, or fail to hold it up high enough, the officer will fail you on this test.
To read more about these three field sobriety tests and the science behind the tests, go to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s website.
Because it is so easy to “fail” these tests, it is important to remember that they are completely voluntary. You do not have to perform them. Yes, there is a chance that you will be arrested even if you refuse the tests. However, taking the tests and failing could have far more severe consequences. These tests are usually captured on the dash camera of the patrol vehicle, and they are almost always allowed to serve as evidence against you at trial. Keep in mind that you are likely going to be arrested whether or not you take the tests if you admit to the officer that you consumed alcohol or if the officer claims that you smell of alcohol. Don’t be intimidated by the officer. If you do not want to take the tests, politely decline.
If you have been arrested for DUI, whether you submitted to testing or not, it is important to have an experienced attorney review the unique facts of your case.
Fighting to keep your driver’s license
A driver who has been arrested for DUI is often as concerned about losing his driver’s license as he is about criminal DUI charges. We understand. For most of us, living without a car is not realistic. The DUI Defense Team attorneys will fight to help you keep your license.
If police took your license and handed you a pink sheet (a DC-27 form) that notifies you of an administrative suspension of your license, you must act quickly to prevent an extended suspension.
Within 14 calendar days, you must request an administrative hearing to challenge the suspension of your license. You should meet with one of our DUI lawyers right away. We can make the hearing request for you. We know what to include in the request to maximize your chance of prevailing at a hearing.
You can prevent a license suspension. To do it, you need an experienced DUI attorney to who knows how to win at a suspension hearing. Our attorneys will consider whether police correctly completed the notice, used the current form, and effected proper service of the notice. We evaluate whether police had reasonable grounds to demand a blood alcohol test. If not, a suspension is not warranted. We subpoena all certifying officers to testify at the hearing. If the issue is a test refusal, we also consider whether there is a medical condition that would prohibit you from taking the test and whether you changed your mind and requested a test within a reasonable period of time. These are just some of the considerations that our DUI lawyers make when evaluating how to defend a license suspension. Experience and knowledge is critical for success.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has adopted standardized field sobriety tests (“SFTS”) that may produce reliable indications of intoxication. But they are only reliable if police administer the tests correctly.
The three SFTS tests and the “clues” that law enforcement officers look for are based on the premise that intoxicated drivers cannot effectively divide their attention between two tasks. For example, an intoxicated driver cannot maintain balance while focusing on the officer’s instructions or counting steps while walking in a straight line. In order for the tests to be reliable, the officers must provide adequate instructions and properly demonstrate the tests. The officer must also properly score the clues. If you have taken SFTS’s, you may ask yourself, “Did I pass the tests?” But you should also ask, “Did the officer properly instruct and score my performance on the tests?”
The horizontal gaze nystagmus test requires an officer to use a defined point, usually a pen or a light, that the driver can follow with his eyes. Officers watch for the driver to turn his head as he is watching the pen rather than remain still and follow the pen only with his eyes. The officer will watch to check whether the driver’s pupils are equal and able to focus. The officer will then pass from his left to his right and back to center, then from center to left and back again. The officer is testing whether the driver’s eyes can pass in “smooth pursuit” of the pen.
The walk-and-turn test is the first of two tests that require the driver to stand in an awkward position, without swaying or losing balance, and listen as the officer describes the test and shows a demonstration of how the test should be performed. During this time the officer is attempting to divide the driver’s attention between listening to the instructions and maintaining balance. Once the officer describes the test and briefly demonstrates the test, the officer will tell the driver to begin. The driver must perform the test as instructed and without losing balance or stepping off the line. Furthermore, he must take only nine steps and turn correctly with short, choppy steps, pivoting on his left foot. If he does any of these tasks improperly, the officer will score the imperfection as a clue of impairment.
The third SFST is the one-leg stand. This test requires the driver to stand at attention, without losing balance, while listening to the officer’s instructions. The officer will then ask the driver to raise one foot approximately six inches off of the ground and point his toe outward. The officer will ask the driver to look at his foot and keep his arms approximately six inches away from his side. Like the walk and turn, the officer is waiting for him to use his arms for balance.
A driver’s inability to perform divided attention tasks is evidence of intoxication. On the other hand, successful completion of the tests can be a defense to DUI charges.
SFST’s are usually recorded on video and audio. You should not rely on an officer’s conclusion that you failed the tests. It is important to hire a DUI attorney who evaluate the video and audio independently of the officer’s conclusions. Our DUI lawyers are well versed in the SFST’s. We know how to examine a driver’s performance. We can determine if the officer properly instructed, demonstrated, and scored performance on the tests. Contact our DUI attorneys to arrange a case evaluation.
Should I apply for diversion?
A diversion is an agreement with the prosecutor in which the prosecutor agrees to dismiss your case if you complete certain requirements. The requirements usually include paying a diversion fee and court costs, obtaining an alcohol evaluation and following the evaluator’s recommendations, and not committing any other crimes. If you comply with the requirements for the duration of your diversion period, your DUI case will be dismissed. Your criminal record will reflect an arrest and diversion, but not a conviction. You may truthfully say that you were not convicted of a crime.
Diversion is not allowed if you were involved in an injury accident, if you have a commercial driver’s license, or if you have previously been convicted of DUI or granted diversion. In addition, most jurisdictions have policies that prohibit diversion under other circumstances.
There are down sides to diversion agreements. One is that you must agree that you are guilty. If you violate the terms of the diversion agreement, this admission will be used against you and you will be convicted of the original charges. Another drawback arises if you face DUI charges again. In a subsequent DUI case, the diversion will count as a prior conviction and you will be charged with a second DUI.
Even if you can apply for diversion on your own, you should consider hiring a DUI attorney to review the case against you, discuss possible defenses and the likelihood of winning, and explain the risks and benefits of a diversion.
Expungement of DUI convictions
Five or ten years after successfully completing your DUI sentence, your DUI attorney may request that all records of your arrest and conviction or diversion be expunged from your record. Expungement removes the record from the KBI criminal history database and from court files. This means that employers and the public will not be able to find the DUI arrest or conviction. You are also authorized to answer that you were not arrested for or convicted of the DUI in various instances, such as when filling out job applications.
The Kansas Legislature has frequently changed the law on expungement of DUI convictions. As a result, when you were arrested and convicted determines how long you must wait for expungement. Below is a general summary of eligibility for expungement of DUI convictions and diversions in Kansas:
Convictions for DUI for driving before July 1, 2006: You may petition for expungement after five or more years have elapsed since you satisfied the sentence imposed or the terms of a diversion agreement or after five or more years have elapsed since you were discharged from probation, parole, conditional release, or a suspended sentence.
Convictions for DUI for driving on or after July 1, 2006: You may petition for expungement after 10 or more years have elapsed since you satisfied the sentence imposed or the terms of a diversion agreement or after 10 or more years have elapsed since you were discharged from probation, parole, conditional release, or a suspended sentence.
If you believe that you are eligible for expungement, contact our DUI attorneys and schedule an appointment. When you meet with our DUI lawyers to discuss expungement, please have the following information available: When you were arrested and convicted, when you successfully completed your sentence (or diversion), and the case number and jurisdiction. If you cannot find all of this information, our DUI lawyers may be able to help you find it.
A jail sentence for DUI can be commuted to house arrest. A person on house arrest must stay in his residence at all times except when specifically permitted by the court to leave. Courts generally permit people on house arrest to go to and from work. In many cases, courts also allow people on house arrest to travel to and from school and medical appointments.
House arrestees are monitored by companies that can verify an individual’s location by means of a device worn around the ankle. If house arrest is ordered for the balance of the jail sentence, a company representative goes to the jail to pick up the house arrestee, takes him back to the office, provides him with the monitoring equipment, and shows him how to set it up. This service comes with a price. There will likely be a partial fee to initiate the service and regular payments due every 2 weeks. If the company must to travel out of county to set up the monitoring device, mileage costs will be added, too.
House arrest may be an option if you have been convicted of one of the following offenses:
First offense DUI
Before placing you on probation, or as a condition of your probation, a judge may have you serve 2 days in jail, 100 hours of community service, or 2 days of house arrest.
Second offense DUI
Before placing you on probation, a judge is required to have you serve 5 days of “jail time.” Two of these five days must be served in jail. If the judge has you serve house arrest, Kansas law requires that you serve at least 120 total hours of house arrest at your home.
Third offense DUI
Before placing you on probation, a judge is required to have you serve 90 days of “jail time.” Two of these ninety days must be served in jail. The duration may be served on house arrest. If the judge opts to have you serve house arrest, Kansas law requires that you serve at least 2,160 hours (90 days) of house arrest at your home.
Fourth offense DUI
Before placing you on probation, a judge is required to have you serve 90 days of “jail time.” Three of these ninety days must be served in jail. If the judge opts to have you serve house arrest, Kansas law requires that you serve at least 2,160 hours (90 days) of house arrest at your home.
Kansas law provides that “any exceptions to remaining within the boundaries of the offender’s residence provided for in the house arrest agreement shall not be counted as part of the required number of hours.” This means that time spent away from your home at work, school, or medical appointments will not count toward the total number of hours you are required to serve at your residence in accordance with your house arrest agreement.
The following summaries describe recent cases handled by our attorneys. They are not offered to predict success in your case, nor do they provide a comprehensive account of all of our recent cases. They are offered solely to provide a sample of the type of cases that we handle:
May 2013 — Our client was pulled over for running a stop sign. The officer claimed that he smelled alcohol and that our client’s speech was slurred. The officer also said he saw a bottle of whiskey on the floorboard behind the front passenger seat. The officer directed our client to get out of the car and arrested him for transporting an open container. Later, the officer administered field sobriety tests and obtained a breath test. The breath test registered a BAC over twice the legal limit.
We filed a motion to dismiss the DUI charge. We presented argument under the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Sloop vs. Kansas Department of Revenue that the arrest was not a valid basis for requesting a breath test. We asserted that, because the offense is not one “involving operation or attempted operation while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both,” an arrest for transporting an open container does not authorize a law enforcement officer to request a breath test under K.S.A. § 8-1001(b). The prosecution argued that the request was authorized because transporting an open container is an ‘alcohol-related offense.’ The judge rejected this argument and dismissed the DUI charge.
March 2013 — Two clients recently faced one-year license suspensions. Both clients failed field sobriety testing, admitted to drinking alcoholic beverages before operating their vehicles, and had BACs over .15, as measured by breath testing. However, both clients were able to keep their licenses. In both cases, the forms provided by police notifying the drivers of the administrative suspension of their licenses (the DC-27 forms) were defective. Each DC-27 is jurisdictional, and a defective DC-27 cannot form the basis for suspension of a driver’s license. In these cases, careful attention to detail prevented license suspensions that were otherwise highly likely.
January 2013 — After a minor traffic accident, our client left the scene and traveled about a block before his tire went flat. As our client was walking the short distance back to his residence, he was contacted by witnesses to the accident who called 9-1-1 to report that they noticed the “strong” odor of alcohol and observed client to be stumbling. Law enforcement arrived at the scene and located client’s vehicle. Information obtained from the vehicle allowed law enforcement to determine client’s residence. Approximately 45 minutes after the accident, law enforcement made contact with client and began a DUI investigation. Client provided numerous cues while performing the field sobriety tests, but he refused to take the requested breath test. Client appealed from his conviction for DUI in the City of Wichita, requesting a jury trial in Sedgwick County District Court. At trial, the defense challenged the observations of the witnesses and the reliability of the field sobriety tests. Counsel presented limited evidence regarding client’s ability to have consumed alcohol after the accident and before police contact. The jury determined there was insufficient evidence and acquitted client.
May 2012 — During an argument with her boyfriend, our client dialed 9-1-1 for help. The argument ended, and our client decided to leave before police arrived. As she was leaving the parking lot, she saw the police arriving and sped off. She drove at speeds in excess of 70 miles per hour, weaved in and out of traffic, and ran a red light before stopping for the police. A police officer observed a “moderate” odor of alcohol about her and asked her to submit to field sobriety tests. The officer claimed she failed the tests. Our client’s arrest and processing took nearly two hours. By the time a breath test was administered, her BAC registered just below the legal limit. Our client was charged with speeding, fleeing and eluding, running a red light, and DUI. At trial, we defended our client by asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges. She was convicted only for running a red light and fined $100.
April 2012 — Our client left a club at 2:00 a.m. While she and a friend were sitting in her car, a police officer watched from across the parking lot. Our client backed out of the parking stall and pulled around to the back of the club. The officer initiated a traffic stop because he thought our client was acting suspiciously. He smelled alcohol on our client and began a DUI investigation. Our client refused all field sobriety tests and the requested breath test. We proceeded to trial. The judge found that there was not sufficient evidence to prove our client was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered her unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. She was acquitted of all charges.
February 2012 — A concerned citizen witnessed a person he believed to be underage drinking at a local drive-in dining establishment. The reporting party provided a description of the suspected under-aged drinker’s car to police, and officers responded to the area and waited for a car matching the description to leave the dining establishment. Police observed our client’s car, which matched the description of the suspect’s vehicle, leave the dining establishment. The officer followed our client for nearly a mile before he made a “wide turn” onto another street. The officer stopped our client and asked if he had been drinking. The client denied drinking, and the officer said she did not smell the odor of alcohol on him. Nonetheless, the officer asked our client to step out of the vehicle and made him perform field sobriety tests, during which the officer reportedly observed several clues indicating intoxication. At trial, our lawyers were able to show that the stop of the vehicle and the investigation for DUI was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and our client’s breath alcohol test results were suppressed. The prosecution dismissed the case.
February 2012 — Our client was stopped because his tag light was not working. He admitted to recently drinking “one beer,” noting that it was “a tall one.” Our client performed field sobriety tests, and the officer testified that he failed two and passed one. Our client refused to take a breath test after being arrested. A jury returned a “not guilty” verdict after a one-day trial.
January 2012 — After being arrested, our client was taken to the police station and asked to submit to a blood test to measure his blood alcohol content. The requesting officer read the implied consent advisory to our client, and our client said he did not understand the advisory. The officer refused to answer any questions and announced that he was treating our client’s response as a refusal. Our client was taken to a holding cell. After three to four minutes, he told jail staff he would submit to BAC testing. The jail staff told him that it was too late. As a result of our client’s refusal to submit to BAC testing, his driver’s license was suspended. The administrative hearing officer affirmed his license suspension. On appeal, the district court held that our client validly rescinded his refusal. Thus, the judge reversed his license suspension. As a result, our client was able to keep his job, which required a valid driver’s license.
September 2011 — Police found our client asleep in his truck, parked legally in a parking lot. The truck was running, the radio was on and his seat was slightly reclined. The truck’s headlights were not on and the truck was in “park.” There was no question that our client was too intoxicated to safely drive. The issue was whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had been driving while intoxicated. Our trial defense focused on the lack of investigation by police and the reasonable possibility that our client was sleeping instead of driving because he recognized his impairment. The jury returned a “not guilty” verdict.
September 2011 — Our client was charged with a second DUI. He was alleged to have a blood alcohol level slightly over the legal limit. His car had an ignition interlock device installed at the time of the car stop as a result of a previous DUI conviction. At trial, our attorneys showed that the client’s car started after he submitted to a test on the correctly installed ignition interlock device and that no subsequent breath sample had disabled the car. The jury returned a “not guilty” verdict.
July 2011 — Our client experienced a tire blowout, which resulted in his car veering hard to the right and slamming into the curb. Police arrived after our client exited his vehicle and began to survey the damage. Officers asked if our client had consumed any alcohol that evening. He responded that he had. Police asked our client to submit to standardized field sobriety tests. Our client refused the SFSTs, and police arrested him. The police then asked the client to submit to a breath test and he refused. Our lawyers convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case. We also won the administrative hearing and preventing his driver’s license from being suspended.