Case Studies: Examples of Recent Client's Cases
With Positive Results

Mark has represented many hundreds of DUI cases since 2002.  He has fought and argued DUI cases for many Clients in the court system and he has helped Clients retain their driving privileges in Department of Licensing hearings.  Mark limits his practice to DUI defense and he is committed to helping his Clients get their life back to normal.  Mark has had many great results.  Below are just a few of examples of the results he has achieved:

Result #1:  April 2010 Snohomish County District Court Case – In a DOL hearing, Mark argued that the Officer made an illegal stop when he pulled over his Client.  The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer agreed and dismissed the administrative licensing case.  Mark provided the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney with the information garnered at the DOL hearing and negotiated with the State to issue a traffic infraction and dismiss the DUI.  Despite having a high blood alcohol level, Mark’s client was charged with a traffic infraction and he did not lose his privilege to drive.

Result #2:  March 2010 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – Mark’s client was confronted by three police officers for allegedly drinking and driving.  The Client was upset with the process.  After Mark’s Client refused to perform the field sobriety tests, he was arrested.  He was then not properly advised of the implied consent warnings.  Mark questioned the Police Officers in the Department of Licensing hearing. It was found that the Officers never advised Mark’s Client of the implied consent warnings.  The Hearing Officer dismissed the case.  The City Prosecutor also dismissed the DUI charge based upon this information gleamed in the Department of Licensing Hearing.  Mark’s client did not lose his privilege to drive.

Result #3:  February 2010 Department of Licensing DOL Hearing. - A Municipal DUI emphasis Officer was subpoenaed to the Department of Licensing hearing and he testified at the hearing.  Mark argued that there was no possibility that the Officer’s story was credible and that the case should be dismissed.  The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer found in Mark’s favor, therefore the Client won the Department of Licensing hearing and did not lose his driver’s license.

Result #4:  January 2010 Snohomish County District Court Case – At a motion hearing, Mark argued that neither Washington State Trooper who made contact with his Client had presented enough evidence to conclude that his Client was under the influence of alcohol. The Client had been involved in a major accident, and yet, the Judge dismissed the case.

Result #5:  2009 Lower Kittitas County Case – Mark’s Client was charged with minor in possession of alcohol.  His Client was a student at a University.  Mark negotiated a stipulated order of continuance (SOC).  His Client only had to attend an 8 hour Alcohol Drug Information School class. With Mark’s help, his client had the major requirements of the (SOC) finished prior to going to court. His Client agreed to not possess alcohol in the next two years and then the case will be dismissed.  The Client did not miss any school during this process.

Result #6:  2008 King County Municipal Court Case – Mark’s Client was accused of driving with marijuana in his system.  Mark argued in a motion hearing that lasted nearly six hours that his client did not have any “active” marijuana in his system.  While he did not prevail that day, the City re-evaluated the case and dismissed the case at the next court date.

Result #7:  2007 King County Municipal Court Case – Mark’s Client was pulled over after “weaving” on the roadway. The Client properly stopped in a parking lot and then his car rolled back and struck an officer patrol car. He was then charged with DUI.  Mark convinced the Judge at a motion hearing that the City had no reason to stop the client. The Judge agreed that there was no reason to pull the driver over and then dismissed the case.

Result #8:  2007 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – In a DOL hearing where two Officers testified, it was determined that there was no valid breath test. The Officers disagreed on which one watched the client during an “observation” period. The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer dismissed the administrative licensing case.  Mark provided the Prosecuting Attorney with the information garnered at the DOL hearing and the City issued a traffic infraction and dismissed the DUI. The Client’s BAC was .24 or three times the legal limit.

Result #9:  2006 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – During a motion hearing, Mark questioned the Officer extensively about the administration of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). The Officer admitted that the Client PASSED all of the tests. The judge, who declared that he was not a big fan of the SFSTs, still found that there was enough evidence to find the Officer had reasonable cause to arrest the driver. Later, in a jury trial, the Officer again admitted in court with the jury present that Mark’s Client PASSED the field sobriety tests.  After the jury deliberated, they found the Client NOT GUILTY.

Result #10:  2006 Snohomish County Municipal Court – In a physical control case, City Police Officers drug a Client out of his idling pick-up truck that was parked safely off the road.  Mark persuaded the City Prosecutor to amend the charge to a traffic infraction.  The Client served no jail time and did not lose his license.

Result #11:  2006 Snohomish County District Court Case – Mark convinced the Prosecutor that the breath tests were flawed and the Prosecutor amended the case to a traffic infraction.  Mark’s Client was on a deferred prosecution in another county.  The infraction did not revoke the deferred prosecution.

Result #12:  2005 Clallam County District Court Case – Mark filed motions with the State and argued in negotiations with the Prosecutor that the Officer had no reason to pull over his Client and that the breath test technician was not properly certified. Despite Mark’s Client having a blood alcohol level over twice the legal limit of 0.19, the Prosecutor dismissed the case.

Result #13:  2005 Snohomish County District Court Case – While in trial, the State moved to continue this case because the Troopers needed to be elsewhere.  Mark stood his ground and convinced the Judge that this was an inappropriate argument and that if the Defendant had to be present in court, so did the Trooper who arrested him.  The Judge agreed and the case was dismissed at trial.

Result #14:  2005 Snohomish County District Court Case – Mark’s Client was accused of driving with drugs in her system.  Mark convinced the Prosecutor during negotiations that the State did not have a case.  The State dismissed the DUI, and then re-cited the DUI as a traffic infraction.  Mark beat the traffic infraction.  His Client never went to jail and did not pay any fines.

Free Case Consultation | View Our Informational Video | Case Studies
Client Testimonials | Attorney Information | FAQs | Blog | Contact Us | Home | Site Map

Copyright © Mark W. Garka, PLLC
Site Designed by Ecombuffet LLC