State v. M.G. - .11 breath test and Speeding
L.S. was pulled over for speeding. As he pulled his car to the roadside, he reached in the glove compartment for his insurance and registration documents. The officer assumed he was reaching for a weapon and approached his car with his gun drawn. L.S. put his hands out of the car and eventually performed field sobriety evaluations (poorly). Mr. Ryczek argued that the officer’s actions escalated the stop into a formal arrest and the field sobriety evaluations should be excluded. The prosecutor dismissed L.S.’s DUI case.

State v. D.A. - .148 breath test.
A concerned citizen saw D.A. getting sick on the side of the road and called the police. A Gwinnett County DUI Task Force officer arrived and found D.A. sitting on the pavement, throwing up next to his truck. The officer said he could smell a strong odor of alcohol from over ten feet away, and that D.A. admitted to driving, slurred his speech, and couldn’t sit up without swaying. D.A. admitted he was driving, but told the officer he was sick from eating bad shrimp. D.A. was arrested for DUI and registered .148 on the breath test. Mr. Ryczek argued to the jury that D.A.’s breath sample was invalidated when D.A. got sick. The officer should have allowed D.A. to rinse out his mouth before taking the test. The jury found D.A. not guilty of DUI.

State v. A.H. - Refusal
A.H. was pulled over for weaving. The officer noticed that A.H. had a strong odor of alcohol and he was unsteady on his feet. The officer testified that A.H. failed field sobriety evaluations, and arrested him for DUI. A.H. also admitted to taking Xanax. A.H. declined the officer’s request to blow into the breath test. At A.H.’s trial, Mr. Ryczek convinced the judge that the State improperly charged A.H. with DUI alcohol. A.H.’s impairment could have been caused by his drug ingestion, and the State failed to charge him properly. The judge dismissed A.H.’s DUI case.

State v. B.E. - Refusal
B.E. was stopped at a roadblock. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol and B.E. performed poorly on field sobriety evaluations. Mr. Ryczek argued to the jury B.E. was uncoordinated, and he was unable to perform the tests to the officer’s satisfaction even when he had not been drinking. At trial, the officer made a prejudicial remark and he judge granted Mr. Ryczek’s motion for a mistrial. The jurors told the prosecutor that they would have found B.E. not guilty. The prosecutor dismissed B.E.’s DUI.

State v. T.M. - .202 breath test. DUI and Endangering a Child by DUI (2 counts)
A veteran officer pulled T.M. over for weaving and saw that she had two children in the back of her car. T.M. performed poorly on field sobriety evaluations, and registered high on the breath test. The officer had a long history of harassing young women. Mr. Ryczek filed a Notice of Intent to Present Similar Transactions, notifying the Court he would present evidence of the officer’s harassment to the jury. The prosecutor dismissed T.M.’s DUI case. T.M. received treatment for her alcohol problem and is currently clean and sober.

State v. R.D. - .14 breath test.
R.D. was pulled over while speeding north on Interstate 85. Her speech was slurred, and her she was unsteady on her feet. She performed poorly on the field sobriety evaluations, and registered .14 on the breath test. At a motion to suppress hearing, the judge suppressed R.D.’s Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test because the officer failed to administer the test as he was trained. The prosecutor dismissed R.D.’s DUI and she entered a guilty plea to Reckless Driving.

State v. J.K. - Refusal. 3rd DUI in five years, Driving on a Suspended License, and Hit & Run, and Open Container of alcohol.

J.K. was arrested after his truck was involved in an accident. A police officer found J.K. and another young man a couple of blocks away from the wrecked truck. Neither of the two admitted to driving the truck. Mr. Ryczek argued to the jury that J.K.’s injuries were more consistent with him being in the passenger seat at the time of the accident. The jury found J.K. not guilty of all three charges.

State v. A.C. - .12 breath test.
A.C. was pulled over for weaving, and Mr. Ryczek discovered that the officer misread the Georgia Implied Consent Notice (your legal rights regarding the breath test). Mr. Ryczek convinced the judge and prosecutor to dismiss A.C.’s DUI case and allow him to plead guilty to reckless driving.

State v. A.B. - Alleged Refusal.
A.B. was involved in a one car accident. He was taken to the station for a breath test, but he kept passing out as he tried to blow into the breathalyzer machine. The officer considered this a refusal of the breath test. Mr. Ryczek proved that A.B. did not refuse the test as he was encumbered by a physical condition that prohibited his ability to produce a breath test. Under the law, he could not be considered to have refused the test.

State v. J.S. - .11 breath test and weaving
J.S. was pulled over for weaving and performed poorly on the field sobriety evaluations. At trial Mr. Ryczek uncovered several inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony. The judge found that the officer’s reason for the stop lacked credibility, and dismissed J.S.’s case.

State v. G.S. - .272 breath test and Running a Red light. 3rd DUI in five years.
G.S. was pulled over for running a red light. G.S.’s speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and registered .272 on the breath test. At trial, the State failed to properly lay the foundation for the breathalyzer test, and the judge excluded the test from his trial. Mid-trial, the prosecutor dismissed G.S.’s DUI and he entered a guilty plea to Reckless Driving. Mr. Ryczek took G.S. to an in-patient alcohol rehabilitation facility where G.S. remained for six months. G.S. is currently clean and sober.

State v. R.B. - .05 Under 21 DUI
The officer failed to allege on the citation that R.B. was over the legal limit of .02 (for those under the age of 21) on R.B.’s citation. Therefore, Mr. Ryczek argued the prosecutor had to prove that R.B. was a less safe driver as a result of consuming alcohol. At trial, the judge disagreed with Mr. Ryczek’s interpretation of the law, and found R.B. guilty of DUI. Mr. Ryczek appealed the judge’s decision and R.B.’s case was dismissed.

State v. E.R. - .171 breath test.
E.R. was coming home from Athens early one morning. He was pulled over for speeding, and the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. He performed fairly well on the field sobriety tests for his alcohol level. In his investigation, Mr. Ryczek discovered that the State Patrol failed to properly inspect the breathalyzer machine and it should have been taken out of service. Mr. Ryczek convinced the judge to suppress the breath test, and E.R. entered a guilty plea to Reckless Driving.

State v. S.M. - .09 breath test. Minor accident.
S.M. was returning home from dinner when he was involved in a minor accident. The officer on the scene claimed S.M. was unsteady on his feet, that he had a moderate odor of alcohol and that he did poorly on the field sobriety evaluations. Mr. Ryczek showed the judge the video and invited the judge to make up his own mind regarding whether S.M. passed the field sobriety evaluation. The judge disagreed with the officer and found there was no probable cause for the arrest. S.M.’s case was completely dismissed.

State v. B.S. - Alleged Refusal and Speeding
B.S. was pulled over for speeding as he left a nightclub. The officer smelled an odor of marijuana and B.S. admitted to have consumed some alcohol. The officer asked B.S. to take a blood test and he agreed. B.S. refused to sign a document releasing the hospital’s liability for negligence, and the officer determined that B.S. refused the blood test. At a motion to suppress hearing, Mr. Ryczek cited several court of appeals cases from different states to convince the judge that B.S. could not be considered to have refused the blood test simply because he refused to sign a piece of paper. The law did not require him to release the hospital’s liability. Besides, the law provided the hospital with immunity from lawsuit in these cases. After the judge suppressed B.S.’s alleged refusal, the prosecutor dismissed B.S.’s DUI.

State v. R.M. - Positive Urine test for Marijuana and Geodon. DUI Drugs/Hit & Run/Following Too Closely
Driving with his sunglasses on at night, R.M. hit a young lady from behind as she was stopped at a stop sign. She was uninjured. When the police arrived, they directed both parties to pull into a church parking lot and meet him there. R.M. drove away instead of going to the church parking lot. He was stopped by another officer a few minutes later because he was weaving all over the road. At trial, the officer’s testified that R.M. showed signs of extreme impairment, that he was unable to stay focused, his head and arms kept shaking, and that he would lay down on the ground and go to sleep while they were talking with R.M. Mr. Ryczek showed the jury that R.M. had taken his prescription for Geodone, for the first time that day. An unanticipated side-effect of Geodon was somnolence (inability to stay awake) and dyskinesia (uncontrolled muscle movements). This explained R.M.’s behavior that night. On the second day of trial, the prosecutor dismissed R.M.’s DUI.

State v. T.M. - .13 breath test.
T.M. was leaving a NASCAR race and a state trooper initiated conversation with T.M. as he directed traffic. The trooper smelled alcohol and asked T.M. to get out of his car to perform field sobriety evaluations. T.M. complied and the officer administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test on T.M.’s eyes. Mr. Ryczek convinced the judge to exclude the HGN evidence from T.M.’s trial, because trooper improperly conducted the test. At trial, Mr. Ryczek showed the jury that the machine registered an invalid sample ten minutes before T.M.’s .13 result. The trooper was supposed to wait 20 minutes before retesting T.M., but the trooper failed to follow procedure. On the second day of trial, the prosecutor dismissed T.M.’s DUI and he entered a guilty plea to Reckless Driving.