Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and Alcohol Related Offenses

Paul has not seen a Driving While Intoxicated case that did not have at least one legal or factual issue that could assist you in proving your innocence or hinder the state's ability to prosecute the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The first step in any DWI case is hiring a lawyer who can identify issues that could be problematic in the state's prosecution of your case. Paul's training and experience allows him to identify mistakes made by law enforcement in a DWI investigation. Some mistakes are bigger than others but having a lawyer that can identify each mistake is the first step.

The next step is developing a substantive and credible plan to defend your case. Paul will shoot you straight on the strengths and weaknesses of your case and give you his thoughts on the best way to proceed in order to achieve a dismissal or a not guilty.

Paul trained officers across the state in DWI law and has the insider knowledge on how exactly how to attack any DWI. Very few defense attorneys have had the opportunity to see the behind the scenes training of officers as Paul has. Officers are not only trained on administering the test but are also trained on how to testify. This insider knowledge gives Paul a distinct advantage.

A DWI: Much more than just a conviction.

Your License

Your first concern should be your license. In Texas, you have 15 days, from the date you are arrested, to request an administrative license revocation hearing before the Department of Public Safety. This ALR hearing is an opportunity to save your license (a breath test refusal or a breath test of over .08 can result in a suspension of 90 days to 2 years). The hearing is also an opportunity to develop a record against the officer who may testify against you at trial. Many times, testimony from this hearing has resulted in a subsequent dismissal of the DWI by the state because of statement made by the arresting officer.

Fighting the DWI

As a prosecutor, Paul was a member of a division of the Harris County District Attorney's Office called the Vehicular Assault Team. This team focused on alcohol related accidents and Paul received extensive training related to DWI prosecution. With this training, Paul taught officers across the state on how to properly investigate a DWI. A DWI investigation is multifaceted:

1: Was there probable cause stop your vehicle?

Without probable cause, the State will not be able obtain a DWI conviction. Many officers take this for granted and Paul knows exactly what to look for to undermine the State's case.

2: Did you invoke your right to counsel?

Once you ask for your lawyer, any evidence obtained after that request is not admissible. This is a simple point that is often overlooked. Officers regularly ignore this request and proceed with the investigation. The courts are well aware of an individual's right to counsel and if this is properly addressed with the court, all evidence obtained after that request is not admissible.

3. The Hypocrisy the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Administered (SFT's?

Many times, individuals are stopped at night, on the side of a road, in a foreign environment and are asked to perform tests for the first time that are difficult for any person to perform regardless of intoxication. You need an attorney that knows the intricacies of the SFT's and an attorney that can adequately attack every misstep the officer makes in administering these test. They are inherently unfair and Paul knows exactly how to educate a jury through cross examination of the officer about the fundamental unfairness of the tests.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established guidelines with how the tests are to be administered. If the officer does not follow the guidelines set forth by NHTSA the test could be thrown out and never seen by a jury.

4. The Breath/Blood Test is an automatic win for the state?

Wrong. Jurors are skeptical of scientific evidence presented by law enforcement. There are prerequisites to the admissibility to of breath and or blood tests. Failure to perform these could lead the evidence being thrown out. Paul knows these prerequisites enough to have been selected to train officers in this area. If the officers do not do their job up the standards established by the State, Paul will know.

Assuming the test is admissible, does that mean you should automatically plead guilty? No. The State still has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the test was accurate. Knowing the intricacies of the machine used to quantify blood or breath alcohol concentration gives Paul the ability to cross-examine the State's expert and exploit the weakness related to the technology used by the State.

Recent DWI Results

  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 2/17, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated (.187 BAC), 3/17, DISMISSED for illegal stop
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 3/16, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated - Second, 4/16, DISMISSED at trial
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 6/16, DISMISSED at trial because blood results suppressed
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 5/16, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated - Second, 12/16, DISMISSED at trial
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 7/16, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 2/16, reduced to non-DWI offense at trial
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 1/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated with a Child under 15 and Intoxicated Assault, 06/15 both cases DISMISSED, after pleading to Driving While Intoxicated misdemeanor. 
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 8/15, DISMISSED after Paul Doyle won a motion to suppress
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated - 3rd, 3/2016, reduced to a misdemeanor
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 5/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 7/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 3/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 7/14, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 4/15, DISMISSED, Issue with wheeling. 
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 12/14, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 7/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Driving While Intoxicated, 5/14, DISMISSED day of trial. 
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Boating While Intoxicated, 7/14, DISMISSED, Suppresion of the warrant for blood. 
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Boating While Intoxicated, 5/14, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, DWI, 3/14, DISMISSED. Issue with State's search warrant for blood draw. 
  • State of Texas vs. ______, DWI BAC >= .15, 12/13,
    DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, DWI 3rd Charge, 11/13,
    Reduced to Misdemeanor
  • State of Texas vs. ______, DWI, 9/13,
    DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ______, DWI, 8/13,
    DISMISSED Officer failed to allow client to submit to blood rather than breath. Paul proved that client insisted he would give blood.