People v C.P.: Army Veteran Case - Client is an Army Veteran. During his service he was deployed to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. His assignment was to the Military Police where he encountered multiple civilian casualties. As a result, he was diagnosed with PTSD that resulted in the use of Alcohol and ultimately a DUI. His request to enter military diversion by the court was accepted because the motion included proper nexus establishing his disability to his service along with a proper treatment plan. He has been successful in his program and his case will be dismissed upon completion. With a dismissal there will be no DUI on his criminal record.
People v M.H.: Active Military Case - Client is active in the Navy and assigned to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit. He has served domestically and abroad. During his time, he encountered the loss of life of a close sailor due to suicide and others due to a helicopter crash during training. This traumatic event along with the performance of his duties caused him to have a substance abuse disorder that was diagnosed by a doctor. His misuse of alcohol resulted in him being arrested for a second DUI. Since his motion included a detailed explanation of his service, medical condition and treatment plan he was admitted to Military Diversion by the Court and has been successful in his treatment. He reports to the court approximately every 90 days for an evaluation, all of which have been supportive and successful.
State V R.J. .: Military Diversion DUI - Client was charged with a DUI over .20%, in Vista. Client was assigned to infantry unit and served for nearly 2 years in Iraq. Attorney David Ruyle worked diligently to defer the case to diversion and successfully argued the case in Vista court to completed by way of diversion. Attorney Ruyle laid out a precise and comprehensive oral argument that linked the alcohol consumption to our clients service and the military. Attorney Ruyle spent a year working side by side with our client in his treatment program and received a full dismissal. Attorney Rule is now working with another member of our team to seal the clients booking and arrest record under SB393. Upon completion client will have no record of his case as well as no record of his arrest on his background.
DMV vs V.A.C. Our client was in danger of losing his license following law enforcement catching him driving under the influence. Both alcohol and drugs were found in his system, but our investigation uncovered an error in the chain of custody of the client’s blood sample. The DMV then lifted the suspension.
State of California vs D.I. A DUI client was charged with DUI after being stopped by law enforcement for what turned out to be insufficient probable cause. We were able to successfully challenge the DMV’s decision to suspend the client’s license.
State of California vs E.V. One of our attorneys was able to reduce a DUI to a wet reckless charge after persistent negotiations with the judge and prosecutor involved with the case.
State of California vs I.A. Our attorney was able to substantially improve a client’s situation when he reduced via aggressive investigation of law enforcement’s speed detection technology a pair of charges following an incident involving the client being caught driving over 100 mph while intoxicated to a basic DUI with no enhancements or additional jail time.
State of California vs L.W. A minor client in danger of being convicted with both DUI and California’s Zero Tolerance policy was able to, with the direction and expertise of one of our attorneys, was able to avoid conviction.
State of California vs A.R. A client with three previous DUI charges and an unusually high BAC was able, with the expertise of our attorney, to proceed with only information probation.
State of California vs D.C. Two of our attorneys, working together as a team, were able to substantially change a client’s future on a case involving Great Bodily Injury (GBI). Our client was charged with a felony level DUI causing GBI, but our attorneys were able to skillfully prove that the other involved person had not actually suffered true great bodily harm. We are proud to say the client was released after minimal jail time and only informal probation.
State of California vs K.S. A client facing a complicated second DUI, driving on a suspended license, and violation of probation, was able to proceed with their life after agreeing to informal probation and a quality rehabilitation program. They had initially been facing jail time of 180 days and multiple years with a suspended license.
State of California vs A.R. Our attorney was able to effectively wipe two prior DUIs from the record in a case in which a client was facing a third DUI. They were given informal probation and the legal equivalent of a first DUI charge.
State of California vs A.B. A client of ours was a temporary visitor to the US from Brazil was erroneously charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. We were able to demonstrate that his blood test contained no trace of marijuana. The case was dismissed.
State of California vs A.N. After an extensive investigation involving hard work from both our attorneys and our in-house Private Investigator, we were able to bring a DUI case with a BAC over 0.15g/100g to a close with no ankle-monitoring system, no ignition-interlock device, and no community service.
State of California vs D.S. A client with no prior offenses was charged with DUI with an unusually high BAC. Our attorney was able to let them return to their daily life with no ignition interlock devices, no community service, and no extended alcohol classes.
State of California vs E.L. A client who endured a significant collision was facing a DUI charge with one previous DUI conviction plus a probation violation (relating to their first DUI). Our attorney was able to protect their driving privileges and reinstate the client’s original probation stipulations.
State of California vs C.C. Our client was involved in a collision in which a victim suffered extreme injuries. The client had a previous DUI and was facing a very serious second strike involving prison time. Our attorney was able to argue for an outpatient treatment program and alcohol classes.
State of California vs B.C. A client with a clean record was charged with DUI with a high (0.20g per 100g) blood alcohol percentage was given only fines and 18 months community service.
State of California vs J.J. Our attorneys were able to attain a sentence of no jail time and protect the career of a client with a third DUI.
State of California vs D.T. Our attorney was able to arrange for a sentence of probation for a client with a seventh lifetime DUI to receive only probation.
State of California vs. C.S. A DUI case that was originally a felony was reduced to a misdemeanor under our care and a client did no jail time.
State of California vs V.B A client charged with DUI involving both prescription medication and DUI was able to get their license reinstated.
State of California vs D.T. A client who was involved in an accident with another (pregnant female) driver was able to avoid jail time despite the victim’s injuries, a high BAC, and a hit and run charge.
State of California vs B.R. A client facing a second DUI was able to have their warrant recalled as if it were never issued.
State of California vs V.R.W. Our attorneys were able to help a client who was a foreign student attending a University of California school by getting them probation following a DUI involving a severe accident.
State of California vs C.H. A client employed by the federal government was facing a second lifetime DUI, but our attorney was able to allow this client to keep their social government clearance and continue their career.
State of California vs J.W A client enjoying the San Diego desert was stopped by law enforcement and charged with DUI. The case was dismissed after our attorney demonstrated that the initial stop was illegal.
State of California vs R.K. Our attorney was able to quash a DUI charge that was based on law enforcement pulling over the client on the allegation that their headlights were off. We called an expert the scene who testified that the specific model of the vehicle rendered this claim inherently false. The client received only house arrest and electronic monitoring.
State of California vs V.C. Our attorney was skillful enough to argue for a client to receive a sentence of only 135 days of an ankle bracelet even on a second DUI.
State of California vs J.L. A young client of ours starting out in his career was able to avoid negative affects to their livelihood after a DUI when our attorney negotiated a deal involving no jail time and only probation. This client was involved in an accident that totaled their car.
State of California vs B.P. Our attorney was able to negotiate a DUI that occurred with multiple passengers in the car down to a wet reckless; the client served no time in custody and didn’t have to get any form of electronic monitoring.
State of California vs R.G. A client charged with a DUI causing injury was able to go free with no time in custody or electronic monitoring.
State of California vs T.J. One of our attorneys was able to help a client being charged with a second DUI. We were able to get the prior DUI dismissed and the client avoided serving time in custody and any electronic monitoring devices.
State of California vs J.H. Another foreign student was facing a DUI involving a severe collision. Our attorney was able to help them go free with no community service, no time in custody, and no DUI classes. The client had only to agree to 40 hours of counseling in their home country.
State of California vs A.O. We were able to help a client with two strikes on their record who was facing a felony DUI involving Great Bodily Injury by using the services of our in-house Private Investigator and the client’s case was downgraded to a misdemeanor.
State of California vs V.T. Our attorneys took on another felony DUI case involving an injured victim. We were able to prove that the victim’s claim that they had to quit work as a result of their injuries was false.
State of California vs A.Z. We were able to help a client continue with their life with no jail time, no community service, and no electronic monitoring devices. This client had an unusually high BAC (0.197g per 100g) and was involved in an accident with two other cars.
State of California vs M.R. A client came to us with both DUI and driving with a suspended license charges. We filed a motion for a speedy trial. This was granted and the case was dismissed.
State of California vs R.W. A case in which our client had flipped their car while driving under the influence was, through our attorney’s help, reduced to a wet reckless.
State of California vs L.W. A client facing a DUI had their case dismissed in exchange for attending 3 alcohol classes.
State of California vs T.J. A second DUI for a client was negotiated down to a standard first DUI with our attorney’s expertise.
State of California vs R.C. A client facing charges of DUI and resisting arrest was charged only with DUI after our attorney successfully got the resisting arrest charge dropped. The client served no jail time.
State of California vs R.G. Our attorney was able to get a client’s felony DUI (originally involving bail set at $100,000) reduced to a misdemeanor and the client went free with no additional jail time.
State of California vs T.L. A client facing a misdemeanor DUI and additional child endangerment charge was able to get their charges reduced to a wet reckless by our attorney. The client served no time in custody.
State of California vs J.A. A client with one prior DUI was facing a second offense; our attorney was able to have the case treated as a standard first DUI and the client served no time in custody.
State of California vs A.J.J. A client charged with a DUI with a high BAC and severe accident involved was able to go free with no jail time and all charges but the DUI dismissed.
State of California vs E.W. We were able to handle the case of a client who came to us with a DUI involving an accident and an unusually high BAC in such a way that the client served no jail time, was assigned no community service, and wasn’t given any form of electronic monitoring.
State of California vs A.B. A client with a DUI involving damage to private property avoided jail time with our help and instead had only to agree to pay a fine and attend alcohol classes.
State of California vs B.P. A client’s DUI with a BAC of 0.121g per 100g had their case reduced to a wet reckless with the help of our attorney.
State of California vs J.H. A case involving a client driving under the influence with their license still suspended from a prior DUI was resolved with the client serving no time in custody, having agreed to pay their fine and attend alcohol classes.