Results

The lawyers of Chetson Hiltzheimer have a significant record of trial victories before judges and juries. Below is a sampling of victories obtained by the Firm.* Every case is different, and there are no guarantees about the outcome of any individual case, but what we can guarantee is that we will fight for the best possible outcome at every step of the way.

J., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED and DRIVING AFTER CONSUMING <21 (Oct. 2016): SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in October of 2016, Mr. Hiltzheimer represented an individual charged with DWI and Driving After Consuming While Under 21, after driving into a DWI checkpoint at NC State. Following a contentious hearing on the constitutionality of the checkpoint itself and the specific methods used by the police, the Court found that the entire checkpoint was unconstitutional on its face and dismissed all charges against the firm’s client.

T., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED and SPEEDING (May 2016):
NOT GUILTY: DWI

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in May of 2016, Mr. Hiltzheimer represented an individual charged with DWI and Speeding. The client blew a .16 on the Intox EC/IR II, but the numerical result was excluded from evidence. The firm’s client was found NOT GUILTY of Driving While Impaired, and merely paid court costs and a nominal fine on the associated speeding citation.

J., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED and POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA (Apr. 2016):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in April of 2016, Mr. Hiltzheimer represented an individual charged with DWI and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The client was stopped for weaving and “suspicious driving.” Following a hearing on the legal basis of the stop itself, the Court found that the stop violated the client’s Fourth Amendment rights and both charges were dismissed as a result.

R., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (August 2015):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in August of 2015, Mr. Hiltzheimer represented an individual charged with DWI after driving through a checkpoint without stopping. Following a challenge to the constitutionality of the checkpoint itself, the Court found that the entire checkpoint was unconstitutional on its face and dismissed the client’s entire case.

T., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (July 2015):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in 2015, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented another client charged with Driving While Impaired following a stop at a Wake County DWI Checkpoint in Cary. The arresting officer testified that the client failed a series of field sobriety tests, but the evidence revealed that he showed no traditional indicators of impairment, despite the officer’s claims of failed physical tests. The Court found no probable cause for his arrest, suppressed the breath result, and the case was dismissed.

J., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (May 2015):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in 2015, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented another client charged with Driving While Impaired following a stop at a Wake County DWI Checking Station (Roadblock). The officer testified that, based on his training and experience, the client’s performance on standardized field sobriety tests — including the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and the Modified Romberg Balance — in addition to an admission to drinking and a positive result on a portable breath test (PBT), all amounted to probable cause for his arrest on suspicion of DWI. Following a detailed cross-examination of the officer by Mr. Hiltzheimer, however, the Court ultimately concluded that the evidence was insufficient to serve as a legal basis for the client’s arrest. The breath result was suppressed from evidence, having been obtained in violation of the client’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the case was dismissed as a result.

N., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (April 2015):
TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in 2015, a Wake County District Court judge ruled that there was simply not enough evidence to find Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Firm’s client was stopped by a State Trooper for speeding late on a Friday night headed outbound from Raleigh, which quickly escalated into a DWI investigation. Following a thorough dismantling of the trooper’s testimony on his administration of the “Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus” test (HGN), the Court declined to qualify the trooper as an expert and refused to consider the evidence. Ultimately, the Court found the evidence to be insufficient and found the client NOT GUILTY of Driving While Impaired.

A., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (March 2015):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County Superior Court in 2015, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with Driving While Impaired, following a stop at a Wake County DWI Checking Station (Roadblock). The officer testified that he detained the Firm’s client to perform field sobriety tests, but through detailed cross-examination, Mr. Hiltzheimer elicited testimony from the officer that indicated that his “suspicion” of impairment was nothing more than an unsubstantiated hunch. As a result, the Court held that the Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated at the moment the individual was ordered out of the vehicle. The Court granted the defense motion to suppress all remaining evidence — including field sobriety tests, portable breath test results, and a BAC of .10 from the Intox EC/IR II — on two distinct constitutional theories, and the case was dismissed altogether as a result.

F., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (2014):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in 2014, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with Driving While Impaired, following a traffic stop initiated by a state trooper who testified that he followed the client’s vehicle for three to five minutes after observing the vehicle leave a bar parking lot at 2:40a.m. The trooper testified that he observed the client’s vehicle make a series of “erratic” traffic movements, culminating in a U-Turn directly in front of the trooper’s vehicle. Upon motion of the defense, the Wake County District Court judge ruled that the stop violated the client’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, and suppressed all remaining evidence, including field sobriety tests and a BAC of .13. The case was dismissed altogether as a result.

R., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (2014):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in 2014, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with Driving While Impaired, following a stop and investigation at a Raleigh DWI checkpoint (roadblock). Following vigorous cross-examination of the state’s witnesses by Mr. Hiltzheimer regarding the checkpoint plan and the reliability of the field sobriety tests applied to the Firm’s client, the Court found no probable cause, suppressed the introduction of the BAC result, and dismissed the case.

J., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (2013):
SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a 2013 case in Wake County District Court, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with Driving While Impaired (DWI), following a traffic stop on the Wade Avenue Extension early on New Year’s morning. The trooper who initiated the stop testified that the client’s vehicle had traveled out of the lane and onto the rumblestrips for 125 feet, passing directly by the parked trooper on the rumblestrips. On the trial date, Mr. Hiltzheimer carefully dissected the trooper’s testimony, drawing out multiple inconsistencies, and persuaded the judge that the testimony was not credible. On motion by the defense, the District Court judge dismissed the DWI case, in which the client had registered a 0.18 BAC after his arrest.

M., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (2013):
TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

In a 2013 case in Wake County District Court, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with Driving While Impaired (DWI), in a case in which the Firm’s client was alleged to have been sleeping in the driver’s seat of a vehicle with the engine running — while impaired on alcohol. Following a meticulous deconstruction of the State’s case, the judge was persuaded that the State had not proven that the client operated the vehicle within the meaning of the DWI statute, and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

M., charged with DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (2013):
DMV REFUSAL HEARING: REVOCATION DENIED FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE.  DISTRICT COURT CASE: DISMISSED ON TRIAL DATE.

In a 2013 case in Wake County District Court, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with Driving While Impaired (DWI), following a stop at a Cary DWI Checking Station (sobriety checkpoint).  The client was unable to produce adequate breath to produce a reading, but the arresting officer claimed that the Firm’s client had refused the test, and she was charged with DWI for allegedly failing Field Sobriety Tests.  Following a successful challenge to the refusal at a contentious DMV hearing, the Firm prevented the client from losing her driver’s license for a year, and on the heels of that victory secured a dismissal of the entire case in District Court.

L., charged with LARCENY (2012):
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL: GRANTED.  CASE DISMISSED.

In a 2012 trial in Wake County District Court, attorney Ben Hiltzheimer represented a client charged with larceny.  The charge stemmed from an incident in which the Firm’s client was alleged to have stolen items from an ex-girlfriend in the course of a breakup.  The client maintained his innocence from the outset and The Hiltzheimer Firm took the case to trial.  After attorney Hiltzheimer systematically discredited the State’s witness on cross-examination, the District Court judge granted Mr. Hiltzheimer’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the State’s case.  The judge granted that motion, and secured a victory — a full acquittal — for the client.  Had Mr. Hiltzheimer’s motion not been granted, he had a line of witnesses prepared to testify on behalf of the client, including a bank representative to testify that an ATM transaction had never occurred and a city employee who would testify that a 911 call was never made.

V., charged with ARMED ROBBERY (2012):
NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS

In a 2012 trial, a client of The Hiltzheimer Firm, V., was charged by indictment with 11 counts, stemming from an alleged armed robbery of three individuals, where multiple firearms were alleged to have been involved. Mr. V was facing a mandatory minimum of 5 years for each alleged victim, and a maximum of 30 years per alleged victim. After lawyer Ben Hiltzheimer dismantled the government’s case piece by piece, systematically undermining the credibility of multiple civilian witnesses and turning government witnesses into favorable witnesses for Mr. V, a jury found Mr. V NOT GUILTY on all counts, including all lesser-included counts of unarmed robbery.

T., charged with DISTRIBUTION OF HEROIN (2011):
NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS

Mr. T was charged with distribution of heroin and related counts, in a case in which he allegedly sold heroin to an undercover officer in a buy/bust operation with multiple undercover officers testifying as witnesses against him. After attorney Hiltzheimer drew out critical flaws in the government’s case, Mr. T was found NOT GUILTY on all counts, in a trial by jury.

D., charged with FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM (2011):
NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS

Mr. D was charged with being unlawfully in possession of a firearm while having a prior felony conviction, and related firearms offenses. Mr. D was alleged to have been driving a vehicle with a .25 caliber firearm in his coat pocket. Lawyer Ben Hiltzheimer carefully presented a defense case to the jury, Mr. D was found NOT GUILTY on all counts at trial, despite powerful evidence implicating him in the offense.

N., charged with CARRYING A PISTOL WITHOUT A LICENSE (2010):
NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS

Mr. N was charged with carrying a pistol without a license, and related firearms offenses, for a firearm allegedly recovered from his glove compartment following a traffic stop. Attorney Hiltzheimer crafted a creative defense theory that led to Mr. N being found NOT GUILTY on all counts following a trial by jury.

R., charged with FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM (2010):
EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, CASE DISMISSED

Mr. R was charged with being unlawfully in possession of a firearm while having a prior felony conviction, and related firearms offenses. Mr. R was alleged to have been driving a vehicle with a handgun under the driver’s seat. Lawyer Ben Hiltzheimer challenged the legality of the search of the vehicle, and following a suppression hearing on the constitutionality of the vehicle search, the judge found that the police had violated Mr. R’s Fourth Amendment rights in conducting the search. As a result, the judge ordered the evidence suppressed, and the case was dismissed in its entirety as a result.

* The initials of clients have been changed to protect the privacy of our clients, but the details described are actual results obtained by The Hiltzheimer Firm.

DISCLAIMER: The cases described on this site are a subset of the cases handled by the firm.  Results in past cases do not guarantee or predict similar results in future cases.  Other cases handled by attorney Hiltzheimer have resulted in convictions, resulting in jail time and fines.  The firm does not guarantee results in any particular case.