In this case our client was charged with DWI following a single-car traffic accident in which the client’s car veered off the road and collided with a tree.  After the client’s arrest, client was detained for an extended period of time and the defense was able to establish violations of the client’s rights under North Carolina law and the US Constitution.  The Court dismissed the charge as a result of those violations.

A., CHARGED WITH DWI (MARCH 2021): PRETRIAL MOTION RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.

In this case Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Driving While Impaired following a traffic stop for speeding 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.  The officer conducted standardized field sobriety tests, but after careful review, the defense determined that the tests were done improperly and recruited an expert to testify at a pretrial hearing challenging the basis for the arrest.  The court granted the defense motion to suppress a BAC of .14, and dismissed the DWI charge.

J., CHARGED WITH DWI (SEPTEMBER 2019): PRETRIAL HEARING OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST.

Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Assault With a Deadly Weapon With Intent to Kill, a Class E felony, and Discharging a Firearm into an Occupied Vehicle, a Class D felony, among other related charges.  All charges arose from a domestic dispute in Durham, and the incident occurred in the middle of the afternoon on a residential street.  Mr. Hiltzheimer negotiated a complete dismissal of all charges and secured an expungement for his client.

R., CHARGED WITH ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPON WITH INTENT TO KILL ET AL. (FEBRUARY 2019): NEGOTIATED COMPLETE DISMISSAL.

In this case Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Driving While Impaired in connection with an accident that occurred in a parking lot outside of a Raleigh bar near the NC State campus.  The client was placed under arrest at the scene and blew a .17 on the Intox EC/IR II at the Wake County Detention Center.  At the conclusion of the State’s evidence at trial, Mr. Hiltzheimer successfully moved to dismiss the case on grounds that the State had failed to establish that the firm’s client was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the accident.  The entire case was dismissed by the court.

H., CHARGED WITH DWI (MARCH 2018): TRIAL OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Our client was charged with DWI for allegedly bumping her vehicle into the side of a restaurant while parking, which an off-duty police officer reported that he had heard from inside the restaurant.  She was arrested and registered a .27 BAC on the Intox EC/IR II.  More than two years lapsed and the state failed to bring the case to trial, and Mr. Hiltzheimer filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to State v. Turner.  The motion was granted by the court and the case was dismissed in its entirety.

T., CHARGED WITH DWI (DECEMBER 2017): MOTION TO DISMISS: GRANTED.

Yet another of Mr. Hiltzheimer’s clients was stopped in an unconstitutional DWI checkpoint (roadblock) in Durham, where the State Highway Patrol decided to stop all vehicle traffic on University Drive one night to see what criminal charges might emerge if they stopped all apparently innocent travelers along that road.  Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client showed no signs of impairment, violated no traffic laws, but blew a .08 BAC.  After prolonged litigation in which Mr. Hiltzheimer challenged the constitutionality of both the checkpoint and the arrest, and retained an expert retired police officer to call into the question the reliability of the testing methods used by the arresting officer, the case was ultimately dismissed by a Durham Superior Court judge.

S., CHARGED WITH DWI (NOVEMBER 2017): SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case heard in Wake County District Court in August of 2017, Mr. Hiltzheimer represented an individual charged with his second DWI, facing mandatory jail time. Mr. Hiltzheimer filed a Motion to Suppress the breathalyzer result of .23 on the grounds that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest the client. Following a meticulous cross-examination by Hiltzheimer, the Court agreed and found an insufficient legal basis for the arrest. As a result, the breathalyzer result was deemed to be the “fruit of the poisonous tree” (the unlawful arrest), and the case was dismissed in its entirety.

B., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (AUGUST 2017): SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In a case that arose from an alleged assault in Durham, Mr. Hiltzheimer was able to prove that the alleged victim had fabricated the assault. After reviewing the evidence, the District Attorney dismissed the case in its entirety without requiring a single court appearance by Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client.

N., CHARGED WITH ASSAULT ON FEMALE (JULY 2017): CASE DISMISSED.

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.

T., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED AND SPEEDING (MAY 2016): TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY DWI.

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.

R., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (AUGUST 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.

J., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (MAY 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.

A., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (MARCH 2015): SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

In this case Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Driving While Impaired and Failure to Maintain Lane Control following a motorcycle accident.  The client was found in a ditch under the bike with serious injuries, and blood analysis revealed a BAC of .14.  Following a technical challenge to the state’s evidence regarding the timing of the accident, which was never established, the court found that the BAC was not proven to be within a “relevant time after the driving,” as required by North Carolina law.  As a result, the Court found the firm’s client NOT GUILTY of both counts.

R., CHARGED WITH DWI (AUGUST 2020): TRIAL OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS.

Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Assault With a Deadly Weapon With Intent to Kill, a Class E felony, and Discharging a Firearm into an Occupied Vehicle, a Class D felony, among other related charges.  All charges arose from a domestic dispute in Durham, and the incident occurred in the middle of the afternoon on a residential street.  Mr. Hiltzheimer negotiated a complete dismissal of all charges and secured an expungement for his client.

H., CHARGED WITH DWI (MARCH 2018): TRIAL OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In this case Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Driving While Impaired following a traffic stop for speeding 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.  The officer conducted standardized field sobriety tests, but after careful review, the defense determined that the tests were done improperly and recruited an expert to testify at a pretrial hearing challenging the basis for the arrest.  The court granted the defense motion to suppress a BAC of .14, and dismissed the DWI charge.

J., CHARGED WITH DWI (SEPTEMBER 2019): PRETRIAL HEARING OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST.

In this case Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with Driving While Impaired after being stopped at a DWI checkpoint.  The officer smelled alcohol on the driver and proceeded to conduct standardized field sobriety tests, which were followed by an arrest and a BAC of .09.  Mr. Hiltzheimer challenged the manner in which the field sobriety tests were conducted and the officer’s conclusions, and the District Court judge granted the defense motion to suppress the BAC and dismiss the case in its entirety.

K., CHARGED WITH DWI (JANUARY 2019): PRETRIAL HEARING OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST.

In this case Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was stopped for driving the wrong way on a one way street, and was charged with that violation along with DWI.  The firm’s client was subjected to standardized field sobriety testing, placed under arrest, and ultimately blew a .10 on the Intox EC/IR II breathalyzer.  At trial, Mr. Hiltzheimer argued successfully for the exclusion of the breathalyzer result on evidentiary grounds, and elicited innocent explanations for both the wrong turn and the flaws in the field sobriety tests.  The client was found NOT GUILTY of DWI at the conclusion of the trial in District Court.

C., CHARGED WITH DWI (JANUARY 2018): TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

This case arose from a vehicle accident in a parking lot in Durham, following with Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was alleged to have fled the scene. He was later charged with misdemeanor hit and run. Despite the damning evidence, Mr. Hiltzheimer was able to negotiate a complete dismissal of the charges so the client could move on with his life with a clean record.

J., CHARGED WITH HIT AND RUN (OCTOBER 2017): CASE DISMISSED.

In a case arising from a search warrant of electronic devices in Durham, Mr. Hiltzheimer’s client was charged with eight (8) counts of Felony Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (N.C.G.S. § 14-190.17), a Class E Felony. Mr. Hiltzheimer identified a collection of critical flaws in the search warrant application, and moved to suppress the entirety of the evidence in the case. Following a contentious hearing, a Durham Superior Court judge granted the defense motion to suppress all of the evidence that served as the basis of the charges. The charges were dismissed.

F., CHARGED WITH 8 FELONY COUNTS OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR (JULY 2017): 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.

J., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED AND DRIVING AFTER CONSUMING (OCTOBER 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.

J., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED AND POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA (APRIL 2016): 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.

T., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (JULY 2015): SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.

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.

N., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (APRIL 2015): TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

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.

F., CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (2014): SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED: CASE DISMISSED.