Our Successes

Attorneys at Bruckheim and Patel try to obtain favorable results and offers from the prosecution in all of our DUI cases in pretrial litigation that lead to dismissals without a trial. We are able to do this through diversion programs such as a deferred sentencing agreement (DSA). However, when the offer is not in our client’s best interest and will lead to a conviction, we are not afraid to go to trial.

Our partners, Michael Bruckheim and Sweta Patel, are both trained and certified in DWI Detection & Standardized Field Sobriety Testing by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. This is the same training that police officers who testify in DUI cases before the court have been trained in. Here are just a few of our success stories.

Attorney Michael Bruckheim

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after falling asleep in traffic and admitting to 6 glasses of wine. The client failed field tests and refused to submit to a breath test. The client found NOT GUILTY.
Client CDL holder charged with Driving Under the Influence after rear-ending a police vehicle and allegedly driving away. The odor of alcohol on the client, argumentative, and failure to finish field sobriety tests and submit to a chemical breath test. The client found NOT GUILTY.
The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after being stopped for a traffic violation. A strong odor of alcohol was observed on the client, admission to drinking, failed field tests, and refused a chemical sample. Client found NOT GUILTY!
The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after colliding with a telephone pole. The odor of alcohol was observed, and field tests were conducted on the client. Defense counsel suppressed evidence from the station house. The client was found NOT GUILTY.
The client stopped for following a vehicle too closely and was charged with Driving Under the Influence. The client admitted to drinking, a strong odor of alcohol was observed, failed field tests, and had a breath alcohol score of .10. The Client was found NOT GUILTY.
The client under 21 years of age was charged with Driving Under the Influence, with zero tolerance for those under 21. The odor of alcohol was observed on the client, and the client failed the field sobriety test and refused to submit to a chemical breath test. Client found NOT GUILTY!

Attorney Sweta Patel

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence, 5th offense, after being stopped for distracted driving. The client admitted to two drinks, had an odor of alcohol, and refused to submit a chemical breath sample. The client found NOT GUILTY.

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after hitting a tree with his vehicle. The client was taken to the hospital after injuries from the crash and admitted to drinking two shots. The client found NOT GUILTY.

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after being stopped for erratic driving. The client submitted to field sobriety tests but refused to give a chemical breath sample unless she could speak with her attorney. The client found NOT GUILTY.

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after hitting a vehicle in a fender bender. The client failed field sobriety tests and refused to give a chemical breath sample. Defense counsel successfully kept out HGN results and the refusal from the trial due to video preservation issues. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after running two stop signs. Refused field sobriety exercises and refused a chemical breath sample. Negotiated a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), a very rare offer for DUI cases, for a successful dismissal of all charges with no admission of guilt or license suspension.

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence after going the wrong way on a one-way street. Admitted to drinking three glasses of wine, performed field sobriety exercises, and refused to give a chemical breath sample. The client found NOT GUILTY.

The client was charged with Driving Under the Influence by a narcotic substance. The client was found passed out behind the wheel, failed field sobriety tests, and refused to submit to a urine sample. The client was found NOT Guilty!