Can I fight my Colorado DUI?

Simply speaking, yes. An attorney can review every aspect of the case, from the reason that you were stopped, to the validity of the field sobriety tests, to the maintenance of the breathalyzer machine, to the validity of the results. They will conduct a thorough review of all the facts and laws regarding the definition of DUI and your Colorado DUI case.

Also, your attorney will discuss the case with the prosecutor and judge, pointing out your background, your job, and the need for you to keep your license. Because our practice is dedicated to Colorado DWAI and Colorado DUI defense, and because our DUI attorneys have backgrounds in prosecution, we have an intimate knowledge of the Colorado DUI system, and in-depth experience representing clients in Colorado DUI trials. Our experience in prosecution allows to anticipate, and prepare for, strategies employed against our clients.

You must have a qualified and experienced DUI defense attorney, who knows the ins and outs of the Colorado DUI laws and who is passionate about protecting your license.  If you are charged with a Colorado DUI, they will use all of our knowledge and experience in prosecution and defense to protect you from conviction.

In addition to their dedication to protecting the rights of the accused, we are committed to providing a superior level of client service. DUI attorneys work one-on-one with you to make sure you understand the process and prevent unwelcome surprises. They keep you informed on the status of your case and respond promptly to your inquiries. The understand how stressful a criminal prosecution is, and working with your lawyer should never be an additional source of stress. You will always be treated with respect, courtesy, and professionalism.


T.W., a postal worker, went to a party in the south suburbs.  He was unfamiliar with the roads there and needed help to get back to the highway so he followed another vehicle that was leaving the party.  Mr. W. was pulled over by the Park Forest police for speeding, and after field sobriety testing, arrested him for DUI.  Mr. W cross examination showed that Mr. W. had been driving in an unimpaired manner, even if slightly over the speed limit, and that he did quite well on the field sobriety tests considering his physical disabilities.  Mr. W had previously had Mr. W.’s license suspension lifted after proving that he had not been properly warned of the consequences of refusing to take a breath test.


A.M. is a good example of the saying “no good deed goes unpunished.”  She was the designated driver for a night out with a friend.  On their way home, her intoxicated friend began vomiting inside A.M.’s new car.  When she didn’t proceed immediately after her traffic light turned green (because her friend was vomiting), a Chicago police officer made a traffic stop.  Almost immediately, he arrested A.M., based on very flimsy evidence that she might be under the influence of alcohol (she was “confused” to be interrogated by a police officer, and her car smelled of alcohol (remember, her friend was vomiting inside the car after drinking)).  Attorney took the case to trial, resulting in a finding of “Not Guilty.”


B.H. was in danger of losing her job after she was charged with driving under the influence after being involved in a collision on the Chicago Skyway.  Attorney Harold L. Wallin took the case to trial, and was able to take advantage of several inconsistencies between the police reports, tickets and officer’s testimony to raise reasonable doubts as to the officer’s contention that Ms. H. was intoxicated on the night of the crash.  Afterwards, the judge commended Mr. Wallin on the professional manner in which he conducted the trial.


J.C. was arrested and charged with DUI by a local university police department after a property damage accident.  Mr. Wallin obtained over six hours of videotape of his client in the police station, and multiple drafts of police reports, including memos suggesting “corrections” to earlier drafts.  The evidence showed that Mr. C. walked sturdily (including walking up steps in the police station while handcuffed) had no difficulty removing his belt or shoelaces or following instructions.  Despite what was put in the reports, he was willing to perform a breath test, but a sergeant talked him out of it.  Afterwards, the sergeant allowed him to take a portable breath test, but did not record the results.  After hearing from multiple witnesses, watching the video, and considering written motions, the judge found Mr. Wallin’s client not guilty!.


After a long, hard work week, Mr. G., a journalist, went out to his favorite downtown nightclub, where he networked, danced, and had two glasses of wine.  An acquaintance of his wanted a ride, so Mr. G. told him that he would wait for him outside where he was parked.  While sitting in his properly parked car, with the ignition off, Mr. G. fell asleep.  His acquaintance never showed up, but a Chicago DUI officer did, and arrested Mr. G. for driving while under the influence.  Mr. G. felt this was an example of racial profiling, something he has written about in the past.  Mr. Wallin argued to a Chicago jury that Mr. G. had done nothing wrong, and the jury agreed, acquitting him of DUI.


After a day of painting his tenant’s apartment, Mr. G. was pulled over for a minor traffic violation.  He was surprised to be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Wallin presented the testimony of the tenant, who was with Mr. G all day until 45 minutes before the traffic stop, and who did not observe him drink at all.  There was also a stipulation as to the jail lockup keeper, who wrote in his report that Mr. G. did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol when he was booked.  After hearing all the evidence, a Chicago judge found Mr. G. not guilty.


Client was attending a block party.  He was offered a ride on someone’s motorcycle, which ended in a crash.  The driver ran from the scene, because it turned out the motorcycle was stolen.  A Chicago police officer who makes a lot of DUI arrests came to the scene, saw an injured (and drunk) Mr. R.T., and arrested him for DUI without investigating the crash.  At trial, Attorney presented several witnesses who testified that Mr. R.T. was a passenger, not the driver, and the judge found him not guilty.


B.G., a truck driver, was facing a one year disqualification of his CDL license after he was charged with DUI following an accident. Attorney Harold L. Attorney challenged both the statutory summary suspension and DUI arrest, successfully arguing to the court that the police lacked sufficient probable cause to believe that Mr. G. had been under the influence of alcohol, and the case was dismissed.


Patrick B. had worked a long night as a bartender, and was on his way for breakfast when he was stopped by a Denver Police officer. Patrick felt that the officer had profiled him because he left a “gay” bar in the downtown section of Denver. The officer also made Patrick feel that he was being persecuted because of his sexual orientation. Patrick also claimed that the officer changed his statement that he had a diet soda into “rum and soda.” The officer, a veteran on the force, denied all these allegations. After a jury trial, Mr. B. was found not guilty of all charges.


Clifford H. was stopped by the Denver Police Department after he was clocked going 52 mph on First Avenue at 2:30 a.m. The officer had Mr. H. perform some field sobriety tests and then arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Back at the police station, Mr. H. submitted to breath testing, revealing a result of 0.083, just over the legal limit of 0.08. An additional charge of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) greater than 0.08 was issued.

At trial, the cross-examination of the officer revealed that Mr. H. did not drive in an impaired manner. Furthermore, Mr. H. did fairly well on the field sobriety tests. Attorney also was able to show that the breath test result fell within the margin of error of the breath testing instrument, and furthermore, that due to the absorption of alcohol in Mr. H.’s blood system, it was possible that that Mr. H.’s blood alcohol concentration was well under the legal limit at the time of the traffic stop. After hearing all the evidence, the Judge found Mr. H. not guilty of DUI.


Mr. G. was in the midst of a sentence of court supervision for a DUI when he made the poor decision to drive home from a friend’s house after having drunk a few beers. He was stopped at a Denver Police “roadside safety check” (also known as a roadblock). The officer smelled an odor of alcohol on Mr. G’s breath and noticed that his eyes looked glassy. The officer asked Mr. G. to perform field sobriety tests and a breath test, which revealed a result of 0.16 – twice the legal limit. Not only was Mr. G. facing a stiff sentence for getting his second DUI within two years, but he was also facing jail time from the judge in the first case for violating the terms of his court supervision.

Attorney filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, alleging that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. G. and charge him with driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr. W was able to show to the court that Mr. G.’s driving did not show any signs of impairment, and that he successfully completed field sobriety testing. After the hearing, the court agreed with Mr. W, and the case was dismissed!


Mr. C. was arrested for his third DUI. Because of his background, the case was upgraded to a felony charge of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol. During the state’s presentation of the case, the arresting officer stated he believed that Mr. C. had been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Attorney Wallin took advantage of that mistake, arguing that his client was charged only with driving under the influence of alcohol, which is a separate and distinct charge from driving under the influence of drugs or driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and drugs. The law requires that the state prove each fact alleged in the indictment. Since the state did not prove that Mr. C. was in fact driving under the influence of alcohol (because the officer did not know whether Mr. C. was under the influence or alcohol or drugs), the state had failed to meet its burden of proof. The judge unhappily agreed with Mr. Wallin’s argument, and ruled that he was compelled to dismiss the charges against Mr. C. even if he thought that Mr. C. was probably guilty. Before Mr. C. left the courtroom, the Judge told him that he was a very lucky man to have avoided a conviction.

What is illegal under Colorado DUI law?

Below are the Colorado DUI Laws. I have complete knowledge and experience with the Colorado DUI laws that may (or may not) apply to your case. I fully encourage you to call me to discuss any aspect of your facts, the Colorado DUI laws, and what I can do to help you with this situation.

Will the law take into account my past good behavior, my career, and the effect a loss of driving privileges will have on my life?

Yes. Because sometimes bad things happen to good people, and I will point these very facts out in order to minimize the problems a Colorado DUI might have in your life.

Learn About Colorado DUI Law – Colorado DWAI Law – Colorado Drunk Driving Laws

  • 42-4-1301. Colorado DUI Driving under the influence – driving while impaired – driving with excessive alcoholic content – Colorado DUI penalties
  • 42-4-1301.2. Refusal of test – effect on driver’s license – revocation – reinstatement.
  • 42-4-1301.1. Expressed consent for the taking of blood, breath, urine, or saliva sample – testing.
  • 42-2-132.5. Mandatory and voluntary restricted licenses following alcohol conviction.
  • 42-2-127. Authority to suspend license – to deny license – type of conviction – points.
  • 42-2-126. Revocation of license based on administrative determination.
  • 42-2-125. Mandatory revocation of license and permit.
  • 42-2-132. Period of suspension or revocation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *