DUI Attorney

Aurora DUI Attorney Dennis Champine knows that being found guilty of a DUI can be costly and time consuming, but just because you were pulled over on suspicion of DUI doesn’t mean automatic guilt. The right attorney can make it all go away, and with our expertise and experience, you may never have to face legal consequences.

Finding a great defense attorney in Aurora, Colorado can be difficult, but if you’re already here then you needn’t look any further. Dennis Champine knows all the heavy hitters in the prosecuting attorney’s office and is also the ex-Mayor of the city. He knows the judicial system well along with all the people that work in it. 

We can help you with charges related to DUI, Felony
DUI, Vehicular Assault, Vehicular Homicide, DWAI and DUID. Many people are charged with drug related driving under the influence charges these days too along with drinking and driving, and we are prepared to help your case with any of these charges that could potentially alter your life.

Even if you have failed a breathalyzer test, there are other factors involved such as the reasons the Police pulled you over in the first place that could help you avoid jail time. These extenuating circumstances often lead to dismissals of cases, and Dennis Champine will fight hard to make sure no stone is unturned in going over the evidence.

If you need a great DUI attorney in Aurora, Colorado or the Denver metro area, please give us a call today. We would love to assist you in making sure the truth is found out so that there is minimum repercussions from interaction with the Police and court system. Give us a call today at 720-858-1100 to schedule a consultation appointment.

What to do if you get pulled over

In most cases the initial contact with a defendant begins as an investigatory stop of their car for some kind of traffic offense. Sometimes this happens without probable cause but as an excuse to make contact. 

A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. Suspicion of DUI by a law enforcement officer may lead to stopping any person who the officer reasonably suspects is committing the violation. This enables the officer to question a person about their name, address, and an explanation of his or her actions, even if it doesn’t constitute an arrest. 

These can’t override constitutional rights. Three factors must be considered to make the stop valid: 
1)Did the officer have specific basis for suspecting that criminal activity had occurred or wasabout to take place?
2)Was the purpose of the intrusion reasonable?

3)Were the scope and character of the intrusion reasonable and related to its purpose?

Most DUI investigations start as non-consensual encounters. Consensual encounter issues do arise in DUI cases sometimes when police are investigating some event unrelated to DUI. They might start off an interaction with a citizen that begins as a consensual encounter but leads to suspicions that the citizen was driving under the influence. 

Many issues arise determining investigatory detentions requiring reasonable suspicion and consensual encounters. The test for determining if the encounter is a consensual one is “whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he or she was free to leave and/or to disregard the official’s request for information.” A court making this determination must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter. 

Factors that are appropriate for the trial court to consider include: 

1.whether there is a display of authority or control over the defendant by activating the siren or any patrol car overhead lights

2.the number of officers present

3.whether the officer approaches in a non-threatening manner

4.whether the officer displays a weapon

5.whether the officer requests or demands information

6.whether an officer’s show of authority or exercise of control over an individual impedes that individual’s ability to terminate the encounter.

7.whether the officer retains the citizen’s identification or travel documents

A request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a seizure. Additionally, an officer simply checking for warrants does not transform a consensual police encounter into an investigatory stop that allows for suspicion of criminal activity. If an officer keeps a person’s identification and instructs him or her to remain in the car while checking for warrants, the consensual encounter turns into an investigatory stop requiring reasonable suspicion to be justified and a demand for identification may be treated differently from a request for identification. Assuming that the encounter at issue was not consensual, the court must then evaluate why the stop occurred. There are three ways to test the reason for an investigatory stop. The first test for the validity of an investigatory stop is whether the officer had an argument and specific basis for suspecting that criminal activity had occurred or was about to take place. The phrase “articulable and specific basis in fact” is equivalent to the phrase “reasonable suspicion,” and the phrases are used interchangeably in cases addressing the issue. Whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion is determined by the total evidence. The court should consider the facts known to the officer and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. The court may look at circumstances that include objective observations by the officer, information obtained by the officer from fellow officers, and consideration of the modes or patterns of certain kinds of criminals. The issue is one of the probabilities which are not technical but are real practical questions of everyday life. Even a minor traffic violation will provide reasonable suspicion for the stop, and it is not necessary that the defendant be actually cited for the observed violation. A traffic stop is valid if the stop is based upon an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring. The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that reasonable suspicion can rest on a reasonable mistake of law if the officer’s cause is reasonable. Another test for determining an investigatory stop is whether the scope and character of the intrusion is reasonably related to its purpose. As the purpose of a traffic stop is usually to investigate abnormal driving and give the driver a chance to explain his or her actions, the reasonable scope of a stop is generally limited to asking the driver for identification, and for an explanation of the suspected driving offense. The officer can ask the defendant to give his or her name, address, and an explanation of his or her actions along with checking for warrants as part of the stop. The law sees it as proper within the scope of a traffic stop for an officer to ask a defendant whom he observed weaving if he has been drinking. An officer asking the defendant during a traffic stop where they are going and where they had been does not constitute “custodial” interrogation. When an officer has an objectively reasonable basis to believe the defendant has committed the traffic offense of weaving, the officer has the authority to 
request the defendant’s name, license, and registration, and to detain the defendant while checking the information’s validity. It does not violate the constitution to require the defendant to get out of his car and walk to the rear of the car in the course of a valid investigatory stop. This intrusion is to provide officer safety. It doesn’t constitute a search of that person. Placing a defendant in the backseat of a patrol car for 15 minutes while officers perform an investigation does not transform an investigatory stop into an arrest. However, if the questioning and detention of the driver by the officer are more than brief and cursory, then an arrest has occurred, and it must be supported by either probable cause or the consent of the defendant to be valid. The length of the detention must be reasonable in light of the purpose of the stop. A 20 to 30-minute detention waiting for the chief investigator to arrive to question the defendant is unreasonable as part of an investigatory stop and can only be supported if based on probable cause. It has been concluded that probable cause to arrest a motorist for DUI does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis to conduct a warrantless search of the motorist’s car for further evidence of the DUI. Before engaging in such a search, the police must identify specific facts that make it reasonable to conclude that evidence linking the defendant to the DUI offense would be found in a search of the vehicle. Often an arrested defendant will be asked to take a roadside sobriety test. These tests are somewhat difficult even for many sober individuals. Therefore, unless a defendant is absolutely certain they will complete perfectly the roadside tests, they should be declined. Often a DUI patrol officer will have a portable breathalyzer and will request the defendant take the test. The tests are voluntary and the results cannot be used in a trial. However, unless the defendant is absolutely certain there will be no alcohol or drugs detected in their system, the test should be declined. If the officer continues with the arrest, a choice will be given as to whether the defendant will take a blood or a breath test. Unless the defendant is absolutely certain there will be no alcohol or drugs detected in their system, a blood test is preferable in that it will postpone the loss of driving privilege (it takes time for the police lab to process the test). One thing should be made clear. Being polite and courteous to the officers will always be helpful. Being discourteous, rude, argumentative, resistant will show up in the police report and will not be helpful as the DUI case goes forward and is reviewed by prosecutors and judges.