#image_title
If you’ve been stopped by police and charged with DUI (sometimes called Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (OVWI/OWI) in Indiana), it’s easy to feel like the fight is over before it starts. Many people assume a drunk driving arrest automatically means a conviction. That’s not true.
At the Marc Lopez Law Firm, we’ve been defending OWI clients for nearly two decades, and we’ve seen countless cases where the right strategy made all the difference. Here are five ways an experienced criminal defense attorney can challenge an OWI charge in Indiana.
OWI isn’t just about alcohol, it’s about operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
Indiana courts have defined “operator” as “a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.” Winters v. State, 132 N.E.3d 46, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Control” is a bit open ended, but still “requires effort, the doing of something, by the operator.” Id. at 50.
If your vehicle wasn’t in motion, proving operation gets much harder for prosecutors. Some lawyers skip over this element, but we don’t. We’ve had cases where proving lack of operation was enough to keep a conviction off our client’s record.
Indiana law is very clear that a chemical test must be “administered within three (3) hours after the law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person committed [OWI]” Ind. Code § 9-30-6-2.
Case law has clarified this to mean that the three-hour clock starts when the accused last operated the vehicle. If you were parked or stationary when police made contact, that timeline can create significant challenges for the prosecution. Many lawyers overlook this; we dig into it in every OWI case. Even a small delay can help your defense.
3. How the Test Was Administered
Chemical tests are only admissible if the State follows the rules exactly. Indiana law requires:
The Indiana Court of Appeals has clarified these three requirements for admissibility of a chemical test: “(1) the person who administered the test must be certified by the Department of Toxicology, (2) the equipment used in the test must have been inspected and approved by the Department of Toxicology, and (3) the operator must have followed the procedures approved by the Department of Toxicology” State v. Lucas, 934 N.E.2d 202, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Further supplements to these procedures are laid out in the Indiana Administrative Code, Title 260, section 1.1. If the State doesn’t comply with these rules the results are to be excluded. And without them, the prosecution’s case often collapses completely.
4. Miranda Rights Violations
Police aren’t required to read you your rights during every OWI stop. The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that “a person detained for a traffic stop is not ordinarily ‘in custody’ in the meaning of Miranda” Delatorre v. State, 903 N.E.2d 506, 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Similarly, the Indiana Supreme Court explained that “Miranda warnings are not required in circumstances such as [] where a defendant is briefly detained at a public sobriety checkpoint” State v. Brown, 70 N.E.3d 331, 333 (Ind. 2017).
That said, the line between custodial and non-custodial stops is thin. If you were restrained or not free to leave, Miranda could apply and any statements made without a warning might be suppressed. Determining which statements you made are admissible can sink the State’s case.
The three standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn, and One-Leg Stand) are only valid if administered according to strict federal guidelines.
The quality of the officer’s administration directly affects the weight the court can give the results. As the Court of Appeals has noted, “the level of execution of standardized field sobriety tests influences the weight of the evidence” Hinds v. State, 906 N.E.2d 877, 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Many officers receive SFST training at the academy and never refresh their skills. They cut corners, miss steps, and fail to score correctly. If we can suppress the chemical test results, the State may have to rely on flawed SFST evidence, which can be successfully challenged.
Each of these five strategies targets an essential part of the State’s case. If we can raise reasonable doubt about any one element, the prosecution may not be able to meet its burden.
OWI cases aren’t “one-size-fits-all.” A skilled criminal defense attorney tailors the defense to the facts, the evidence, and the law.
The State has experienced prosecutors building a case against you from the moment of your arrest. You deserve a defense team that’s equally aggressive.
At the Marc Lopez Law Firm, we take OVWI/OWI defense personally. We know the stakes: your license, your job, your reputation, and your freedom.
Call us today at 463-222-0793 to schedule a confidential consultation. And remember: always plead the Fifth!