Summary. A working kit: the week-one letters, motion outlines for every suppression theory, cross-examination outlines for the officer and the criminalist, worksheets for the timeline and the chemistry, the administrative hearing, and the primary authorities.

SECTION A — WEEK ONE LETTERS

A-1. Video and evidence preservation demand (send day one)

Re: State v. [Name], [citation/case no.] — DEMAND TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

Defendant demands that your agency preserve, and not overwrite, delete, or degrade, the following, pending further order:

  1. All body-worn camera recordings from every officer present at any point in the encounter of [date], including pre-stop, the stop, the roadside investigation, transport, arrival at the facility, the observation period, and booking — in native format with metadata.
  2. All in-car / dashboard camera recordings, including any pre-event buffer.
  3. All station and booking area video and audio, including the room where the observation period was conducted and where the test was administered.
  4. The CAD dispatch log and radio traffic for the incident.
  5. All instrument data, including the printed result, the internal log, diagnostic records, and any slope or mouth-alcohol detector output.
  6. Blood cases: the sample itself, refrigerated, with sufficient volume preserved for independent testing, together with the chain of custody, the tube lot documentation, and the laboratory's raw chromatography data.
  7. All notes, clue sheets, and worksheets from the field sobriety tests.

Failure to preserve this evidence after notice may support a spoliation instruction, suppression, or dismissal. Please confirm in writing that a hold has been placed.

A-2. Discovery demand

DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY — State v. [Name]

INCIDENT
 1. All reports, supplements, and notes of every officer involved.
 2. CAD log; radio traffic; call history.
 3. All video and audio (see preservation demand).
 4. Booking record and property inventory.
 5. Tow and inventory records.

FIELD TESTING
 6. SFST notes and marked clue sheets.
 7. Officer's SFST training certification and refresher records.
 8. DRE certification, rolling log, and the full 12-step evaluation
    face sheet, if applicable.
 9. Preliminary breath test device certification and calibration.

CHEMICAL TESTING — BREATH
10. Instrument make, model, serial number, and software version.
11. Maintenance, calibration, and certification records for the
    period [90 days before] through [90 days after] the test.
12. Simulator solution certificates and lot records.
13. Operator permit and training records.
14. OBSERVATION PERIOD documentation: who, from when, to when.
15. Instrument internal log for the test date; all diagnostics;
    any error, purge, or invalid-sample records.
16. Agency SOP for administering the test.

CHEMICAL TESTING — BLOOD
17. Phlebotomy record; qualifications of the person who drew.
18. Chain of custody, complete.
19. Tube lot, preservative and anticoagulant documentation.
20. Storage and transport temperature logs; time in transit.
21. Laboratory accreditation; analyst qualifications; SOP.
22. RAW CHROMATOGRAPHY DATA and calibration/QC runs for the batch.
23. Whether the result is whole blood or serum/plasma.

CHECKPOINT (if applicable)
24. Written operational plan and supervisory authorization.
25. The neutral formula for which vehicles were stopped.
26. Publicity documentation.
27. Site selection criteria and safety plan.
28. Statistics: vehicles through, stopped, detained, arrested.

GENERAL
29. Criminal history of every state witness.
30. Any impeachment material, including sustained complaints or
    findings bearing on the credibility of any officer.
31. Any expert the State intends to call, with the basis and
    reasons for the opinions.

SECTION B — SUPPRESSION MOTION OUTLINES

B-1. Motion to suppress — unlawful stop

I.   FACTS
     Report alleges [violation] at [time]. Body camera at [timestamp]
     shows [what it actually shows].
II.  STANDARD
     A traffic stop is a seizure. It requires reasonable suspicion of
     a violation. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Delaware v.
     Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (random license-check stops
     prohibited). Officer's subjective motive is irrelevant IF a
     violation occurred. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
III. ARGUMENT
     No violation occurred. The video shows [signal used / lane
     maintained / speed within limit]. The State cannot rely on a
     violation the recording refutes.
IV.  REMEDY
     All evidence obtained after the stop — observations, field
     sobriety tests, statements, and the chemical test — is fruit of
     the unlawful seizure. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471.

B-2. Motion to suppress — unlawful extension (Rodriguez)

The point of the motion. A stop may last no longer than needed to complete the traffic mission. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015). Identify on the video the moment the mission was, or reasonably should have been, complete — the license and registration were returned, or the citation was written — and require the State to identify the independent reasonable suspicion that justified everything after it.

Structure: (1) the mission and when it was complete, by timestamp; (2) what occurred after, minute by minute; (3) what facts the officer had at that moment, excluding everything learned afterward; (4) why those facts do not amount to reasonable suspicion of impairment; (5) suppression of everything obtained thereafter.

B-3. Motion to suppress — warrantless blood draw

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013): the natural dissipation of alcohol is not a per se exigency. Exigency is assessed on the totality of the circumstances, and the availability of telephonic or electronic warrants bears on it.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016): a breath test may be administered as a search incident to arrest; a blood draw may not. A State may not criminalize refusal of a blood test, and consent obtained by advising of criminal penalties for refusing a blood test is not voluntary.

Facts to develop: how long a warrant would have taken in this county at that hour; whether an on-call judge and electronic warrant procedure existed; what the officer was told or trained about it; what the advisory actually said about penalties for refusal; and whether a breath test was available and why it was not used.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840 (2019) applies only where the driver was unconscious or otherwise unable to take a breath test; distinguish it where the driver was conscious and cooperative.

B-4. Motion to suppress — defective implied consent advisory

Grounds, in order of frequency:

  1. The advisory was given after the refusal was recorded (compare the times on the form).
  2. It misstated the consequences — most commonly by threatening criminal penalties for refusing a blood test, contrary to Birchfield.
  3. It was not given in a language the driver understood, with no interpreter and no acknowledgment of understanding.
  4. It was given while the driver was being denied a requested consultation with counsel, where state law provides one.
  5. The officer added extra-statutory statements that confused the choice.

Remedy: suppression of the test result, or of the refusal evidence, and setting aside the administrative suspension.

B-5. Motion to suppress — checkpoint

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) upholds checkpoints that are properly conducted. The elements to test, each with a document request behind it:

  • Supervisory decisionmaking — was the site, time, and procedure set by supervisors in advance, in writing, or by officers in the field?
  • Neutral formula — every vehicle, every third vehicle, or officer discretion?
  • Advance publicity, where the state requires it.
  • Safety and visibility — signage, lighting, marked units.
  • Duration of the average stop.
  • Effectiveness data — vehicles through, stopped, arrested.

Note: several states prohibit sobriety checkpoints entirely under their own constitutions. Check state law before conceding.

B-6. Objection — HGN foundation

HGN is offered as scientific evidence in most jurisdictions and requires a foundation: (1) that the test was administered by an officer trained and currently certified in the standardized protocol; (2) that it was administered in accordance with that protocol — stimulus distance, speed of pass, number of passes, checking for equal pupil size and resting nystagmus first; (3) that conditions did not compromise it — no flashing lights or headlights in the subject's field of view, subject not facing traffic; and (4) that the officer is not offering the test as a measure of blood alcohol concentration, which it is not.

Where the video shows the stimulus moved too quickly, only one pass was made, or strobes were in the subject's eyes, the foundation fails.

SECTION C — CROSS-EXAMINATION OUTLINES

C-1. The arresting officer

BUILD THE STANDARD FIRST (all agreeable)
 · You were trained in the standardized field sobriety tests.
 · The tests are standardized — administered the same way every time.
 · Standardization matters because the validation studies assume it.
 · Your manual identifies limitations: age over 65, weight,
   back/leg/inner-ear conditions, footwear, and surface.
 · Slope, gravel, wind, cold, and passing traffic affect performance.
 · Flashing lights in a subject's eyes can affect the HGN test.

ESTABLISH WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN
 · No accident.  · No near miss.  · No unsafe speed.
 · He pulled over promptly and safely, in a normal manner.
 · He produced his license and registration without difficulty.
 · He was cooperative throughout.
 · He walked from his car to yours without stumbling.
 · [Video timestamp for each.]

THE ADMINISTRATION, AGAINST THE VIDEO
 · You gave the instructions at [timestamp].
 · The protocol requires a demonstration. [Was one given?]
 · The protocol requires you to ask whether he understands.
 · You marked [clue]. Show us where on the video that occurs.
 · [Repeat for each clue the video does not support.]

THE OBSERVATION PERIOD
 · The observation period exists to rule out mouth alcohol.
 · It requires continuous observation for [__] minutes.
 · You began it at [time] and the test was at [time].
 · At [timestamp] you left the room / turned away / were at the
   computer. [Video.]

C-2. The criminalist / breath instrument witness

 · The instrument measures alcohol in BREATH.
 · It REPORTS a blood alcohol concentration.
 · It converts using an assumed partition ratio of [2100:1].
 · That ratio is a population average.
 · Individual ratios vary from person to person.
 · A person whose true ratio is lower will read HIGHER than actual.
   [Where state law permits this line.]

 · Every measurement has an uncertainty range.
 · Your laboratory publishes an uncertainty of ±[__].
 · A reported 0.09, with that uncertainty, is consistent with a true
   value of [__] to [__].

 · Alcohol is absorbed over a period after the last drink.
 · Absorption can continue 30 minutes to 2 hours or longer.
 · During absorption, BAC is RISING.
 · The instrument reports the concentration AT THE TIME OF TESTING.
 · It cannot tell you the concentration 108 minutes earlier.
 · To extrapolate backward you must know the drinking pattern.
 · You do not know this driver's drinking pattern.

 · Mouth alcohol produces falsely elevated readings.
 · That is why the observation period exists.
 · Belching, reflux, regurgitation, and dental appliances can
   introduce mouth alcohol.
 · You were not present for the observation period.
 · You are relying on the officer having performed it correctly.

 · [Hospital blood] Serum or plasma reports HIGHER than whole blood.
 · A conversion is required before comparing to a whole-blood statute.

SECTION D — WORKSHEETS

D-1. Minute-by-minute timeline

Time Event Source Note
Arrived at venue Receipt / card
First drink Companion
LAST DRINK Receipt timestamp Drives the rising-BAC analysis
Departed Parking / rideshare / video
STOP CAD log The moment that matters
First contact Body camera
Traffic mission complete Body camera Rodriguez trigger
SFSTs begin Body camera
ARREST Body camera
Station arrival CAD / booking
Observation begins Observation log Verify against protocol
Test 1 Instrument printout
Test 2 Instrument printout Agreement within tolerance?

D-2. Rising blood alcohol analysis

Last drink at ____________        Time of driving ____________
Time of test ____________         Elapsed, driving → test: ____ min
Reported result: ____

QUESTIONS THAT DECIDE IT
 1. Was absorption complete at the time of driving?
    Food consumed? ____  Quantity and timing of last drinks? ____
 2. If absorption was still occurring, BAC at driving was LOWER
    than at testing.
 3. State's extrapolation assumes post-peak elimination. Is that
    assumption supported by the drinking pattern evidence?
 4. What does the State's own witness concede about needing to know
    the drinking pattern?

CORROBORATION NEEDED
 □ Receipt with timestamps  □ Card statement  □ Server/companion
 □ Toxicologist retained

D-3. SFST administration audit

Element Protocol requires What the video shows Clue recorded?
Pre-test: equal pupil size, resting nystagmus checked Yes —
HGN stimulus distance / speed / number of passes Per manual
Strobes and headlights out of subject's view Yes —
Walk-and-turn: instructions + demonstration Both
Understanding confirmed before starting Yes —
Surface: level, dry, non-slippery Yes —
One-leg stand: 30 seconds, timed Yes
Limitations noted (age, weight, injury, footwear) Yes —

D-4. Plea consequence calculator

FINE AND COSTS                                    $__________
COUNSEL                                           $__________
TREATMENT / EDUCATION PROGRAM                     $__________
INTERLOCK: install $____ + $____/mo × ____ months $__________
REINSTATEMENT FEES                                $__________
SR-22 FILING                                      $__________
INSURANCE INCREASE  $____/yr × ____ years         $__________
                    ← usually the largest line
LOST WAGES (jail, court, treatment, transport)    $__________
TRANSPORTATION during suspension                  $__________
                                          TOTAL   $__________

NON-MONETARY
 □ CDL: 1-yr disqualification (1st) / LIFETIME (2nd); limit is 0.04;
   follows a PERSONAL-vehicle DUI. No hardship CDL.
 □ Professional license reporting deadline: ____ days from ________
 □ Security clearance / employer policy notification: ____ days
 □ IMMIGRATION — consult counsel BEFORE the plea. Statute of
   conviction and plea wording matter more than the sentence.
 □ Record: expungement eligible? ____  Waiting period? ____
   Driving record lookback: ____ years regardless.
 □ Travel: Canada and other countries treat impaired driving as
   serious criminality.

SECTION E — ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND LICENSE

E-1. Hearing request (send immediately)

Re: [Name] — DL# [] — Notice of Suspension dated []

Pursuant to [statute/regulation], [Name] requests a hearing on the proposed suspension and requests that the suspension be stayed pending the hearing.

[Name] further requests: (1) that the arresting officer be subpoenaed to appear; (2) production of the agency's file, including all reports, the implied consent advisory form, the instrument records, and all video; and (3) that the hearing be recorded and a transcript made available.

Please confirm the hearing date in writing.

E-2. Hearing outline (four issues only)

1. WAS THE STOP LAWFUL?
   Video vs. report. Was the alleged violation committed?

2. WAS THERE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST?
   The catalogue of observations, tested against the video.
   Clues recorded that do not appear.

3. WAS THE IMPLIED CONSENT ADVISORY PROPERLY GIVEN?
   ← THE MOST WINNABLE ISSUE
   · Compare the TIME on the advisory form to the TIME the refusal
     or test was recorded.
   · Was it read in full? In a language understood?
   · Did it correctly state the consequences (Birchfield problem if
     criminal penalties were threatened for refusing a BLOOD test)?
   · Was a requested consultation with counsel denied?

4. DID THE PERSON REFUSE, OR TEST AT OR ABOVE THE LIMIT?
   Observation period. Instrument records. Two-sample agreement.

DO NOT argue general impairment. The issues are narrow, and
arguing outside them wastes the only hearing you get.
ORDER THE TRANSCRIPT — it locks the officer in months before trial.

E-3. Hardship / restricted license request

□ Eligibility confirmed (offense type, prior history, waiting period)
□ Application form and fee
□ Proof of enrollment in required education or treatment
□ SR-22 or equivalent insurance filing
□ Ignition interlock installation from an approved provider
□ Employer letter stating hours, location, and driving necessity
□ School enrollment or medical appointment documentation
□ Proposed driving schedule (days, hours, routes, purposes)
□ Understand the restrictions — driving outside them is a new offense

SECTION F — PRIMARY AUTHORITY

Related documents

This toolkit is educational and not legal advice. Every motion, letter, and worksheet must be adapted to state law and local practice; implied consent procedures, checkpoint authority, and administrative hearing rules vary substantially by state.