G. Thayer Williamson Your Drug Crime Attorney

Felony charges dismissed due to a motion to suppress

I recently won a case in Dallas Texas where my client was obviously guilty, nevertheless we sucessfully fought the charges and won. My client was chagred with DWI, possession of marijuana, and possession of another's identification without permission.

My client was pulled over for speeding 64 in a 45. Client failed the FSTS's and blew a .18. During the inventory police found a fake ID an some weed. When I watched the video I knew that something smelled like police BS. I hired Jim Appleton of Showcase productions to provide me with a forensic analysis of the video. Jim has testified for the FBI, the DEA, and currently has a contract with the Dallas County DA's office to provide forensic analysis of the DA's videos. In short his credentials are unimpeachable, partly because the Dallas DA's can't impeach him. Mr. Appleton's expert testimony was as follows:

1) The vehicle that the AO observed speeding was silver or gray. The Defendant's car was a similar make, but was white. Jim proved this by a frame by frame video presentation whereby he superimposed the Defendant's white vehicle next to the silver or gray vehicle the AO observed speeding.

2) In the left hand corner of the video, Jim showed via frame by frame analysis that a silver or gray vehicle that was speeding can be observed making a left hand turn. The AO then passed the silver or gray vehicle making the left pursuing an unknown vehicle. For the next 30 seconds there is not an observable vehicle on the road. At this point the AO observes my client's white vehicle making a left hand turn and the traffic stop was performed.

Jim's further testimony was that mathematically speaking the AO, could have never observed my client operating her vehicle until he over took her. Jim's math simplified was as follows: the location of where the AO allegedly observed the silver or gray vehicle speeding was 1.3 miles from the location of the traffic stop. It took the AO exactly 41 seconds to overtake my client's vehicle, and for 30 of the 41 seconds, my client's vehicle was not visible. In short, it was factually impossible that my client's vehicle was the same vehicle he observed speeding. Officer didn't recall his speed during the pursuit, Jim testimony was that the only way the AO's version of traveling 1.3 miles in 41 seconds could be true was that he had an average speed of 126 mph (without turning on his overhead lights). If you saw the video that is a laughable position, which is of course exactly the position that the ADA took.

The Judge in this case agreed with me and granted my motion to suppres. Once the judge supressed all the evidence, the state was forced to dismiss all the charges.