Tactics in Utah DUI Cases
Every DUI case has a unique set of facts. Every set of facts has potential challenges. Glen W. Neeley’s job is to find them — and then use them with precision. Here is what that looks like in the real world.
Call (801) 645-5008 — Free ConsultationWhen people hear “DUI defense tactics,” they sometimes imagine loopholes — clever tricks that have nothing to do with the truth. That is not what this is. Tactical DUI defense is about holding the government to its constitutional and legal obligations. It is about requiring that every step of your arrest was done correctly, that every test was administered properly, and that every piece of evidence was obtained lawfully.
When the government fails to meet those obligations — and it fails more often than most people know — the law requires that the evidence be excluded. A case built on improperly obtained evidence is a case that can be won. The tactics below are not tricks. They are the law, applied by someone who knows how to use it.
The Tactical Toolkit: What Glen Files and Why
In a contested DUI case, Glen does not simply show up to court and argue. He files targeted legal motions designed to attack the weakest points in the prosecution’s case before trial even begins. Each motion, if granted, eliminates evidence — and sometimes the entire case.
Motion to Suppress the Stop
Challenges whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to pull you over. If the stop was unlawful, everything that followed — the field tests, the breath test, the arrest — is tainted and must be excluded.
Motion to Suppress Field Sobriety Tests
Attacks whether the tests were administered on proper ground, with proper instructions, by a properly trained officer — and whether you were ordered or merely asked to perform them. Coerced voluntary tests are suppressible.
Motion to Suppress the Preliminary Breath Test
The roadside PBT is a voluntary screening tool, not an evidentiary instrument. If officers used it to build probable cause without properly advising you of your right to refuse, its use can be challenged.
Motion to Suppress Statements
Targets incriminating statements made during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. “I only had two beers” — said after arrest, without Miranda — may be inadmissible.
Motion to Suppress Chemical Test Results
Challenges the breath or blood test on grounds of improper calibration, deviation from DOH protocols, chain-of-custody failures, or an operator without current certification.
Motion for Discovery
Compels the prosecution to disclose all evidence in its possession — including evidence that may prove your innocence. Prosecutors are legally required to disclose exculpatory evidence. Glen enforces that obligation.
Motion to Suppress the Arrest
Argues that the officer lacked probable cause to place you under arrest. An arrest without probable cause is a constitutional violation that can collapse the prosecution’s entire case.
Motion to Suppress All Evidence
When multiple constitutional violations stack on top of each other, Glen files a comprehensive motion arguing that the entire case is the product of unlawful conduct and that no evidence should reach the jury.
Tactics in Action: Real Cases, Real Results
Tactics are most meaningful when you can see them applied to real facts. The following two cases — drawn from Glen’s own practice — illustrate how a thorough, aggressive defense can change an outcome that seemed predetermined. No outcome is guaranteed. Every case is different. But every case deserves to be fought.
The Hunch That Wasn’t Enough — and the Not Guilty That Followed
A police officer stopped Glen’s client — call him Joe — on a street at approximately 4:00 p.m. Joe had been having an argument with his girlfriend. The officer approached, detected an odor of alcohol on Joe’s breath, administered field sobriety tests, and arrested him.
On the surface, the case looked straightforward. But Glen looked deeper — starting with the most fundamental question in any DUI case: was the stop even legal?
What Glen filed:
- Motion to suppress the stop itself — challenging whether the officer had legal justification to approach Joe’s vehicle
- Motion to suppress the preliminary breath test
- Motion to suppress Joe’s statements to the officer
- Motion to suppress the field sobriety tests
- Motion to suppress all evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop
At the pre-trial hearing, the officer was questioned by the prosecutor first. His own answer said everything: “I didn’t know if he had committed a crime, was about to commit a crime, or what the circumstances were.”
When Glen cross-examined the officer, he methodically extracted the critical admissions:
- The officer never saw Joe drive
- The officer never personally observed a crime being committed
- The sole basis for the stop was a citizen’s call reporting an argument between a man and a woman
- The officer had no independent, articulable suspicion of any criminal activity whatsoever
The officer had acted on a hunch. That is not enough under the United States Constitution. The case proceeded to a jury trial — and the jury returned a verdict in less than an hour.
A Third DUI, a Felony Charge, and an Intoxilyzer the State Couldn’t Prove Worked
Glen’s client — call him Sam — was pulled over for speeding. The officer detected alcohol, administered field sobriety tests, gave Sam a preliminary breath test, and arrested him. At the station, Sam blew a .15 and a .17 on the Intoxilyzer.
It was Sam’s third DUI in six years. He was facing a third-degree felony charge and the realistic prospect of a prison sentence. The District Attorney refused to offer any meaningful plea deal. The case appeared to be a near-certain conviction — two high BAC readings, prior record, and a prosecutor unwilling to negotiate.
Glen took it to a preliminary hearing anyway. He never stops looking.
For three hours, Glen interrogated the arresting officer on his training, certification, and ability to properly administer standardized field sobriety tests. He identified numerous errors in the officer’s administration of the tests. But that was not the moment that changed everything.
The moment came when the magistrate asked a question: where are the affidavits certifying that the Intoxilyzer was working properly?
- The prosecutor did not have the certification affidavits
- The prosecution had no witness who could testify that the machine was functioning properly at the time of Sam’s test
- Without that foundational proof, the .15 and .17 readings were legally insufficient to bind Sam over for trial
The magistrate found insufficient evidence. The State filed a Motion to Reconsider — denied. The State appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals — which affirmed the magistrate’s decision in full. The State filed a Petition for Reconsideration of that ruling as well.
A man facing years in prison walked away because one procedural requirement — proving the machine worked — went unmet. That is what a thorough defense looks like.
“Sometimes, when everything looks stacked against you and the evidence seems overwhelming, something goes your way. That moment only comes if you are still fighting when it does. Never give up.”
— Glen W. Neeley, Utah DUI Defense Attorney · Practicing Since 1998What This Means for Your Case
Every case Glen has ever handled — including the ones above — looked different on paper. The facts, the officer, the test results, the procedural errors — all of it is specific to your stop, your arrest, and your situation. What stays constant is the approach: look at everything, challenge what deserves to be challenged, and never assume the prosecution’s case is as strong as it appears.
Glen Reviews Everything
Police report, body camera footage, dash cam video, Intoxilyzer maintenance logs, blood draw chain of custody, and the officer’s training records. No assumption. No shortcuts.
Motions Are Filed Where They Are Warranted
Not every case has every motion. But every case is evaluated for every possible motion. What can be challenged will be challenged — strategically and with specific factual support.
He Tries Cases When That’s the Right Path
Glen averages at least two jury trials per month. He is not afraid of a courtroom. When the government cannot prove its case, he makes them try — in front of six jurors.
He Will Tell You the Truth
Glen will not promise you a specific outcome. No ethical attorney will. But he will tell you honestly what he sees in your case — what the strengths are, what the weaknesses are, and what the realistic possibilities look like.
Never Give Up.
The Sam case looked hopeless. Two high readings. Prior convictions. A DA who wouldn’t deal. Most attorneys would have advised Sam to plead out and take the felony. Glen kept fighting — and the machine the prosecution couldn’t certify changed everything.
That opportunity only exists if you have an attorney still looking when it arrives. Cases are won in the details. The details only get examined if someone cares enough to examine them. That is what Glen does.
Could Your Case Be Defended
the Same Way?
Glen W. Neeley doesn’t know until he reviews your facts — and neither do you. That’s what the free consultation is for. Call now, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(801) 645-5008 Schedule Your Free ConsultationAvailable 24/7 · Ogden & Salt Lake City · Statewide Utah