Paul D. Reynolds, Attorney at Law
Summary
Main Office
The Fulbright Building, Suite 102
217 Dickson St.
Fayetteville,
AR 72701
(479) 527-6571
Languages
English
Years of Experience
14
Practice Areas
Geographies
Office Locations
Main Office
The Fulbright Building, Suite 102
217 Dickson St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Do you want to win your DWI case?
If you have been arrested for drunk driving, you need a qualified and experienced attorney in your corner to make sure your rights are protected. Even more than that, you need someone with a thorough knowledge of the complexities of DWI law to fight for you. At The Law Office of Paul D. Reynolds, our experience, intricate understanding of DWI law and aggressive approach to legal defense has helped hundreds of our clients keep their freedom and licenses. Paul has been practicing law for over fourteen years and has handled over 1000 DWIs and DUIs as both a prosecutor and defense attorney. This is experience that delivers results. It is our promise to you to use common sense, sound judgment, and good old-fashioned hard work to obtain your needs, goals, and objectives.
We have been certified to perform the same Standardized Field Sobriety Tests as the police and have been trained on the use of the Intoximeter EC/IR II; the new blood alcohol testing device in use in almost all jurisdictions in Arkansas. We know the loopholes, and we know how to use them to your advantage. If the arresting police officer did not follow due process in any aspect of the arrest, we will find out and, in many cases, use that information to win your case.
So when you need to be sure that you are getting the very best legal representation, and not some fly-by-night attorney who is only interested in settling your case as soon as possible, trust the DWI experts at The Law Office of Paul D. Reynolds to do everything in their power to get the best possible ruling on your case.
Please call and give us the opportunity to assist you with your legal service needs.
© 2009 and 2010 - Paul D. Reynolds
Articles Written
How Do You Win a DWI/DUI Case? Part 1: Probable Cause To Stop
Created On: 11/16/2010
The second most popular question I get asked when people find out I am a DWI attorney is “how do you win a DWI or DUI case?” The answer is there are a number of ways and you have to look at each...
DWI Administrative Drivers License Suspension In Arkansas
Created On: 06/17/2010
When you are charged with a DWI in Arkansas there are two things are happening: your driver’s license is being administratively suspended and you are being charged with a crime. This brief...
Case History
The Video Never Lies
Practice Area: DUI and DWI
Description: State v. A.C.: Facts – Client was stopped by University Police for making a wide right turn at 2:00 a.m. and almost striking a Fayetteville Police car entering the turning lane. A.C. performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and was arrested. When taken to the jail to be administered the Blood Alcohol Test, he blew but the officer claimed that A.C. was trying to fool the Intoximeter and also charged A.C. with Violation of Implied Consent (refusal). Trial - The University Police officer’s patrol car was equipped with real time video which showed that A.C. did not make a wide right turn and was not within twenty feet of the Fayetteville Police car. The video also showed that the officer did not properly instruct A.C. on how to perform the SFSTs. Rather than allowing the police officer to be shown as incompetent; the prosecutor stipulated to the judge that he could not make a case.
Outcome: Result – A.C. was found not guilty of all charges. As a side-note the issue of the officer’s inserting the disposable one-way valve mouth piece into the Intoximeter so that it would insure that A.C. could not provide an adequate sample was not addressed. This is at best a mistake by an honest officer and a worst a trick used by a dishonest officer to insure someone will be charged with Violation of Implied Consent.
DWI - Drugs
Practice Area: DUI and DWI
Description: State v. R.J.: Facts – Police officer’s report said she observed R.J. stumble out of a bar, get in his car, spin his tires while leaving the parking lot, speed, and that he had a faulty brake-light. The officer pulled R.J. over and another officer arrived to administer the SFSTs. Both officers claimed R.J. stumbled when he got out of his truck, and that he failed the SFSTs. When taken to the jail for his BAC test, RJ only had BAC of .07 so refusing to accept that R.J. was not intoxicating he was required to give a urine sample and was charged with DWI-Drugs. The urine test came back negative for all drugs except Lidocane (Orajel). Trial – The first officer admitted she did not see R.J. stumble out of the bar and was over a hundred yards from where R.J. supposedly spun his tires on exit from the parking lot. She also could not point out on her or the other officer’s video where R.J. stumbled when exiting his truck. The second officer, who is the SFST training officer at the police academy, counted things as SFST clues that are not clues according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and finally admitted on cross-examination that he should not have seen certain clues if R.J. was not above the .08 legal limit. After being unable to produce a single witness or scientific study to support the position that a medicine used to treat cold sores could cause impairment, the prosecutor stipulated to the judge that he could not make the case against R.J.
Outcome: Result - $25 fine for the faulty brake-light.
Blood Shot Eyes and No Seatbelt
Practice Area: DUI and DWI
Description: Facts – Police pulled K.D. over at noon for driving without a seatbelt, and noticed she had red-blood shot watery eyes and had after running her driver’s license found out that she had a prior DWI. She was required to perform the SFSTs and arrest. After providing a BAC of only .04 she was still charged with DWI-2nd offense. Trial – The police officer could not produce a copy of the video showing K.D. performing the SFSTs, which was rather interesting since the only way to prove a low BAC DWI is through the SFSTs. We produced a witness to testify that K.D. had been sent home from work the day before because of an eye-infection.
Outcome: Result - $30 no seat-belt fine.
You don't win them all, but?
Practice Area: DUI and DWI
Description: State v. J.U.: Facts – J.U. was charged with leaving the scene of a property damage accident and DWI, after backing into a car in the Walton Arts Center Parking Lot. Two men in the parking lot had been sexually harassing her (cat call and vulgar language) as she was walking to her car and in her hurry to get away from them she bumped the car in the spot behind her. The two men then had the nerve to flag down the walking patrol and tell them that she he hit the car and was leaving. The police walked out into the road and stopped her. She cooperated and said she only thought she had bumped the curb and not hit another car. J.U. performed the SFSTs and had a BAC of .11. The prosecutor offered thirty days in jail because of the leaving the scene charge and refused to reduce the jail time.
Outcome: Result – After contacting the automobile’s owner, it turns out that there was no damage to the car other than a pre-existing scratch to the bumper. On the day of the trial the prosecutor finally dismissed the leaving the scene charge and J.U. entered a plea to the DWI charge. You do not win every DWI case, but if you look at the close enough you can usually help the client out.
Poorly Trained Police
Practice Area: DUI and DWI
Description: State v. K.A.: Facts – Police officer pulled K.A. over for “weaving all over the road”. The video showed her driving a straight line on a narrow rode with no curb or shoulder and with a ditch on the edge for over a mile before finding a parking lot to turn into which she did perfectly. The video also showed that she performed the One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn perfectly and that she did not have slurred speech. She was arrested and charged with DWI and Violation of Implied Consent when she asked if she could speak with an attorney before she made a decision to provide a breath sample for BAC. Trial – The officer testified that he learned to perform the HGN test by watching a video online. That he was not qualified (certified to administer HGN) and that he did not know who developed the SFSTs or how many clues on each test were an indicator of intoxication.
Outcome: Result – Not guilty.
Resume
Lawyers
