Cases of Interest

Stephen M. Bonanno has represented clients in a range of practice areas, for cases both in and out of court. Take a look below to see what our lawyer has done for previous cases in the past. Contact our Carrollton, GA, office to begin discussing your case today.

BODNE V. BODNE
PERHAPS THE CASE FOR WHICH MR. BONANNO IS MOST KNOWN, THIS WAS A CUSTODY CASE THAT CHANGED SETTLED LAW IN GEORGIA THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS. MR. BONANNO REPRESENTED THE EX-WIFE AND ANOTHER LOCAL ATTORNEY REPRESENTED THE EX-HUSBAND, WHO WAS A WEALTHY DOCTOR. PURSUANT TO THEIR PRIOR DIVORCE, THE DOCTOR HAS PRIMARY CUSTODY OF THE PARTIES’ TWO YOUNG CHILDREN. THE DOCTOR REMARRIED AND DECIDED TO RELOCATE HIS PRACTICE TO ANOTHER STATE SO HE FILED A PETITION TO MODIFY THE EX-WIFE’S VISITATION PRIVILEGES. THE EX-WIFE HIRED MR. BONANNO AND THEY COUNTERCLAIMED FOR CUSTODY. THIS WAS A CASE WHERE BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LAW WERE SOLIDLY AGAINST MR. BONANNO’S CASE. HIS CLIENT WAS RECOVERING FROM A DRUG ADDICTION WHO HAD RELAPSED SEVERAL TIMES AND SHE WAS WITH A NEW MAN SHE MET IN REHAB WHO WAS ALSO IN RECOVERY FOR DRUG ADDICTION. OBVIOUSLY, THE DOCTOR WAS IN A SUPERIOR POSITION FINANCIALLY AND HAD A STABLE HOME WITH HIS NEW WIFE. THE LAW WAS ALSO SETTLED FOR ALMOST A CENTURY THAT MOVING OUT OF STATE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO MODIFIY CUSTODY. THEREFORE, WITH BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LAW OPERATING AS AN OBSTACLE THAT COULD NOT BE OVERCOME, THE PARTIES WENT TO TRIAL. AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, THE JUDGE GRANTED MR. BONANNO’S CLIENT CUSTODY AND THE DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. MR. BONANNO REFERRED MS. BODNE TO AN ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN APPEALS. THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERTURNED MR. BONANNO’S VICTORY FROM THE TRIAL, BUT MS. BODNE APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT OVERULED THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REINSTATED CUSTODY WITH MS. BODNE AND THEREBY CONFIRMED MR. BONANNO’S VICTORY AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL. THIS WIN DRAMATICALLY CHANGED CUSTODY LAW IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF GEORGIA.

STATE V. T.B.
THE CLIENT AND HIS DATE WERE DRINKING AT “THE MANSION”. OFFICERS WERE WAITING JUST BEYOND THE PARKING LOT. BOTH PARTIES LEFT AT THE SAME TIME AND DROVE IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS AND BOTH WERE IMMEDIATELY PULLED OVER AND ARRESTED FOR DUI. BOTH WERE OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT. HIS DATE HIRED ANOTHER LAW FIRM AND SHE WAS FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL. MR. BONANNO’S CLIENT WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY BY A JURY.

STATE V. D. C.
THE CLIENT WAS LEAVING A BAR WHEN HER FRIEND’S CAR BEHIND HER WAS BLUE-LIGHTED AND STOPPED. THE CLIENT TURNED AROUND TO HELP HER FRIEND AND BOTH WERE ARRESTED FOR DUI. A BLOOD TEST SHOWED MR. BONANNO’S CLIENT WAS OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR ALCOHOL AND WAS POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA. SHE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL.

CITY V. M.W.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER AN OFFICER APPROACHED HER IN A PARKED CAR WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING FOR HAVING EXECESSIVELY LOAD MUSIC. THE OFFICER SAID SHE FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND BLEW .154 ON THE PORTABLE ALCOSENSOR. AT THE STATION, THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT SHE “REFUSED” THE OFFICIAL STATE BREATH TEST BY PRETENDING TO BLOW IN THE MACHINE. DESPITE THE OFFICER’S CLAIM THAT SHE FAILED ALL OF THE SOBRIETY TESTS, SHE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL.

STATE V. G.B. (CASE 1)
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR AN IMPROPER TURN, SUBMITTED TO SOBRIETY TESTS AND BLEW .142 ON THE INTOX. MACHINE. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS ARGUING THAT THE IMPLIED CONSENT WARNING WAS NOT READ IN A TIMELY FASHION. THE JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE BREATH TEST RESULTS AND THE CASE WAS SET FOR A JURY TRIAL. JUST PRIOR TO JURY TRIAL SELECTION, THE SOLICITOR DISMISSED THE CHARGES.

STATE V. G.B. (CASE 2)
ONE YEAR LATER, THE SAME CLIENT AS THE CASE ABOVE, AND WITH THE SAME ARRESTING OFFICER, WAS ARRESTED AGAIN, THIS TIME FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. THIS TIME THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR A CRACKED WINSHIELD AND PARTIALLY OBSTRUCTED LICENSE PLATE. THE OFFICER REMEMBERED HIM AND TOLD HIM THAT THE CASE A YEAR AGO WAS THE ONLY CASE HE EVER LOST IN COURT AND SAID, “BUDDY, YOU’RE NOT GETTING OUT OF THIS ONE”. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS FOR AN ILLEGAL SEARCH. THE JUDGE RULED THAT THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED. THIS OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE MR. BONANNO ON HIS CHRISTMAS CARD LIST.

T.C. V. A.C.
THIS WAS A CONTESTED CUSTODY MODIFICATION CASE. MR. BONANNO REPRESENTED THE EX-HUSBAND IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET CUSTODY OF HIS TWO YOUNG CHILDREN. AT MEDIATION, MR. BONANNO’S CLIENT MADE AN EXTRAORDINARY OFFER TO SHARE WEEK TO WEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN BUT TO CONTINUE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT TO THE EX-WIFE THAT HE HAD ALWAYS PAID. (THE AMOUNT HE WAS PAYING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN MOST FATHERS PAY). THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THE FATHER TRULY CARED ABOUT SPENDING TIME WITH THIS CHILDREN AND PROTECTING THEM FROM SOME OF THE ISSUES CREATED BY THE EX-WIFE. SINCE HE WAS WILLING TO PAY THE SAME CHILD SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH HE WOULD HAVE THE CHILDREN HALF THE TIME, IT OBVIOUSLY WASN’T ABOUT TRYING TO GET OUT OF CHILD SUPPORT. AMAZINGLY, THE EX-WIFE’S ATTORNEY ADVISED HER TO REJECT THE OFFER. THEREFORE, WE WENT TO TRIAL AND MR. BONANNO’S CLIENT GOT CUSTODY AND THE EX-WIFE HAD ONLY SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SHE HAD TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.

CITY V. K.G.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY FOR DUI AFTER CRASHING HER CAR THROUGH A FENCE NEXT TO A BUS STOP ON THE COLLEGE CAMPUS. THE OFFICER STATED THAT SHE HAD A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL, SLURRED SPEECH, WAS UNSTEADY ON HER FEET AND ADMITTED DRINKING. THE CLIENT REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO A BREATH TEST. HOWEVER, MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLEGING AN IMPROPER READING OF THE IMPLIED CONSENT WARNING AS THE OFFICER ADDED ONE WORD THAT IS NOT ON THE CARD WHICH COULD HAVE CONFUSED THE CLIENT, AND THE PROSECUTOR AGREED TO REDUCE THE CHARGE TO RECKLESS DRIVING AND SAVE HER DRIVER’S LICENSE AND KEEP HER OUT OF JAIL.

STATE V. P.H.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AND BLEW .111 ON THE BREATH MACHINE. HE ASKED FOR HIS INDEPENDENT BLOOD TEST AND THE OFFICER TOOK HIM TO THE LOCAL HOSPITAL TO HAVE BLOOD DRAWN. THE OFFICER ASKED IF THE CLIENT HAD ANY CASH ON HIM TO PAY FOR THE BLOOD TEST AND THE CLIENT DID NOT HAVE ANY CASH IN HIS WALLET. THEREFORE, HE WAS REFUSED HIS INDEPENDENT TEST. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND PROVED THAT THE CLIENT HAD AN A.T.M. CARD IN HIS WALLET AND THERE WAS AN A.T.M. MACHINE IN THE HOSPITAL, AND THAT ON THE DATE OF THE ARREST THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE CLIENT’S ACCOUNT TO HAVE DRAWN OUT ENOUGH CASH TO PAY FOR THE BLOOD TEST. THE JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND THREW OUT THE BLOOD TEST RESULTS. THE PROSECUTOR THEN DISMISSED THE CASE.

STATE V. T.H.
THE CLIENT WAS DRIVING ON I-20 ERRATICALLY AND ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. WHEN HE EXITED TOWARD CARROLLTON, AN ANONYMOUS CALLER CALLED IN THE CLIENT’S CAR DESCRIPTION AND LICENSE PLATE NUMBER. A “B.O.L.O.” WAS CALLED IN TO THE POLICE. FORTUNATELY, THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT WHEN AN OFFICER FOUND HIM. THE CLIENT WAS EXTREMELY INTOXICATED AND BLEW OVER TWICE THE LEGAL LIMIT. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLEGING THAT THE OFFICER HAD NOT CORROBORATED THE BAD DRIVING, (THE CLIENT WAS ALREADY STOPPED AT THE RED LIGHT AND THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE HIM DRIVE), LED TO THE JUDGE DISMISSING THE CASE DUE TO A BAD STOP OF THE VEHICLE.

CITY V. J.D.
THE CLIENT WAS PULLED OVER FOR DRIVING AT NIGHT WITHOUT HIS HEADLIGHTS ON. THE OFFICER CLAIMED HE FAILED ALL OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND HAD A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL. THE CLIENT ADMITTED TO DRINKING “O’DOUL’S”, WHICH IS A NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE. HE WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI ALCOHOL. THE CLIENT BLEW 0.00 IN THE STATE’S BREATH MACHINE. AT THAT POINT, THE OFFICER CHANGED HIS OPINION THAT IT WAS DUI DRUGS. THE CLIENT REFUSED A BLOOD TEST. AT TRIAL, MR. BONANNO GOT THE OFFICER TO SYSTEMATICALLY ELIMINATE, (BY THE OFFICER’S OWN TESTIMONY BASED ON HIS TRAINING), ALL SEVEN CATEGORIES OF DRUGS THAT HIS CLIENT COULD HAVE TAKEN. THE OFFICER THEN CHANGED HIS STORY AGAIN AND SAID IT MUST BE A DUI FROM A COMBINATION OF DRUGS. THE CLIENT WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY.

C. B. V. C. S.
THIS WAS A VERY UNUSUAL CUSTODY CASE. MR. BONANNO REPRESENTED A MARRIED MAN WHO HAD A CHILD WITH ANOTHER WOMAN DURING HIS MARRIAGE. WITH HIS CURRENT WIFE STANDING BY HIM, HE FILED FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD HE HAD WITH THE OTHER WOMAN. IT TOOK FOUR SEPARATE HEARINGS AND OVER A YEAR OF BATTLING, BUT MR. BONANNO’S CLIENT WAS AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.

CITY VS. J. B.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN LANE AND ARRESTED FOR DUI. SHE PERFORMED POORLY ON THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND BLEW OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT. AFTER BLOWING INTO THE STATE’S INTOXILIZER 5000, SHE WANTED AN INDEPENDENT TEST. THE OFFICER EXPLAINED THAT SHE COULD EITHER BLOW IN THE MACHINE AGAIN OR HE WOULD TAKE HER TO THE HOSPITAL FOR A BLOOD TEST. SHE ASKED WHICH ONE SHE SHOULD DO AND THE OFFICER STATED HE COULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AFTER A FEW MINUTES AS SHE WAS THINKING IT OVER, HE MADE THE INADVERTENT COMMENT THAT IN HIS EXPERIENCE BLOOD TESTS CAME BACK HIGHER. SHE IMMEDIATELY THEN CHOSE TO BLOW IN THE MACHINE AGAIN. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS BEFORE THE COURT ALLEGING HER RIGHT TO AN “INDEPENDENT TEST” WAS TAKEN AWAY BY THE OFFICER’S COMMENT RESULTED IN THE JUDGE DISMISSING HE CASE.

STATE V. J.M.
THE CLIENT’S CAR WAS PULLED OVER AFTER LEAVING A HOUSE THAT WAS BEING WATCHED AS PART OF A “DRUG STING” OPERATION. AFTER EXITING THE VEHICLE, THE POLICE ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO SEARCH HIS CAR AND FOUND NOTHING. THEY THEN PROCEEDED TO SEARCH THE CLIENT AND FOUND METH AND OTHER DRUGS ON HIS PERSON. AS THEY HAD NOT ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO SEARCH HIM, ONLY HIS CAR, AND THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY FROM THE OFFICERS THAT THEY WERE DOING A PAT-DOWN FOR OFFICER’S SAFETY, THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED DUE TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH.

STATE V. M.M.
THE CLIENT WAS IN AN ACCIDENT AFTER RUNNING A RED LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION. HE THEN LEFT THE SCENE. HE WAS ARRESTED AT HIS RESIDENCE HOURS LATER BY THE STATE PATROL. HE WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AMONG OTHER CHARGES. BASED UPON MISTAKES MADE BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, THE CHARGES WERE REDUCED TO SIMPLY FAILURE TO REPORT AN ACCIDENT.

STATE V. C.B.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED AT A GAS STATION ATTEMPTING TO GET GAS AFTER THE ATTENDANT CALLED THE POLICE. THE CLIENT FAILED HER FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, THREW HER PURSE AT THE OFFICER AND BLEW A .140, ALMOST TWICE THE LEGAL LIMIT. DUE TO SOME UNIQUE LEGAL TECHINCALITIES, MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO HAVE THE DUI CHARGE REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING WHICH SAVED HER DRIVER’S LICENSE.

STATE V. D.T.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED AT A ROADBLOCK AND ADMITTED TO DRINKING ALCOHOL AND TAKING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR PAIN. SHE REFUSED ALL BREATH OR BLOOD TESTING. AFTER MOUNTING AN ATTACK ON THE OFFICER’S CONDUCTING OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED DOWN TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO LICENSE SUSPENSION OR JAIL TIME.

STATE V. E.L.
AFTER A WITNESS OBSERVED THE CLIENT RUN OVER A STREET SIGN RESULTING IN A BLOWN TIRE, THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED IN A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT FOR DUI. THE CLIENT FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND BLEW TWICE THE LEGAL LIMIT. MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO GET THE CHARGES REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING AND SAVE THE CLIENT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE.

STATE V. S.G.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED IN A STING OPERATION FOR SOLICITING A PROSTITUTE, WHO WAS ACTUALLY AN UNDERCOVER FEMAL POLICE OFFICER. BEING ABLE TO ARGUE THAT THE RECORDED CONVERSATION WAS VAGUE, THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED TO DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND A FINE, WITH NO PROBATION.

STATE V. A.F.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER AVOIDING A ROADBLOCK. ALTHOUGH HE FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND BLEW .104, A MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARD BY THE COURT AGRUING THAT THE CLIENT COMMITTED NO TRAFFIC OFFENSE IN HIS ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE ROADBLOCK RESULTED IN THE CHARGES BEING DISMISSED FOR AN ILLEGAL STOP OF THE VEHICLE.

STATE V. J.B.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. HE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE A DRIVER’S LICENSE OR INSURANCE, THE OFFICER STATED HE FAILED ALL OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND HE BLEW .136 ON THE PORTABLE BREATH TEST. HOWEVER, THE CLIENT REFUSED THE OFFICIAL STATE TEST OF HIS BREATH. ARGUNG THAT THE VIDEO DISPUTED THE OFFICER’S OPINION OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO GET THE DUI DROPPED TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO LICENSE SUSPENSION.

STATE V. D.D.
THE CLIENT WAS CHARGED WITH DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. AN OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE SCENE WITH AN ARREST WARRANT FOR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. THINKING THE CLIENT MIGHT BE WHO HE WAS LOOKING FOR, THE OFFICER ASKED FOR THE CLIENT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE TO VERIFY HIS IDENTITY. WHEN HE COULD NOT PROVIDE A LICENSE AS IT WAS SUSPEDED, THE OFFICER ARRESTED HIM DESPITE HIS INSISTENCE THAT HE WAS NOT DRIVING AND THAT HIS GIRLFRIEND DROVE TO THE LOCATION AND THEN LEFT HIM AND THE VEHICLE. THE OFFICER SAID HE NEVER PREPARED A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT. THE CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY AT A BENCH TRIAL. UNACCUSTOMED TO LOSING AND SUSPECTING THE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY WAS SUSPICIOUS, MR. BONANNO LOCATED THE INCIDENT REPORT THE OFFICER SAID DID NOT EXIST. THE INCIDENT REPORT INCLUDED INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICER LIED DURING THE TRIAL. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND, BASED ON THE OFFICER’S DISHONEST BEHAVIOR, THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

CITY V. W.D.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR DRIVING RECKLESSLY IN A MCDONALD’S PARKING LOT. HE SUBMITTED TO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS BUT REFUSED TO TAKE THE STATE’S BREATH TEST AND WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI. AFTER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, THE DUI WAS DROPPED TO “TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS” WITH A SMALL FINE AND NO PROBATION.

STATE V. J.B.
THE CLIENT WRECKED HIS VEHICLE THROUGH A NEIGHBOR’S FENCE AND BLEW .120 ON THE BREATH MACHINE. ATTACKING SOME TECHNICAL MISTAKES BY THE OFFICERS, THE CASE WAS REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING, SAVING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE.

CITY V. C.C.
THE CLIENT WAS PULLED OVER ON THE COLLEGE CAMPUS BECAUSE THE OFFICER THOUGHT HE SAW THE DRIVER DRINKING FROM A CAN OF BEER. AS IT TURNED OUT, IT WAS A RED SOLO CUP, ADMITTEDLY WITH ALCOHOL. THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI. AT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING, MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE STOP OF THE CLIENT WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE CAMPUS OFFICER ADMITTED HE STOPPED THE CLIENT’S CAR ON A “HUNCH” THAT, BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE, COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE DRINKING AND DRIVING AT THAT TIME OF NIGHT ON A WEEKEND. THE COURT RULED THAT THE STOP WAS ILLEGAL AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. D.C.
THE CLIENT WAS CHARGED WITH FAMILY VIOLENCE BATTERY FOR ALLEGEDLY STRIKING THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILD DURING AN EXCHANGE OF THEIR CHILD AT HER RESIDENCE. THE CLIENT CLAIMED SELF DEFENSE AND MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO ATTACK THE WOMAN’S CREDIBILITY AND THE CLIENT WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL.

STATE V. J.C.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR DRIVING NORTH IN A SOUTHBOUND LANE. HE ADMITTED DRINKING AND SUBMITTED TO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. BLOWING ONLY HALF THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR ALCOHOL, THE OFFICER SUSPECTED DRUGS WERE INVOLVED AND, AFTER OBTAINING CONSENT TO SEARCH, FOUND A MARIJUANA PIPE ON THE CLIENT’S PERSON. THE CLIENT ADMITTED TO SMOKING MARIJUANA THIRTY MINUTES EARLIER. JUST PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION, THE STATE DROPPED THE CHARGES TO DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD AND A FINE.

STATE V. J.B.
THE CLIENT WAS CHARGED WITH BURGLARY AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT FOR ALLEGEDLY BREAKING INTO HIS EX GIRLFRIEND’S HOME AT 2:00 A.M. AND THREATENING HER WITH A KNIFE. AFTER PROVING THAT THE CLIENT HAD A SOLID ALIBI, THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. R.B.
THE CLIENT WAS TRAVELLING 75 MPH IN A 45MPH ZONE AND RAN OFF THE ROAD. THE OFFICER SAID THE CLIENT HAD A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL AND COULDN’T REMEMBER HOW MUCH HE HAD HAD TO DRINK. HE REFUSED SOBRIETY TESTS AND REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO A BREATH OR BLOOD TEST. AFTER FILING A MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO GET THE DUI DROPPED TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO LICENSE SUSPENSION OR JAIL TIME.

CITY V. G.N.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR PASSING A STOPPED SCHOOL BUS AND DRUGS WERE FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION. HE SUBMITTED TO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS BUT HE REFUSED A BLOOD TEST. AFTER A MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS FILED, THE DUI WAS REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING AND A FINE.

CITY V. C.M.
THE CLIENT WAS PULLED OVER FOR HAVING A TAIL-LIGHT OUT AND WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AND UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL. HE SUBMITTED TO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS BUT REFUSED TO TAKE A BREATH TEST. THE PROSECUTOR OFFERED TO REDUCE THE DUI TO RECKLESS DRIVING. ALTHOUGH IT IS ALMOST UNHEARD OF TO REJECT A RECKLESS DRIVING OFFER, MR. BONANNO CONVINCED HIS CLIENT TO GO TO TRIAL AND HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY.

CITY V. C.K.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR BATTERY RESULTING IN A BAR FIGHT AFTER ANOTHER BAR PATRON ATTEMPTED TO KISS THE CLIENT’S GIRLFRIEND. THE CITY CALLED THE BARTENDER, THE BOUNCER, AND A HALF DOZEN WITNESSES, WHO ALL HAPPENED TO BE FRIENDS WITH THE “VICTIM”. ATTACKING THE WITNESSES’ CREDIBILITY AND INCONSISTENCIES, THE CLIENT WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL.

STATE V. D.F.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER LEAVING A WOODED CUL DE SAC AT NIGHT WHERE THERE WERE ONLY HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION BUT NO ONE ACTUALLY RESIDING THERE. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS RESULTED IN THE DUI BEING REDUCED TO A LESSER OFFENSE. THIS WAS CRUCIAL AS THIS CLIENT HAD A LONG HISTORY OF DUI ARRESTS. FOR SOME REASON, HE USED ANOTHER LAW FIRM WHEN HE GOT HIS NEXT DUI AND WOUND UP SERVING TWO YEARS IN PRISON. HOWEVER, THE CLIENT DID COME BACK TO MR. BONANNO YEARS LATER FOR A CUSTODY CASE IN WHICH, DESPITE A LONG HISTORY OF DUI’S, MR. BONANNO GOT HIM CUSTODY OF HIS YOUNG CHILDREN.

CITY V. J.H.
THE CLIENT’S TRUCK BROKE DOWN IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH AT A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT. A POLICE OFFICER WAS HAVING DINNER INSIDE AND CAME OUT TO ASSIST AND NOTICED A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL ON THE CLIENT’S BREATH. THE CLIENT SUBMITTED TO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS WHICH THE OFFICER CLAIMED HE FAILED AND THE CLIENT ADMITTED HAVING “TOO MUCH TO DRINK”. THE CLIENT REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO A BREATH TEST. MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THE CHARGE DOWN TO A RECKLESS DRIVING AND SAVE THE CLIENT’S LICENSE.

STATE V. D.H.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER RUNNING A RED LIGHT. MULTIPLE TYPES OF DRUGS WERE FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION, HE FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND THE BLOOD TEST SHOWED NUMEROUS DRUGS IN HIS SYSTEM, INCLUDING HYDROCODONE. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLEGING AN ILLEGAL STOP AND WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE CLIENT DID NOT ACTUALLY RUN THE RED LIGHT. THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

CITY V. R.H.
THE CLIENT, AN UNDERAGE FEMALE, WAS STOPPED FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN. ALTHOUGH SHE BLEW A .107, (FIVE TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR SOMEONE HER AGE), THE OFFICER SAID SHE PASSED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST. THE JUDGE REQUESTED BRIEFS AFTER THE HEARING AND, PRIOR TO THE JUDGE MAKING A DECISION, THE PROSECUTOR AGREED TO DROP THE DUI TO RECKLESS DRIVING. THIS WAS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT OUTCOME AS THERE IS NO LIMITED DRIVING PERMIT FOR A DUI UNDER AGE TWENTY-ONE.

STATE V. N. F. (CASE 1)
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AND CONSUMPTION UNDER AGE AFTER BEING STOPPED FOR DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL, SLURRED SPEECH AND FAILED ALL OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. HE REFUSED A BREATH TEST. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS FOR AN ILLEGAL STOP OF THE VEHICLE BASED ON THERE BEING NO LINES OF ANY KIND ON THE ROADWAY AND THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICER TO PROVE THE CLIENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN A LANE WHEN NO LANES WERE MARKED ON THE ROAD. THE COURT AGREED AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. N.F. (CASE 2)
THE SAME CLIENT AS ABOVE WAS ARRESTED TWO YEARS LATER FOR DUI AGAIN. THIS TIME THE OFFICER STOPPED HIM FOR FAILURE TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN. THE CLIENT REFUSED ALL TESTING. MR. BONANNO FILED ANOTHER MOTION TO SUPPRESS CHALLENGING THE STOP AND THIS TIME PROVED THAT A STOP WAS NOT REQUIRED AT THIS SECTION OF ROADWAY AND THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD ONLY HAVE TO STOP IF HE WAS MERGING WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC. THE COURT AGAIN DISMISSED THE CHARGES.

STATE V. M.E. (CASE 1)
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AND DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE AFTER BEING PULLED OVER FOR HAVING A STOLEN LICENSE PLATE AFFIXED TO HIS BOAT TRAILER. HE FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND ADMITTED DRINKING BUT REFUSED BREATH TESTING. MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO GET THE DUI DROPPED TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO JAIL TIME OR LICENSE SUSPENSION.

STATE V. M.E. (CASE 2)
THE SAME DRIVER AS ABOVE WAS ARRESTED AGAIN FOR DUI THREE YEARS AFTER THE ABOVE CASE WHEN HE WRECKED HIS CAR THAT WAS PULLING A CAMPER WHICH OVERTURNED ON THE ROADWAY. THE STATE PATROL OFFICER STATED THAT HE HAD A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL AND PILLS ON HIS PERSON, BUT THE CLIENT REFUSED ALL TESTING. MR. BONANNO WAS AGAIN ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THE DUI DOWN TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO EFFECT ON HIS LICENSE AND NO JAIL TIME.

CITY V. B.W.
THE CLIENT WAS STOPPED FOR LOUD MUSIC EMANATING FROM HIS VEHICLE. AFTER A CONSENT SEARCH, MARIJUANA WAS FOUND IN HIS VEHICLE. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS CHALLENGING THE STOP OF HIS CLIENT AND A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE COURT. THE STATUTE REGARDING LOUD MUSIC REQUIRED THAT THE MUSIC BE “PLAINLY AUDIBLE FROM A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET OR GREATER”. DURING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE OFFICER, THE FIRST AND ONLY QUESTION MR. BONANNO ASKED WAS WHETHER THE MUSIC WAS PLAINLY AUDIBLE. THE OFFICER TESTIFIED HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT PLAINLY AUDIBLE MEANT AND THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CHARGES.

STATE V. C.T.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED AFTER HE PULLED INTO A VACANT LOT TO SMOKE MARIJUANA. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS FILED CHALLENGING THE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO CONFRONT THE CLIENT AS WELL AS LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH. THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. L.S.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING STRIKING A MAILBOX. A BLOOD TEST SHOWED BOTH ALCOHOL AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS HEARD CHALLENGING WHETHER THE IMPLIED CONSENT WARNING WAS READ PROPERLY. THE JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. S.S.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED AFTER STOPPING IN THE ROADWAY TO SEE IF SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE LEAVING A BAR ON FOOT WANTED A RIDE. THE CLIENT LOOKED FAIRLY GOOD ON THE VIDEO AND THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, BUT DID BLOW A .119 AND WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS CHALLENGING THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST AND THE PROSECUTOR AGREED TO DROP THE DUI TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO JAIL TIME OR LICENSE SUSPENSION.

STATE V. W.S.
THE CLIENT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. SHE FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND A BLOOD TEST SHOWED SOMA, XANEX , LORCET, AND OTHER PRESECRIPTION DRUGS IN HER SYSTEM. MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO PROVE TO THE PROSECUTOR THAT A FAULTY REPAIR TO THE VEHICLE FROM A RECENT PREVIOUS ACCIDENT WAS THE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT AND THE PROSECUTOR DROPPED THE DUI TO RECKLESS DRIVING.

THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED AFTER HE PULLED INTO A VACANT LOT TO SMOKE MARIJUANA. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS FILED CHALLENGING THE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO CONFRONT THE CLIENT AS WELL AS LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH. THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. L.S.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING STRIKING A MAILBOX. A BLOOD TEST SHOWED BOTH ALCOHOL AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS HEARD CHALLENGING WHETHER THE IMPLIED CONSENT WARNING WAS READ PROPERLY. THE JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

STATE V. S.S.
THE CLIENT WAS ARRESTED AFTER STOPPING IN THE ROADWAY TO SEE IF SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE LEAVING A BAR ON FOOT WANTED A RIDE. THE CLIENT LOOKED FAIRLY GOOD ON THE VIDEO AND THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, BUT DID BLOW A .119 AND WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI. MR. BONANNO FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS CHALLENGING THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST AND THE PROSECUTOR AGREED TO DROP THE DUI TO RECKLESS DRIVING WITH NO JAIL TIME OR LICENSE SUSPENSION.

STATE V. W.S.
THE CLIENT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. SHE FAILED THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND A BLOOD TEST SHOWED SOMA, XANEX , LORCET, AND OTHER PRESECRIPTION DRUGS IN HER SYSTEM. MR. BONANNO WAS ABLE TO PROVE TO THE PROSECUTOR THAT A FAULTY REPAIR TO THE VEHICLE FROM A RECENT PREVIOUS ACCIDENT WAS THE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT AND THE PROSECUTOR DROPPED THE DUI TO RECKLESS DRIVING.

Call Us Today: 770-830-8833