Law enforcement noticed a vehicle blocking a turn lane with its door open. Upon closer inspection the Officer noticed that there was a man dancing next to the vehicle. The Officer turned on his rear facing lights to alert traffic behind him. At this point the man got back into his vehicle and rolled down the window. The Officer made contact with the man and noticed that he appeared impaired by alcohol. The man refused sobriety exercises and was subsequently arrested for DUI. He also refused to do a breath test. The Firm was hired and began an investigation of the Client’s case. It was discovered that there was no video of any of this incident. In addition, the Firm filed a motion to suppress the stop of the Client as the Client was detained without probable cause. The Firm argued that because the Officer turned on his lights, even though they were rear facing, the Client submitted to his show of authority by getting back into his car and shutting the door and rolling down the window. This factual pattern demonstrated that the Client was seized by law enforcement before the Officer had actual evidence of a person behind the wheel of a vehicle, one of the necessary elements for DUI. The State refused to dismiss the DUI case. The Firm argued that even if the State won the motion to suppress the evidence, there was still very little evidence in the case establishing impairment, not even a video was present in evidence. Finally, on the day of the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence in the case, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.