Our client was involved in an altercation in a sports bar with an off-duty police officer after our client was speaking with a female patron. The off-duty police officer claimed the female patron was his girlfriend. A drink was spilled on our client during the altercation. Our client left the establishment and noticed the off-duty officer was following him into the parking lot while on his cell phone. After departing in his car, our client was pulled over by three police officers within a few blocks of the establishment. The investigating officer claimed our client was speeding and ran into the curb. Upon the officer’s contact with our client, the officer claimed our client had blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, had vomit on his arm and urinated his pants. The client was arrested after allegedly completing the road-side exercises poorly; however, no video existed of the tasks. At the jail, the investigating officer claimed our client was “sucking” instead of “blowing” into the breath machine. The officer considered it a “refusal.” Once our law firm was hired, counsel launched an investigation to prove our client’s innocence. First, counsel demanded a copy of the video from inside the jail. However, the records custodian for the police department claimed the video had been erased. The client filed an internal affairs complaint and was ultimately supplied with the video. Among other things, the video depicted our client walking in the jail without issue of balance. Counsel also determined the investigating officer failed to place the mouthpiece to the breath machine into evidence. Counsel obtained the booking photo of the client which depicted eyes that were not blood shot. Additionally, counsel obtained photos of the clients car depicting no damage to the wheels, contradicting the officer’s claims of running into a curb. During trial, counsel attempted to place the video brought forth into evidence. Despite the video being in police custody, the prosecutor stated he had no knowledge of its existence. The judge declared a mistrial. Counsel for the firm was able to successfully recuse the presiding judge on the notion that the mistrial and other rulings from the judge were biased against the client and counsel. The case was transferred to a new judge where counsel for the firm filed a Motion for Double Jeopardy. The new judge granted the motion and all charges were dismissed.