Case Studies: Examples of Recent Client's Cases
With Positive Results

Result:  September 2011 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – Mark W. Garka’s Client was found in his car on the roadside with two of his tires blown out.  He was charged with a criminal charge of Physical Control.  In the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark deposed three Municipal Police Officers.  Each Officer had a different recollection of the events.  Mark took that information to the City Prosecuting Attorney and convinced the City to reduce the Physical Control charge to a lesser crime of Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree.

Result:  August 2011 Snohomish County District Court Case – Mark W. Garka subpoenaed the arresting Washington State Patrol Trooper for his Client’s Department of Licensing (DOL) Hearing.  After hearing the Trooper’s testimony during the Department of Licensing Hearing, Mark convinced the Department of Licensing Hearing Officer that there was no reasonable basis for the Trooper to arrest his Client.  The Hearing Officer agreed and found in the Client’s favor.  The Client did not lose his license from the Civil action against him and he was able to continue to drive.   Mark provided the State Prosecutor with this DOL decision and the State offered a reduction to a Criminal charge of Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree.  Negotiations pursued and Mark convinced the State Prosecutor that a traffic infraction, a Non-Criminal charge, would be more appropriate.  Mark therefore saved his Client’s Driver’s License both Civilly and Criminally and kept his Client’s record clean.

Result:  July 2011 Department of Licensing DOL Hearing – Mark W. Garka subpoenaed the arresting Washington State Patrol Trooper to the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing.  Mark interviewed the Trooper at the hearing and it was determined that the Trooper improperly advised Mark’s Client of her Implied Consent Warnings (ICW).  Mark argued to the DOL Hearing Officer that this improper advisement was contrary to the law.  The DOL Hearing Officer agreed with Mark and found in favor of the Client.  The Client did not lose her Driver’s License from this Civil action.

Result:  June 2011 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – Despite Mark W. Garka’s Client having 3 prior DUIs and refusing the breath test, Mark negotiated a reduction to a Negligent Driving 1st Degree from the original charge of DUI.

Result:  May 2011 Department of Licensing DOL Hearing – A Washington State Patrol Trooper was subpoenaed to the Department of Licensing hearing and he testified at the hearing.  Mark questioned the Trooper about the reason for the stop and the arrest based on the Trooper’s report from the arrest, the Client’s memory of the arrest, and the information gathered from Mark’s Private Investigator. Based upon testimony elicited from the Trooper at the Department of Licensing Hearing and argument from Mark, the Department of Licensing Hearing Officer found no reasonable basis for the arrest.  The Department of Licensing found in Mark’s favor, therefore the Client won the Department of Licensing hearing and did not lose his Driver’s License.

Result:  April 2011 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – Mark W. Garka’s Client had a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL).  Having reviewed video and the Client’s police report, Mark was able to negotiate a reduction whereby the Client saved her CDL.  Mark convinced the City Prosecutor that there was a fatal issue with the Implied Consent Warnings (ICW).  The City Prosecutor agreed to suppress the breath test and that suppression resulted in the Client retaining her Driver’s License with the Department of Licensing (DOL).  She did not lose her license from a Criminal or Civil action and thereby retained her CDL.

Result:  April 2011 Snohomish County District Court Case – Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for Driving Under The Influence (DUI) even though his Blood Alcohol level at .07 was under the legal limit.  During his arrest, Mark’s Client declined the field sobriety tests.  Despite the low Blood Alcohol Level, the State charged him with a DUI and asks that he serve 30 days in jail because he had a prior DUI charge.  Mark and his Private Investigator determined that the reason for the stop by the State Trooper was questionable.  Mark negotiated further with the State.  The State then offered to dismiss the DUI and recite as a Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree. The client accepted this offer and he did not lose his license.  He will not need SR22 insurance or need an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed.

Result:  August 2010 King County District Court Case – Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a four car accident on I-5.  The Deputy Prosecuting Attorney refused to negotiate.  Mark filed a Motion to Dismiss.  Mark, his Client, and his Private Investigator appeared on four separate Motion Court dates to argue their case.  Each time the Troopers did not appear.  At the fourth motion appearance, the District Court Judge decided to dismiss the case based upon Mark’s perseverance in an attempt to argue his Client’s case and the Deputy Prosecutor’s failure to provide witnesses.  Finding that there was not reasonable basis to arrest Mark’s Client, the case was DISMISSED.  This was Mark’s Client’s second DUI and the Client was facing 45 days in jail in addition to 90 days Electric Home Monitoring (EHM).  Mark also prevailed in the Department of Licensing hearing; therefore Mark’s Client did not lose her privilege to drive.

Result:  July 2010 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case – Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for Driving Under The Influence of Marijuana.  The City Prosecutor offered Mark’s client a charge of Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree.  After consulting with Mark, the Client declined the City Prosecutor’s offer.  After further negotiations, the City Prosecutor offered to dismiss the Driving Under The Influence of Marijuana and charge Mark’s Client with Possession of Marijuana (POM).  Possession of Marijuana carries a mandatory 1 day in jail.  Mark discussed with his client the implications of a Possession of Marijuana charge and the client declined this offer as well.  Mark continued to negotiate further with the City Prosecutor.  The City Prosecutor then offered a charge of Attempted Criminal Possession of Marijuana.  The client accepted this offer and no jail time was served by the client.

See more Case Studies

Free Case Consultation | View Our Informational Video | Case Studies
Client Testimonials | Attorney Information | FAQs | Blog | Contact Us | Home | Site Map

Copyright © Mark W. Garka, PLLC
Site Designed by Ecombuffet LLC