Case Results

Our victories speak for themselves - take a look below!
    • October 2018 Bothell Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for Physical Control (PC) while his Client was parked in a hotel parking lot. His Client had been parked for about 2.5 hours and was asleep when the officer approached the car. Despite being safely off the roadway, his Client was still arrested for PC. Mark presented these facts and statements made by witnesses to the Hearing Officer in the Department of Licensing Hearing and to the City Prosecuting Attorney for the criminal PC charge. The Hearing Officer in the Department of Licensing hearing found in his Client’s favor. Ultimately the City Prosecuting Attorney asked that the Court to dismiss the case based on the evidence. CASE DISMISSED!

    • September 2018 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a Marijuana DUI. His Client narrowly avoided a Police Officer in a round-a-bout. Per Mark’s advice, his Client participated in an evaluation and completed an Alcohol Drug Information School class and Victim’s Impact Panel. Mark W. Garka convinced the State Prosecuting Attorney to reduce the charge to Negligent Driving 1st Degree due in part to his Client’s hard work. His Client did not serve any jail time or lose his license.

    • August 2018 Lynnwood Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI with 2 small children in the car. In addition to the DUI charge there was an enhancement of two reckless endangerment charges because there were two young kids in the car. Mark W. Garka convinced the City Prosecuting Attorney to dismiss the two reckless endangerment charges. His Client is now in a 5 year time out program where the DUI charge will be reduced in 5 years if his Client has no new alcohol related charges.

    • June 2018 Upper Kittitas County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s client was pulled over because his headlight was out. His Client performed the Field Sobriety Tests (FST) on the roadway in snow and in icy conditions. He blew a 0.16 BAC in the police station and was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). A BAC over 0.15 is considered a DUI with enhanced penalties in Washington State. Mark W. Garka negotiated with the State Prosecuting Attorney and the charge was reduced to Reckless Driving.

    • May 2018 Everett Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was in a one car collision with a sign. His Client performed the Field Sobriety Tests (FST) on the roadside and gave a sample of his breath (BAC) in the station. He blew a 0.10 BAC which is above the legal limit. The City Prosecuting Attorney’s offer was to plead guilty as charged for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Mark negotiated with the City Prosecuting Attorney and was able to convince then to reduce the DUI charge to a Negligent Driving charge.

    • April 2018 King County District Court, Seattle Division Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over for speeding. He declined to do the Field Sobriety Tests (FST) and declined to give a sample of his breath; he was then arrested for a DUI. He had prior alcohol related charges but none of them were Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He spent 4 days in jail before he saw a Judge and was released. The State Prosecuting Attorney’s offer was plead guilty as charged. This refusal DUI would carry with it 5 days in jail. The State would not negotiate a lesser charge. Mark W. Garka confirmed this case for trial. The State then reduced the charge to a Reckless Driving charge with 5 days in jail. Mark W. Garka and his Client refused the offer. Because of the lack of quality of evidence and the pressure of a trial, the State Prosecutor amended the DUI charge to a Negligent Driving charge and the Client did not have to serve any additional jail time.

    • March 2018 Marysville Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client had back to back DUI arrests in different jurisdictions. Mark convinced the City Prosecuting Attorney that there were flaws in his Client’s case and he was able to convince them to reduce the DUI charge to a Reckless Driving Charge despite his Client having a previous DUI charge. His Client was very pleased with the results.

    • March 2018 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI after a Trooper made contact with his Client when her wheel fell off of her car. His Client had a BAC (breath alcohol concentration) of 0.13. After much negotiation with the State Prosecuting Attorney and the Client showing proof of treatment and ADIS (Alcohol Drug Information School) attendance, Mark was able to convince the State Prosecuting Attorney to reduce his Client’s DUI charge to a Reckless Driving charge despite the BAC reading.

    • February 2018 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over by an Officer after his Client squealed his tires in front of the Officer. A Trooper was called to assist in the DUI arrest and Mark’s Client passed all of the field sobriety tests but failed the portable PBT test. His Client was charged with DUI and DWLS (Driving while License Suspended). The State Prosecuting Attorney was adamant about Mark’s Client pleading guilty to a DUI despite him having a breath test of 0.08, a reading just at the legal limit. Mark convinced the State Prosecuting Attorney to reduce the DUI charge to a Neg-1 charge and DISMISS the DWLS charge.

    • January 2018 Mill Creek Municipal Court Case

      It was alleged that Mark W. Garka’s Client was driving his vehicle as noted by a 911 caller. The City Officer found a vehicle that slightly matched the alleged Drunk Driver’s vehicle. Nobody identified the Driver of the car. Mark W. Garka used this argument to win the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. In negotiations with the City, the offer of Plead Guilty as Charged was ultimately reduced to a Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree. The Client did not lose his Driver’s License not did he go to jail.

    • August 2017 Marysville Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was charged with a Hit and Run Attended charge. Mark’s Client hit a vehicle and a person was in that vehicle at the time of the collision. With Mark’s assistance, the person in the car that was hit agreed not to pursue the matter further. Mark’s Client’s case was dismissed and the Client was very pleased not to have a Hit and Run Attended charge on her record.

    • May 2017 King County Municipal Court

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was contacted by the police while parked in the roadway one evening. He was asked to give a sample of his breath and he blew above the legal limit of 0.15 which requires an enhancement of punishment if he pleads guilty to a Driving Under the Influence charge (DUI). Mark W. Garka subpoenaed the officer for the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. The Washington State Hearing Officer found in favor of the Client and the hearing was won. Mark W. Garka negotiated a reduced charge of Reckless Driving (RD) and no jail time for his Client with the City Prosecutor As the result of this representation, Mark W. Garka’s Client did not go to jail, there was a quick resolution to this case, and the Client was very pleased with the results.

    • April 2016: Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client with a CDL contacted the office for representation. We prevailed at his Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. After the Criminal Motion Hearing, Mark convinced the State Prosecutor to reduce his Client’s charge where his Client’s CDL was not disqualified but was merely suspended for 30 days. Mark W. Garka’s Client was very pleased with the results.

    • March 2016 Snohomish County District Court Case No Jail Time, No Loss of License

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a serious collision that resulted not only with a concussion for the Driver, but also a charge of DUI and Reckless Driving. After many hours post accident, blood was drawn from Mark W. Garka’s Client. It took 175 days from the date of violation to receive the blood draw results. They were finally received after Mark W. Garka pressured the State Prosecutor. After a long delay for his Client to get his blood draw results, the result was finally found to be less than 0.05 which is below the legal limit of 0.08. The State grudgingly offered to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving because of the blood draw results. Mark W. Garka and his Client respectfully declined. After further negotiation, Mark W. Garka’s Client was offered an amended charge of Negligent Driving in the First Degree and the Client accepted that offer. The Client did not serve jail time and he did not lose his license.

    • February 2016 Snohomish County District Court Case Not Guilty

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over for speeding and ultimately charged with a DUI (Driving Under the Influence). The State was unwilling to negotiate the DUI since Mark W. Garka’s Client did not submit a sample of his breath. The State prevailed during the Criminal Motion but it seemed apparent that the Defense had a strong case. Mark W. Garka’s Client chose to try his case in front of a Jury. After a “Masterful Cross” of the State Trooper, Mark W. Garka convinced the Jury that his Client was not Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. It took the Jury less than six minutes to come back with a NOT GUILTY verdict!

    • June 2015 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrest for Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana/THC. The Arresting Officer applied for and was granted a Search Warrant for Mark W. Garka’s Client’s blood and a blood draw was performed. The State charged Mark W. Garka’s Client with a Marijuana/THC DUI before having the results of the blood draw. Mark W. Garka ultimately receives the blood draw results from the State which shows only inactive Carboxy-THC and not active Carboxy-THC in his Client’s system. This information alone should have been enough for the State to dismiss the case however the State would not dismiss this case; instead they offered to reduce the charge to Negligent Driving.

      Mark W. Garka and his Client stood their ground and said “No Thank You!”

      Mark W. Garka called the State Toxicologist, the State’s witness, and confirmed that the Prosecuting Attorney would not be able to prove their case. Mark W. Garka passed on this information and convinced the Prosecuting Attorney to dismiss the case. The case was dismissed!

    • May 2015 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a car accident and ultimately charged with a his second DUI. Mark subpoenaed the arresting Police Officer for the Department of Licensing Hearing after he discovered that his Client was not properly advised of his Implied Consent Warning for Breath. The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer agreed and the Civil Licensing Case was dismissed. Mark recognized major issues in the Criminal Case and he filed a Motion with the City Prosecuting Attorney arguing the reasonableness of the arrest and the suppression of the alleged refusal. Mark was able to get his Client’s charges reduced to a Reckless Driving charge and his Client did not serve any jail time.

    • March 2015 King County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was a student from out of State and was visiting here while on break from school. Mark’s Client was arrested for DUI with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. After viewing the video and noticing timing issue and then through several long negotiations with the Prosecuting Attorney, Mark was able to get his Client’s charges reduced to Reckless Driving. His Client did not serve any Jail time.

    • March 2015 Snohomish County District Court

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for driving under the influence after a witness had alleged that they saw her drive her car and hit another vehicle. Mark W. Garka’s client had a functioning Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed in her car and after much research, Mark W. Garka proved to the State that his Client could not have driven her vehicle while impaired because the IID was functioning properly. However, the State Prosecutor was not willing to give up so easily on this case. Mark W. Garka sought to depose the State Witness but the Witness never showed up. After many conversations, the State finally gave up and dismissed the case. Mark W. Garka’s Client did not serve any Jail time and she did not lose her license.

    • February 2015 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was stopped for speeding and ultimately arrested for DUI with a breath alcohol content at nearly one and a half times the legal limit. After intense negotiation with the State Prosecuting Attorney, Mark W. Garka was able to procure a deal. Mark W. Garka also won the Department of Licensing Hearing. Despite having an 8 year old child in the vehicle and driving without a valid driver’s license Mark W. Garka’s Client did not lose his driver’s license, did not need an Ignition Interlock Device, and did not serve any Jail time.

    • January 2015 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a collision where his vehicle was struck by another vehicle. The State Trooper failed to appear for the Department of License hearing but the local Municipal Police Officer appeared and he testified that Mark W. Garka’s Client did not look or sound impaired. Mark W. Garka won the Department of Licensing Hearing. His Client did not need an Ignition Interlock Device and Mark W. Garka was able to keep his Client out of Jail.

    • August 2014 King County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was stopped for driving on shredded tires and she was also exhibiting signs of consuming alcohol and ultimately she was arrested for a DUI. His Client refused the field sobriety tests, the portable breath test, and she failed to give a sample of her breath in the police station. The State refused to negotiate. Mark W. Garka’s Client refused to waive speedy trial and forced the state to try the case in a Jury trial within three months of her arrest. After 15 minutes of deliberation, the Jury delivered a verdict of Not Guilty of DUI.

    • July 2014 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over for weaving and he was suffering from low blood sugar levels. His Client made it very clear to the Trooper that it was the low blood sugar that was causing the signs of impairment even though it was clear that he had consumed alcohol at the time of his arrest. Mark W. Garka won the Department of Licensing Hearing and convinced the State Prosecuting Attorney to reduce the DUI to a lower charge. His Client did not lose his driver’s license and he did not need an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) despite having two prior DUIs.

    • June 2014 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI. Mark W. Garka argued that this case was actually a Physical Control case and not a DUI case because the Client never moved his vehicle and was actually asleep in his vehicle for quite a while when the Officer arrested him. Through investigation, Mark W. Garka obtained a copy of the arresting Officer’s in-car video to confirm that his client was in fact asleep in his vehicle when the Officer approached the car. Through this argument, Mark W. Garka won the Department of Licensing Hearing. His Client pled to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving. All of this was accomplished despite Mark W. Garka’s Client having a prior DUI within the last seven years.

    • May 2014 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was stopped for speeding and ultimately arrested for DUI. The arresting officer was subpoenaed for the Department of License Hearing but the officer failed to appear, therefore, Mark W. Garka won the Department of Licensing Hearing. Through investigation it was discovered that there were issues with the observation period. Because of these observation issues and having won the Department of Licensing Hearing, Mark W. Garka convinced the Prosecuting Attorney to reduce the charge of this case from a DUI to a Reckless Endangerment. His Client did not do any jail time, did not lose her license, and did not need SR22 insurance.

    • April 2014 King County District Court Case

      After attending a Holiday Party, Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI. He failed the Field Sobriety Tests and he was then arrested for a DUI. Subsequently, he refused to give a sample of his breath at the police station. After negotiations with the State Prosecuting Attorney, the State offered Mark W. Garka’s Client a no test DUI. The Client refused this offer and opted to go to a Jury Trial. After nearly a dozen attempts to set this case for Trial, 6 Jurors finally heard this case. Having heard all of the evidence they concluded that Mark W. Garka’s Client was NOT GUILTY of Driving Under the Influence. Mark W. Garka’s defense was that his Client was exhausted and not impaired. The Jury concurred and found Mark W. Garka’s Client not guilty of a DUI.

    • February 2014 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a one car accident in Snohomish County. His Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) was 0.19, more than 2 times the legal limit in Washington State. His case was filed in the incorrect County; King County. Mark W. Garka immediately set his Client’s case for trial in King County, after the required 60 days of speedy trial had elapsed. The King County State Prosecuting Attorney realized their mistake and dismissed the case and sent the case to Snohomish County, ½ a year later. The Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney picked up the case and realized that they had less than 30 days of speedy trial remaining. Mark W. Garka negotiated his case and his Client entered a plea criminally where the Client did not lose his Driver’s License, nor did he need to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID). Mark W. Garka also won the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, therefore no IID or SR22 insurance required civilly. Mark W. Garka saved his Client nearly $5000 in costs and fees.

    • January 2014 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) three times the legal limit. At his Client’s Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark W. Garka asked the arresting Officer, who was subpoenaed to the hearing, if he observed his Client the entire time before giving a sample of his breath. The Officer stated Under Penalty of Perjury; he did not in fact observe his Client the entire time. Mark W. Garka asked for a copy of the Breath Test Room Video of the arrest. Mark shared the video with the City Prosecuting Attorney and this video proved the Officer did not observe the Client the entire time. Mark W. Garka’s Client plead guilty to an amended charge of Reckless Driving even though his BAC was well above the legal limit.

    • December 2013 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested after sitting in a motor vehicle for well over an hour in a parking lot. His Client had been drinking and talking on the telephone and she had no intentions of driving. His Client was arrested for Physical Control. Mark W. Garka won the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and then convinced the City Prosecuting Attorney to dismiss the Physical Control charge and recite it as a Traffic Infraction. His Client did not lose her Driver’s License nor did she go to jail.

    • October 2013 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI. His coordination and speech were fine. The Trooper questioned the affect his age would have on the field sobriety tests, therefore he did not ask Mark W. Garka’s Client to perform them. Mark W. Garka negotiated with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and reduced his Client’s DUI charge to a Negligent Driving in the First Degree charge. He was facing a loss of his Driver’s License of 2 years because he refused the breath test. The reduction from a DUI to a Negligent Driving in the First Degree resulted in him not losing his license. In the Department of Licensing Hearing, the Trooper was subpoenaed and he did not appear. Therefore, the hearing was won and Mark W. Garka’s client did not lose his Driver’s License from the Civil action as well.

    • September 2013 King County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka subpoenaed two Washington State Patrol Troopers to appear at his Client’s Department of Licensing (DOL) Hearing. Mark W. Garka was informed that one of the Troopers had retired from the Washington State Patrol. Therefore, Mark W. Garka won the DOL Hearing because the Trooper was unavailable to answer questions about the case. Furthermore, Mark W. Garka was able to negotiate a resolution on this case criminally because of the unavailability of the Trooper. His Client did not need an Ignition Interlock installed in her car nor did she have to serve jail time.

    • August 2013 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Texting while driving can cause a major accident. The following happened to one of Mark W. Garka’s Clients when she was texting while driving. After his Client was arrested for a DUI, the Washington State Patrol Trooper advised Mark W. Garka’s Client of her implied consent warnings. At the point, Mark W. Garka’s Client asked a question and the Trooper did not know the answer. The Trooper still had Mark W. Garka’s Client provide a sample of her breath despite her confusion. The Trooper was subpoenaed to the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and the Trooper confirmed that he was confused as well. Mark W. Garka argued that the confusion should lead to the suppression of the breath test results and the DOL Hearing Officer agreed. The DOL Hearing Officer ruled in Mark W. Garka’s Client favor and the DOL Hearing was won. Mark W. Garka used this information to convince the State Prosecutor to reduce his Client’s charge so the Client did not have to go to jail or lose her Driver’s License.

    • August 2013 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      While preparing for Mark W. Garka Client’s Department of Licensing (DOL) Hearing, Mark W. Garka determined that the Washington State Patrol Trooper involved in this case had retired. Because of his absence in the DOL Hearing, Mark W. Garka won his Client’s DOL civil action. Mark W. Garka was able to negotiate a dismissal of his Client’s Criminal DUI case and the case was recited as a Traffic Infraction. Despite this being his Client’s second DUI in 7 years, Mark W. Garka’s client did not lose his Driver’s License, did not need an Ignition Interlock installed and did not require SR22 insurance.

    • July 2013 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client had a mouth piercing that the City Officer failed to have her remove prior to her giving a sample of her breath. In her Department of Licensing (DOL) Hearing, the City Officer confirmed that in fact he did not have her remove her mouth piercing. The presence of a foreign object in a mouth during a breath test is against procedure, therefore Mark W. Garka won the DOL Hearing. Mark W. Garka negotiated a reduction to a Negligent Driving in the First Degree in the criminal action. Despite her 2nd DUI in 7 years, Mark W. Garka’s Client did not go to jail, did not lose her license, did not need an Ignition Interlock Device and did not require SR 22 insurance.

    • June 2013 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was in a car and someone else was driving. That person stopped the car illegally in a turn lane and then freaked out and ran from the car. Mark W. Garka's Client felt like she needed to act responsibly and she drove the car into a parking lot. A Trooper saw her and arrested her for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Mark W. Garka negotiated with the State Prosecuting Attorney a Reckless Driving charge with no additional jail time despite his Client having a high breath test and two prior DUI convictions.

    • April 2013 Department of Licensing DOL Hearing

      Mark W. Garka subpoenaed the two Troopers that were present at the arrest of his Client. One Trooper failed to appear. The Trooper that did show up admitted under oath that Mark W. Garka’s Client was confused as to the potential ramification of a license revocation. It appeared that the Trooper was confused as well. Despite this, the Trooper had Mark W. Garka’s Client provide a sample of her breath. The DOL Hearing Officer agreed with Mark W. Garka’s argument that the Trooper should have provided his Client with clarification by providing her access to an Attorney. The breath test was suppressed and Mark W. Garka won the Department of Licensing Hearing. Therefore there was no Civil loss of license for Mark W. Garka’s Client

    • March 2013 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for being in actual Physical Control of a motor vehicle. Mark W. Garka brought to the City Prosecuting Attorney’s attention that there were issues with the case including that his Client was safely off the roadway. The City Prosecutor offered a Reckless Driving Charge which was unacceptable because Mark W. Garka had won the civil action with the Department of Licensing. The City Prosecutor then offered a Reckless Endangerment charge which is still a Gross Misdemeanor. Ultimately, Mark W. Garka was able to negotiate a Negligent Driving 1st Degree, which the Client accepted. Mark W. Garka’s Client did not serve any jail time, no loss of license, and the case was filed as a Simple Misdemeanor.

    • February 2013 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested in a local city where he ultimately blew a 0.13 breath alcohol level. Reason for the stop? The Officer did a "California Stop" through a stop sign and almost hit Mark W. Garka’s Client, therefore causing him to swerve to miss the Officer. The Judge said that the reason Mark’s Client exhibited bad driving was because he was surprised by the Officer’s driving. Mark’s Client exhibited no other bad driving. The offer from the City was to plead guilty as charged. Mark W. Garka and his Client opted to take the case to trial, but before they did, Mark argued the case in a Motion Hearing. The Judge focused on the argument that Mark W. Garka raised in that there was no reason to stop his Client. The Judge decided that there was no illegal driving by my Client, and after the Motion hearing, the Judge dismissed the case!

    • January 2013 King County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI with a breath alcohol level of nearly 3 times the legal limit. Mark subpoenaed the Trooper to appear at the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and the Trooper failed to appear, therefore Mark won the hearing. Mark informed the State Prosecutor that the Trooper failed to appear at the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. After numerous attempts to interview the Trooper, Mark requested and received a deposition for an interview with the Trooper. Again the Trooper failed to appear. Over Mark’s objection, the Judge ordered a new deposition date. Again the Trooper failed to appear. Mark requested that this case be dismissed and this time, the Judge granted a dismissal. Case Dismissed.

    • January 2013 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for DUI and ultimately did not provide a sample of his breath. Mark subpoenaed the trooper for the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and the Trooper showed up late and she was not prepared. The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer dismissed the case. Mark negotiated a Reckless Endangerment plea where his Client did not go to jail or lose his Driver’s License.

    • December 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a DUI after he hit a tree. There was a small child as a passenger in his car. There was no Department of Licensing (DOL) action against him because alcohol was not involved. The State was not able to prove Driving while Under the Influence of Drugs or Alcohol. The Client’s DUI case was dismissed and his Client did not lose his ability to drive.

    • December 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s client was arrested for DUI and blew below the legal limit of .08. The State Prosecuting Attorney offered to reduce the charge to Negligent Driving in the First Degree. The Client declined the offer and his case was set for Jury Trial. At the arrest, the Client did not exhibit any fine or gross motor skill degradation. Furthermore, the Client declined to do the field sobriety tests and his speech and facial color and speech were normal. On the day that the trial was to begin, the State Trooper failed to appear. The Judge dismissed the case. Case Dismissed!

    • November 2012 King County District Court Case

      Driving around without your headlights on is a good way to get pulled over by the police. Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over and during the field sobriety tests he never exhibited any issues as far as fine or gross motor skills. When Mark’s Client exited the car, the Trooper did not notice any indication of impairment including exhibiting fair speech. When asked to provide a sample of his breath, Mark’s Client’s breath test was higher than legal limit. Mark won the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing when the trooper failed to respond to a subpoena. Mark negotiated with the State Prosecutor for a reduced charge whereby the Client never lost his Driver’s License and he did not go to jail.

    • October 2012 Island County District Court Case

      When Mark W. Garka’s Client crashed into a tree and provided a sample of his breath at the level of .17, he was very concerned about his ability to join the military based upon a DUI conviction. At the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark learned that the Deputy who arrested him no longer worked for the Sheriff’s Department. Not only did he win the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing; his Criminal case was dismissed because of the absence of the Deputy. Mark’s Client is now able to join the military.

    • September 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was originally charged with both the crimes of DUI High Breath Test and Hit-And-Run Unattended. The original offer was to plead guilty to a DUI and serve 50 days in jail. If the client had been convicted he would have lost his Driver’s License for a period of two years. The Deputy was subpoenaed for the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and failed to appear. With the use of Mark’s Private Investigator it was determined that the Deputy made errors in the case. It was confirmed through the investigation that no one saw Mark’s Client driving. The State offered a charge of Reckless Driving but this would have required a 30 day loss of license. Mark negotiated a Reckless Endangerment for his Client and he did not lose his driver’s license or face a DUI charge.

    • September 2012 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      A Client hires Mark W. Garka with a DUI refusal, Hit-and-Run Attended, and a Resisting Arrest Charge. His Client was going to lose her Driver’s License for a period of up to four years. After following Mark’s advice to get an alcohol evaluation, do the follow up, and attend a Victim’s Impact Panel, and after a successful Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark was able to successfully negotiate a reduction on the DUI charge to a Reckless Driving and amending the Hit-and-Run Attended to an Unintended Charge. Mark’s Client lost her Driver’s License for only 30 days.

    • August 2012 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client, a minor, was involved in an automobile accident and having provided a sample of his breath of nearly double the legal limit, was charged with DUI. Mark was able to win the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and successfully negotiated a reduction from a DUI to a Negligent Driving in the First Degree. His Client attended an eight hour class, never went to jail, and did not lose his Driver’s License.

    • August 2012 Lower Kittitas County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested while driving and talking on his cell phone. The Client was not paying attention and it took awhile to pull over when the Officer activated his emergency lights. The Client was on pain medications for a back issue and he submitted to field sobriety tests despite having a back issue. Mark’s Client was arrested for Driving while Under the Influence of Drugs yet was not advised immediately of his Miranda warnings. This was a DUI drug case; therefore Mark’s Client did not have a Department of License Hearing. Through investigation and the help of experts, Mark was able to convince the State Prosecutor that this would be a difficult case for them to prove. Mark was able to get a reduction on his case and the Client did not lose his Driver’s License nor did he go to jail.

    • August 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      After a nice dinner with his wife, Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over for speeding on a local highway. After performing a field sobriety test his Client was arrested for DUI. Mark’s Client’s breath alcohol level was over the presumptive limit of .08. Despite losing in the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark gained valuable information from the Trooper’s testimony and was able to convince the State Prosecutor to reduce the charge of DUI to Negligent Driving in the First Degree. Mark’s Client did not serve any time in jail.

    • July 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a major automobile accident with a passenger also in the vehicle. His Client was charged with DUI. Mark was able to negotiate the DUI charge to Reckless Driving and his Client did not serve any jail time.

    • July 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Already having a prior DUI within seven years, Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested again for DUI and he was nearly twice the presumptive legal limit of .08. One of the Officers failed to appear at the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. Mark asked to depose the officer in the hearing with a Private Investigator. Numerous issues arose in his case and Mark was able to negotiate a DUI charge to a Negligent Driving in the First Degree. Mark’s Client served zero days jail. Mark’s Client engaged in treatment during the Court process and therefore was able to stay out of jail because he demonstrated a need to get treatment. Mark’s Client had been facing a loss of license for a year on this case but because of the reduction to Negligent Driving in the First Degree and a Department of Licensing (DOL) win, he never lost Driver’s License not did he go to jail.

    • June 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Having been pulled over for speeding, a Deputy Sheriff made contact with Mark W. Garka’s Client. Mark’s Client was forced to wait for a Trooper to come investigate a possible DUI. His Client’s breath test was nearly 1.5 times the legal limit. The Trooper failed to appear at the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark won the case and his Client retained his Driver’s License. From the initial observation to the arrival of the Washington State Patrol Trooper, 33 minutes had elapsed and Mark was able to convince the State Prosecuting Attorney that the delay was improper. Mark was able to negotiate a reduction from DUI to Reckless Endangerment. His Client did not lose his Driver’s License criminally nor civilly (DOL) and did not go to jail.

    • June 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was arrested for a second DUI within seven years. During investigation, it was determined that Mark’s Client provided an invalid sample of his breath. Mark won the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing by highlighting the invalid sample issue in the hearing. Therefore, Mark’s Client did not lose his driver’s license with the Department of Licensing for what have been two years because of a prior DUI conviction. The State Prosecutor, on the morning of the motion hearing, agreed with the issues in the case, and offered a reduction to 10 days of electronic home monitoring and no jail time was served.

    • June 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client listened carefully to Mark's advice on when to submit her Department Licensing (DOL) request form and she mailed it timely. The Department of Licensing (DOL) did not receive the Officer’s report and they did not have time to request it. Mark’s Client won her Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing because of the absence of an Officer’s Report. With Mark's assistance, his Client’s case was reduced to a Negligent Driving in the First Degree in Court and his Client did not lose her Driver’s License nor did she go to jail.

    • June 2012 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a fairly significant accident involving hitting a fence and there was a passenger in his vehicle. Mark’s Private Investigator discovered many issues in the arrest. Mark talked to the Officers in the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing and gathered valuable information. The City Prosecutor wanted maximum jail time because this was Mark’s Client’s second DUI within seven years. Mark was able to force a reduction to a Reckless Driving Charge. Mark’s Client lost his Driver’s License with the Department of Licensing (DOL) for only 30 days, and with this criminal charge, his Client did not serve time in jail.

    • May 2012 King County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over for exhibiting poor lane travel. Despite pending foot surgery, Mark’s Client submitted to the field sobriety tests. When she was asked to give a sample of her breath, she blew a number at the legal limit. Mark convinced the Department of Licensing (DOL) that the breath test at a .08 was not a valid breath sample and he won the hearing. Mark’s Client did not lose her Driver’s License.

    • May 2012 King County District Court Case

      Despite being over the legal limit of .08, Mark W. Garka’s Client’s case was reduced to the charge of Negligent Driving in the First Degree. Mark was able to negotiate this reduced charge after a successful Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. Mark informed the State Prosecutor of the problems with the case including the fact that the Client did not exhibit coordination problems, was cooperative, and was pulled over as a result of speed. Mark’s Client did not lose his Driver’s License because of the reduction to Negligent Driving in the First Degree and because of a win in the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing.

    • May 2012 King County Municipal Court Case

      Despite Mark W. Garka’s Client’s horrible lane travel and a .14 breath alcohol level, his Client entered into a five year Stipulated Order of Continuance (SOC) with the Court. As long as the Client followed a contract with the City through the Court, her case would be reduced. The Officer failed to appear at the Department of Licensing (DOL) Hearing and Mark won the hearing. This was a great result for Mark’s Client because she did not lose her Driver’s License and she did not go to jail.

    • May 2012 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client had two prior DUIs. He was involved in a minor accident and his breath alcohol level was greater than .08. Through investigation by Mark’s Private Investigator it was determined that the City Prosecuting Attorney had some issues proving their case. Mark was able to negotiate a reduced charge of Reckless Driving. Mark’s Client did lose his Driver’s License for a period of 30 days based upon the reduced charge of Reckless Driving but he was required to only serve 30 days of electronic home monitoring and he did not go to jail.

    • May 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over for having an inoperable headlight and making a "California Stop". Mark’s Client was arrested for DUI and she provided a sample of her breath at nearly twice the legal limit. The Trooper did not have Mark’s Client remove her mouth jewelry and it was therefore determined that the breath test was invalid. This was further reinforced in the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. Mark was able to negotiate a reduction of the DUI to Negligent Driving in the First Degree. Mark’s Client did not lose her Driver’s License nor go to jail.

    • May 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Despite being involved in a rollover car accident with a passenger in his car, Mark W. Garka was able to convince the State Prosecuting Attorney that the blood draw was improper in his Client’s case. Mark negotiated a charge of Reckless Driving. Mark won the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. Mark’s Client lost his Driver’s License for a reduced period of 30 days because of the Reckless Driving charge and served no time in jail.

    • April 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was involved in a significant rollover accident and refused to give a sample of his breath. Mark subpoenaed three Officers to testify at the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing. One of the Officers failed to appear for the DOL hearing. The subpoena was served correctly; therefore, Mark won the DOL hearing. Further, Mark negotiated a Negligent Driving in the First Degree criminally. His Client did not serve any time in jail, nor did he lose his Driver’s License, nor was he required to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID), nor is he required to carry SR-22 insurance.

    • April 2012 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client had a prior Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charge in which she did a Deferred Prosecution (DP). Her breath test was nearly twice the legal limit on her recent 2012 DUI charge. Through investigation, it was discovered that the Officer was not truthful when he said he maintained constant observation of her in the BAC room. Mark W. Garka pointed out this error to the Prosecutor and he negotiated a Reckless Driving Charge where the client did not go to jail.

    • April 2012 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Client is arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) below the legal limit of 0.08. However, he has Marijuana in his system. Mark W. Garka negotiated a 3 year “time out”, also known as a Stipulated Order of Continuance (SOC), with the City Prosecuting Attorney for his Client. Mark W. Garka’s Client did not lose his license civilly or criminally nor does he serve any jail time.

    • March 2012 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Client is charged with Minor in Possession of Alcohol (MIP). Mark strongly advised his Client to follow his advice to stay out of trouble and comply with Mark W. Garka’s cleanup plan. Mark W. Garka negotiated with the State Prosecuting Attorney to dismiss the case against his Client and the case was dismissed.

    • February 2012 King County Municipal Court Case

      Despite a high blood test of nearly one and one half times the legal limit and where a concerned citizen called 911 to report a drunk driver in Seattle, WA, Mark W. Garka’s Client was not convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). His Client was pulled safely off the roadway prior to the Police Officer making contact with him. In the Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, three separate Officers had conflicting stories about where Mark W. Garka’s Client was parked and how he got there. Relaying this conflicting information from the Police Officers to the City Prosecuting Attorney, Mark W. Garka negotiated 0 days in jail, a Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree charge and better yet, the client did not lose his Driver’s License.

    • January 2012 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      During Mark W. Garka’s initial consultation with the Client, the Client advised Mark W. Garka that he had a Commercial Driver’s license (CDL). He expressed to Mark that he would lose his job if he lost his Driver’s License. After reviewing the police report, Mark W. Garka found numerous issues with the case. After negotiations with the City Prosecuting Attorney, a Negligent Driving 1st Degree was offered to the Client. The Client did not lose his Driver’s License Criminally. At the Department of Licensing hearing, Mark convinced the Hearing Officer that there were numerous issues with the case including the correct identity of his Client. The Hearing Officer dismissed the Civil action against the Client. Mark W. Garka’s Client did not lose his Driver’s License Criminally or Civilly and most importantly he did not lose his CDL license.

    • December 2011 Island County District Court Case

      A Client hires Mark W. Garka after discharging her previous Attorney. The Client’s expressed desire was to retain exceptional legal representation, along with exceptional customer service. Client has had a prior DUI and it was made known by the Prosecuting Attorney that there would be no reductions on this Client’s current case. Despite the Prosecuting Attorney’s dire warnings of no reductions, the DUI/Drug matter was amended to a Negligent Driving in the 1st Degree. Because the Client had obtained her evaluation, completed follow up, and performed 8 hours of Community Service, she served zero days in jail on this matter.

    • December 2011 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Client is arrested by Tribal Officers and provides a Breath Alcohol sample of 0.24. Client hires Mark W. Garka for his Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing which took place on three separate occasions. Mark W. Garka wins the DOL hearing. Mark W. Garka was able to convince the State Prosecutor that there were many problematic issues in his case and Mark W. Garka negotiates an amended charge of Reckless Endangerment. Client does no time in jail, never loses his license, and does not need to have an Ignition Interlock Device installed in his vehicle.

    • December 2011 Snohomish County District Court Case

      After driving into a ditch and ultimately providing the Snohomish County Deputy with a breath alcohol sample of over 3 times the legal limit, the Client hires Mark on her 2nd DUI case. The Client was facing a minimum of 45 days in jail. Mark W. Garka prevails at the Department of Licensing Hearing and she did not lose her Driver’s License. The State was unwilling to negotiate a plea for this case. After a Motions Hearing, the Judge said that the testimony did not rise to the level of reasonable grounds to arrest and the case was dismissed. Mark W. Garka’s Client did not go to jail or lose her Driver’s License.

    • November 2011 Snohomish County District Court, City of Mill Creek Case

      A Client hires Mark W. Garka for her first time DUI. The Client’s blood alcohol level is less than 0.08. After investigation and strenuous negotiations, the City Prosecutor dismisses the DUI charge and recites it as a Traffic Infraction.

    • October 2011 King County District Court Case

      A Client hires Mark W. Garka for her first time DUI. The Municipal Officer is subpoenaed to appear at her DOL hearing. The Municipal Officer fails to appear despite being served a subpoena. The DOL Hearing Officer dismisses the DOL action and the Client wins. The Client follows Mark W. Garka’s advice by doing the following early: community service, an alcohol evaluation, follow-up to her evaluation, and victim impact panel. After negotiations, her DUI case is reduced from a DUI charge to a Negligent Driving charge. Mark W. Garka’s client does not serve jail time, does not lose her license, does not need SR22 insurance, nor need an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed. She leaves her pre-trial hearing with no further obligations to the Court.

    • September 2011 King County Municipal Court Case

      Despite a prior DUI by Mark W. Garka’s Client, Mark convinced a City Prosecutor that the Officer’s reason for arresting his Client was questionable. The officer incorrectly administered the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST); therefore there was a questionable reason for the arrest of his client. The City Prosecuting Attorney agreed to amend the DUI to a charge whereby the client did not lose his Driver’s License nor did he need an Ignition Interlock Device (IID).

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • April 2010 Snohomish County District Court Case

      In a Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing, Mark W. Garka argued that the Officer made an illegal stop when he pulled over his Client. The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer agreed and dismissed the administrative licensing case. Mark provided the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney with the information garnered at the DOL hearing and negotiated with the State to issue a traffic infraction and dismiss the DUI. Despite having a high blood alcohol level, Mark’s Client was charged with a traffic infraction and he did not lose his privilege to drive.

    • March 2010 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was confronted by three police officers for allegedly drinking and driving. The Client was upset with the process. After Mark’s Client refused to perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST); he was arrested. He was then not properly advised of the Implied Consent Warnings (ICW). Mark questioned the Police Officers in the Department of Licensing hearing. It was determined that the Officers never advised Mark’s Client of the implied consent warnings. The Hearing Officer dismissed the case. The City Prosecutor also dismissed the DUI charge based upon the information gleamed in the Department of Licensing Hearing. Mark’s client did not lose his privilege to drive.

    • February 2010 Department of Licensing DOL Hearing

      A Municipal DUI emphasis Officer was subpoenaed to the Department of Licensing hearing and he testified at the hearing. Mark W. Garka argued that there was no possibility that the Officer’s story was credible and that the case should be dismissed. The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer found in Mark’s favor, therefore the Client won the Department of Licensing hearing and did not lose his Driver’s License.

    • January 2010 Snohomish County District Court Case

      At a motion hearing, Mark argued that neither Washington State Trooper who made contact with his Client had presented enough evidence to conclude that his Client was under the influence of alcohol. The Client had been involved in a major accident, and yet, the Judge dismissed the case.

    • 2009 Lower Kittitas County Case

      Mark’s Client was charged with minor in possession of alcohol. His Client was a student at a University. Mark negotiated a stipulated order of continuance (SOC). His Client only had to attend an 8 hour Alcohol Drug Information School class. With Mark’s help, his client had the major requirements of the (SOC) finished prior to going to court. His Client agreed to not possess alcohol in the next two years and then the case will be dismissed. The Client did not miss any school during this process.

    • 2008 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was accused of driving with marijuana in his system. Mark argued in a motion hearing that lasted nearly six hours that his client did not have any “active” marijuana in his system. While he did not prevail that day, the City re-evaluated the case and dismissed the case at the next court date.

    • 2007 King County Municipal Court Case

      Mark W. Garka’s Client was pulled over after “weaving” on the roadway. The Client properly stopped in a parking lot and then his car rolled back and struck an officer patrol car. He was then charged with DUI. Mark convinced the Judge at a motion hearing that the City had no reason to stop the client. The Judge agreed that there was no reason to pull the Driver over and then dismissed the case.

    • 2007 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      In a Department of Licensing (DOL) hearing where two Officers testified, it was determined that there was no valid breath test. The Officers disagreed on which one watched the client during an “observation” period. The Department of Licensing Hearing Officer dismissed the administrative licensing case. Mark provided the Prosecuting Attorney with the information garnered at the DOL hearing and the City issued a traffic infraction and dismissed the DUI. The Client’s BAC was .24 or three times the legal limit.

    • 2006 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark convinced the Prosecutor that the breath tests were flawed and the Prosecutor amended the case to a Traffic Infraction. Mark’s Client was on a Deferred Prosecution in another County. The infraction did not revoke the Deferred Prosecution.

    • 2006 Snohomish County Municipal Court

      In a Physical Control case, City Police Officers drug a Client out of his idling pick-up truck that was parked safely off the road. Mark persuaded the City Prosecutor to amend the charge to a Traffic Infraction. The Client served no jail time and did not lose his license.

    • 2006 Snohomish County Municipal Court Case

      During a motion hearing, Mark W. Garka questioned the Officer extensively about the administration of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST). The Officer admitted that the Client PASSED all of the tests. The judge, who declared that he was not a big fan of the SFSTs, still found that there was enough evidence to find the Officer had reasonable cause to arrest the Driver. Later, in a jury trial, the Officer again admitted in court with the jury present that Mark’s Client PASSED the field sobriety tests. After the jury deliberated, they found the Client NOT GUILTY.

    • 2005 Clallam County District Court Case

      Mark filed motions with the State and argued in negotiations with the Prosecutor that the Officer had no reason to pull over his Client and that the breath test technician was not properly certified. Despite Mark’s Client having a blood alcohol level over twice the legal limit of 0.19, the Prosecutor dismissed the case

    • 2005 Snohomish County District Court Case

      While in trial, the State moved to continue this case because the Troopers needed to be elsewhere. Mark stood his ground and convinced the Judge that this was an inappropriate argument and that if the Defendant had to be present in court, so did the Trooper who arrested him. The Judge agreed and the case was dismissed at trial.

    • 2005 Snohomish County District Court Case

      Mark’s Client was accused of driving with drugs in her system. Mark convinced the Prosecutor during negotiations that the State did not have a case. The State dismissed the DUI, and then re-cited the DUI as a Traffic Infraction. Mark beat the Traffic Infraction. His Client did not go to jail or have any fines.