Indiana DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Jeff Cardella

If you are in need of a top tier DUI criminal defense lawyer in Indiana, call me at 317-695-7700 for a free consultation.  I have been a criminal attorney in Indiana for my entire legal career, have almost two decades of experience and taught criminal law at the IU School of Law. I provide reasonably priced criminal defense representation in the entire State of Indiana, including Indianapolis, Marion County, Hamilton County, Hendricks County, Boone County, Monroe County, Madison County, Johnson County, Hancock County, Shelby County, Greenfield, Bloomington, Noblesville, Carmel, Fishers, Lebanon, Franklin, Shelbyville, Danville, and Plainfield.

My office has been recognized as one of the Ten Best Law Firms in the State of Indiana by the American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys, I was selected as one of the Top 100 Attorneys by the National Trial Lawyers Association, my office has been recognized as a Top 10 Law Firms by the American Association of Attorney Advocates, and I have been recognized as one of the Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys in the State under the age of forty by the National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys. I taught criminal law at the Indiana University School of Law and have served as a Judge pro tem in Indiana.  I filed the Federal Class Action lawsuit of Washington v. Marion County Prosecutor, in which Indiana’s vehicle forfeiture statute was held to be unconstitutional, under the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. I also co-authored the amicus brief for the United States Supreme Court case of Timbs v. State of Indiana, in which the United States Supreme Court held that Indiana’s attempts at forfeiture were unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines clause of the US Constitution. I handled over a dozen successful lawsuits against the Indiana Department of Corrections, challenging solitary confinement procedures under the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. I also filed several successful lawsuits against the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for arrests that violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  Additionally, I have represented a fellow criminal defense attorney, a Metro Police Officer, and two former Sheriff’s deputies after they were arrested and accused of illegal activity. As members of the legal community, these individuals spend a great deal of time in Court and have first hand experience with many different criminal lawyers.  These individuals, having familiarity with many different criminal attorneys, were aware of the high quality of legal representation that I provide and trusted me to serve as their Indiana criminal defense lawyer. You can find additional information about my career as an Indiana criminal defense attorney and cases that I have handled on my In the News page.

I have handled thousands of cases and been lead counsel in hundreds of trials. As a criminal lawyer in Indiana, I have represented persons accused of a wide variety of crimes, ranging from murder to minor possession of alcohol. I have experience in all stages of criminal litigation, including jury trials, bench trials, suppression hearings, post-conviction relief proceedings, appellate law and oral argument, expungement and sealing of records under the Indiana Second Chance law, civil forfeiture, constitutional challenges under 42 USC 1983, hardship licenses and specialized driving permits, probation violations, and plea negotiations.  

Indiana DUI Criminal Defense Attorney – Jeff Cardella

In Indiana, a DUI charge, often referred to as Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (OVWI), is governed by statutes like IC 9-30-5-1 and IC 9-30-5-2. If you’re searching for an Indiana DUI defense attorney, understanding these laws is crucial. According to IC 9-30-5-1, operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent (ACE) of at least 0.08 grams but less than 0.15 grams per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath is a Class C misdemeanor. If your ACE is 0.15 grams or higher, the charge escalates to a Class A misdemeanor, which carries stiffer penalties. Additionally, driving with a controlled substance (like marijuana or other schedule I or II drugs under IC 35-48-2) or its metabolite in your system is a Class C misdemeanor, unless you have a valid prescription, as noted in IC 9-30-5-1(d). This defense can be a game-changer, and  as a DUI defense attorneys in Indiana, I work to leverage it when applicable.

The law also addresses intoxication beyond blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Under IC 9-30-5-2, operating a vehicle while intoxicated is a Class C misdemeanor, but it becomes a Class A misdemeanor if your driving endangers someone, including yourself, the public, or law enforcement. Cases like Outlaw v. State (918 N.E.2d 379, 2009) clarify that intoxication alone isn’t enough to prove endangerment; the prosecution must show risky driving behavior, such as weaving or speeding. For example, in Ashba v. State (816 N.E.2d 862, 2004), the defendant’s erratic driving and physical signs of intoxication supported a conviction. Our Indiana DUI lawyers analyze these elements to challenge the prosecution’s case, ensuring your defense is robust.

The concept of “operating” a vehicle is critical in DUI cases. In Toan v. State (691 N.E.2d 477, 1998) and Hampton v. State (681 N.E.2d 250, 1997), courts clarified that operating includes being in actual physical control of a vehicle, even if it’s not moving. For instance, in Custer v. State (637 N.E.2d 187, 1994), a defendant found sleeping in a running vehicle on a highway was deemed to be operating it. However, in Clark v. State (611 N.E.2d 181, 1993), a vehicle in a parking space didn’t meet the threshold. Our Indiana DUI defense attorneys use these precedents to challenge whether you were actually operating a vehicle, potentially leading to dismissed charges.

Indiana DUI Laws and Chemical Testing Requirements

Chemical tests are a cornerstone of Indiana DUI cases, and understanding their requirements is essential when searching for a DUI criminal defense attorney in Indiana. Under IC 9-30-6-2, if an officer has probable cause to believe you’ve violated DUI laws, they must offer a chemical test (breath, blood, or urine) within three hours of the alleged operation. This time limit is critical, as seen in Mordacq v. State (585 N.E.2d 22, 1992), where a conviction was reversed because the state couldn’t prove the test occurred within three hours of driving. Similarly, Custer v. State (637 N.E.2d 187, 1994) shows that timing issues can weaken BAC-related charges. As an Indiana DUI defense attorney, I scrutinize test administration to identify errors, such as improper calibration or untrained personnel, which could lead to suppressed evidence.

The implied consent law in Indiana means that by driving, you agree to submit to a chemical test if suspected of DUI. Refusing a test triggers an automatic license suspension and can be used as evidence of guilt in court. In State v. Hunter (898 N.E.2d 455, 2008), a blood draw was suppressed because it didn’t follow statutory protocols, highlighting the need for precise procedures. As a DUI lawyers in Indiana, I can challenge test results by examining officer training, equipment maintenance, and the chain of custody, ensuring your rights are protected. For controlled substances, cases like Estes v. State (656 N.E.2d 528, 1995) and Moore v. State (645 N.E.2d 6, 1994) show that a positive urine test doesn’t prove the substance was in your blood, a key defense I pursue.

DUI License Suspension in Indiana: What You Need to Know

A DUI license suspension in Indiana is one of the most immediate consequences of a DUI arrest, often hitting before your criminal case is resolved. Under IC 9-30-6, failing a chemical test (BAC of 0.08 or higher) can result in a 180-day suspension for a first offense, while refusing a test leads to a one-year suspension. These administrative suspensions, handled by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), are separate from court-imposed penalties, making it critical to act quickly. If you’re searching for an Indiana DUI attorney to fight a suspension, I can help.

The implied consent law ties directly to suspensions, as refusing a test signals non-compliance. However,  as a DUI defense attorney in Indiana, I can challenge the suspension by questioning the officer’s probable cause or test administration. For example, in State v. Edmund (616 N.E.2d 377, 1993), a delayed test affected the prosecution’s ability to rely on statutory presumptions, which can also impact suspensions. One option is to request a hearing within 10 days of your arrest to contest the suspension, exploring defenses like improper stops or procedural errors, as seen in Howard v. State (818 N.E.2d 469, 2004), where a stop was upheld but could be challenged if unconstitutional.

A suspension can disrupt your ability to work, attend school, or manage daily tasks. Our Indiana DUI lawyers work tirelessly to minimize or eliminate the suspension period, helping you regain control of your mobility. I also guide you through the process of applying for relief, such as hardship licenses or specialized driving permits, to maintain essential driving privileges. By addressing these issues early, I aim to reduce the impact of a DUI charge on your life.

Hardship Licenses in Indiana: Regaining Driving Privileges

If your license is suspended, a hardship license in Indiana can be a lifeline, allowing limited driving for essential purposes like work, medical appointments, or education. When searching for an Indiana DUI defense attorney, you’ll want someone experienced in securing these licenses. A hardship license, also called a restricted license, is available if you can demonstrate significant hardship, such as job loss or inability to access essential services. Eligibility often requires completing court-ordered programs, like substance abuse treatment, and may involve installing an ignition interlock device (IID), which requires a breath test to start your vehicle.

Our DUI criminal defense attorneys in Indiana streamline the application process, preparing documentation like proof of employment, insurance, and program completion. I also represent you in court hearings to argue for approval. Cases like Subtlett v. State (815 N.E.2d 1031, 2004) show that improper checkpoints can weaken the prosecution’s case, potentially supporting your eligibility for a hardship license. By addressing deadlines and requirements, I increase your chances of regaining limited driving privileges, reducing the impact of a DUI charge.

The process involves strict timelines, and missing a deadline can jeopardize your application. As a DUI lawyer in Indiana, I ensure all paperwork is filed correctly and advocate for conditions like IIDs to expedite approval. I also explore whether procedural errors in your arrest, such as those in State v. Gerschoffer (763 N.E.2d 960, 2002), can bolster your case for a hardship license. My goal is to keep you mobile while your case is pending.

In Indiana, a hardship license is formally known as a “Specialized Driving Permit.” These permits, governed by state law, allow driving for specific purposes, such as commuting to work or attending court-ordered programs. If you’re searching for an Indiana DUI lawyer to help with driving privileges, I can guide you through the process.  

Challenging Sobriety Checkpoints in Indiana DUI Cases

Sobriety checkpoints are a common way DUI cases begin, but they must meet strict constitutional standards. When searching for a DUI defense attorney in Indiana, you need someone who can challenge these stops. In Indianapolis v. Edmond (531 U.S. 32, 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints for general crime detection violate the Fourth Amendment. Sobriety checkpoints are permissible but must follow guidelines like a neutral plan and minimal intrusion, as outlined in State v. Gerschoffer (763 N.E.2d 960, 2002). If you were stopped at a checkpoint, our Indiana DUI attorneys examine whether it complied with these standards, potentially moving to suppress evidence.

Traffic stops must also be based on reasonable suspicion, as established in Brown v. Texas (443 U.S. 47, 1979). In Ashba v. State (816 N.E.2d 862, 2004), weaving and speeding justified the stop, but I can challenge stops lacking specific evidence of wrongdoing. Cases like Toan v. State and Hampton v. State clarify what constitutes “operating” a vehicle, which is critical for challenging whether you were driving. As a DUI criminal defense attorneys in Indiana, I analyze police reports, dashcam footage, and witness statements to identify violations of your rights, strengthening your defense.

Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Reliable in Indiana DUI Cases?

Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are often used to establish probable cause in Indiana DUI cases, but their reliability is not absolute. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) outlines three standardized tests: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS), with accuracy rates of 77%, 68%, and 65%, respectively. Combining HGN and WAT boosts accuracy to 80%, but the NHTSA Preface notes that non-ideal conditions, like uneven surfaces or poor lighting, can undermine results. If you’re looking for an Indiana DUI defense attorney, I can challenge FSTs by questioning their administration.

In Weaver v. State (702 N.E.2d 750, 1998), failing multiple FSTs supported a conviction, but improper instructions or environmental factors can render tests inadmissible. As an Indiana DUI lawyer, I can work with experts to scrutinize officer training and test conditions, ensuring any errors are exposed. For example, the HGN test requires precise administration, and deviations can weaken its evidentiary value, as seen in cases like Dunkley v. State (787 N.E.2d 962, 2003). By challenging FSTs, I aim to weaken the prosecution’s case and protect your rights.

Chemical Test Challenges in Indiana DUI Criminal Defense

Chemical tests are critical in Indiana DUI cases, but they’re not infallible. IC 9-30-6-2 requires tests to be conducted within three hours of operation, and cases like Mordacq v. State (585 N.E.2d 22, 1992) show that timing issues can lead to dismissed charges. In State v. Hunter (898 N.E.2d 455, 2008), a blood draw was suppressed due to improper procedures, emphasizing the need for strict compliance. As a DUI defense attorney, I challenge test results by examining calibration records, officer qualifications, and chain of custody.

For controlled substances, the prosecution must prove the substance was in your blood, not just urine, as clarified in Estes v. State (656 N.E.2d 528, 1995) and Moore v. State (645 N.E.2d 6, 1994). A positive urine test doesn’t automatically prove impairment, and I leverage this to challenge charges, especially if you have a valid prescription under IC 9-30-5-1(d). As a DUI criminal defense attorney in Indiana, I can use forensic experts to dispute test accuracy, ensuring your defense is comprehensive and effective.

Prior DUI Convictions: Facing Enhanced Penalties in Indiana

A prior DUI conviction can elevate a new charge to a Class D felony in Indiana, significantly increasing penalties. Under IC 9-13-2-130, a prior conviction in Indiana or a similar offense in another state within seven years can trigger this enhancement. In Mann v. State (754 N.E.2d 544, 2001), an Ohio conviction was deemed substantially similar, but State v. Rans (739 N.E.2d 164, 2000) clarified that not all out-of-state convictions qualify. If you’re searching for an Indiana DUI lawyer, I reviews prior convictions to ensure they meet statutory criteria.

Enhanced penalties can include up to three years in prison, substantial fines, and extended license suspensions. In Collins v. State (491 N.E.2d 1020, 1986), separate convictions for DUI and related offenses violated double jeopardy, and I use such precedents to avoid unfair penalties. As a DUI defense attorney in Indiana, I negotiate with prosecutors to reduce charges or penalties, especially for first-time offenders or cases with weak evidence. By challenging prior convictions and building a strong defense, I aim to minimize the consequences of a DUI charge.

Why Hire an Indiana DUI Criminal Defense Attorney?

Choosing the right Indiana DUI criminal defense attorney can make or break your case. I combines deep knowledge of Indiana DUI laws with a client-focused approach to deliver results. I challenge every aspect of the prosecution’s case, from the legality of the stop to the reliability of FSTs and chemical tests. Cases like Boyd v. State (519 N.E.2d 182, 1988) show that even minor traffic violations can lead to convictions if not properly defended, but my meticulous strategies counter such claims.

I prioritize clear communication, ensuring you understand your options and the process. Whether it’s securing a hardship license, suppressing evidence, or fighting enhanced penalties, my goal is to protect your future. With precedents like Krohn v. State (521 N.E.2d 374, 1988) clarifying that endangerment doesn’t require immediate danger to others, I tailor our defense to your unique circumstances, maximizing your chances of a favorable outcome.

Contact Indiana DUI Defense Attorney Jeff Cardella Today

A DUI charge doesn’t have to derail your life. With the right Indiana DUI defense attorney, you can fight license suspensions, harsh penalties, and unfair convictions. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and learn how I can help you navigate Indiana DUI laws. Whether it’s challenging a chemical test, securing a specialized driving permit, or defending against prior convictions, experienced DUI criminal defense attorney Jeff Cardella is here to advocate for you. Don’t let a DUI charge define your future—reach out now to protect your rights and explore your options. Call 317-695-7700 for a free consultation.