Indiana DUI Attorney Jeff Cardella Criminal Attorney in Indianapolis

If you have a DUI case in Indiana and need a top-tier criminal defense attorney, call me at 317-695-7700 or email me for a free consultation. I have been a criminal attorney in Indiana for my entire legal career, have nearly two decades of experience, and taught criminal law at the Indiana University School of Law. I have handled hundreds of DUI cases and taught DUI law in my course at the law school.

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 one of the Top 10 Law Firms in the State of Indiana 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 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. These individuals, familiar with many criminal attorneys, trusted me to serve as their Indiana criminal defense lawyer due to the high quality of legal representation I provide. You can find additional information about my career as an Indiana criminal defense attorney and cases I have handled on my In the News page.

Introduction to Drunk Driving and Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Law in Indiana

Drunk driving law, known by various names such as DUI, DWI, or OVWI, is officially termed Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (OVWI) in Indiana. Unlike many states where inserting the key into the ignition constitutes “driving,” Indiana law uses “operating,” which has a higher burden of proof. Merely starting the vehicle is not always sufficient for a conviction. To secure a conviction, the State must prove that an individual: (1) operated a motor vehicle, (2) while (3) intoxicated. While seemingly straightforward, OVWI law can be highly complex, technical, and scientific, as discussed below.

Under IC 9-30-5-1, operating with a BAC of 0.08 to less than 0.15 is a Class C Misdemeanor, escalating to a Class A Misdemeanor if 0.15 or higher. Driving with a controlled substance (except with a valid prescription) is also a Class C Misdemeanor. Endangerment, as in Outlaw v. State (918 N.E.2d 379, 2009), requires evidence of risky driving. I leverage these distinctions to challenge charges.

Definition of Operating under Indiana Law

In my experience, acquittals in OVWI cases often occur because the State fails to prove the element of “operating.” During standard traffic stops (e.g., speeding or failing to signal), proving operation is straightforward. However, in cases involving accidents, stationary vehicles, or a defendant sleeping in the driver’s seat, proving operation is more challenging. Key cases include:

Hampton v. State, 681 N.E.2d 250 (Ind. App. 1997): The court defined an operator as someone who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway, considering factors like vehicle location, movement, and additional evidence of operation.

Clark v. State, 611 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. App. 1993): A defendant sleeping in a running vehicle in a parking space was not guilty, as starting the engine alone was insufficient.

Mordacq v. State, 585 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. App. 1992): Despite the defendant admitting to driving, the court found insufficient evidence due to uncertainty about the timing of operation relative to intoxication.

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. Operating includes being in actual physical control of a vehicle, even if it’s not moving, as clarified in Toan v. State (691 N.E.2d 477, 1998) and Custer v. State (637 N.E.2d 187, 1994).

Definition of Intoxication under Indiana Law

Intoxication can be shown through signs like the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteady balance, or red, watery eyes. Portable breathalyzers are used but are inaccurate, and their numeric results are inadmissible. Certified chemical tests (blood or breath) are more reliable, with results admissible if conducted within three hours of operation (IC 9-30-6-2). Cases like Hoornaert v. State (652 N.E.2d 874, 1995) demonstrate that evidence of intoxication, such as marijuana use, must be substantiated with proof of the substance in the blood. More details are available on my Public Intoxication page.

Definition of Endangerment under Indiana Law

Proving endangerment elevates a Class C Misdemeanor to a Class A Misdemeanor. In Outlaw v. State (918 N.E.2d 379, 2009), no endangerment was found for an equipment violation. However, Boyd v. State (519 N.E.2d 182, 1988) held that any traffic violation like speeding suffices for endangerment. In State v. Krohn (521 N.E.2d 374, 1988), endangerment applied to the defendant himself, even with no others on the road.

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

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), aim to standardize intoxication detection but lack scientific reliability. Tests were conducted under non-double-blind conditions with subjects allowed to practice, yielding accuracy rates of 77% for Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), 68% for Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and 65% for One-Leg Stand (OLS). Combining HGN and WAT boosts accuracy to 80%, but NHTSA notes that non-ideal conditions, like uneven surfaces or poor lighting, can undermine results. Non-standard tests like counting backward are not validated. 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 seen in Dunkley v. State (787 N.E.2d 962, 2003). I challenge FSTs by questioning officer training and test conditions to weaken the prosecution’s case.

Walk and Turn

The Walk-and-Turn test, a divided attention task, involves standing heel-to-toe during instructions and walking nine steps, turning, and walking back while counting aloud. Officers look for eight clues, such as inability to balance or incorrect steps. NHTSA reports 68% accuracy under ideal conditions, which I believe lacks reliability in real-world settings.

One Leg Stand

The One-Leg Stand test requires standing on one foot for 30 seconds while counting aloud. Officers observe four clues, such as swaying or putting the foot down. NHTSA claims 65% accuracy, but non-ideal conditions like uneven surfaces reduce reliability.

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the most reliable FST, checks for involuntary eye jerking. Officers look for three clues per eye, with four or more indicating a BAC above 0.10 (77% accuracy). Proper administration is critical, and deviations can weaken its evidentiary value. I have seen this test administered firsthand, and an Indianapolis police officer once admitted off the record that it’s the only test he relies upon for OVWI evaluations.

Chemical Tests under Indiana Law

Chemical tests must be administered within three hours of operation (IC 9-30-6-2). In State v. Edmund (616 N.E.2d 377, 1993), a delayed test was admissible but lost its presumption of intoxication. In Mordacq v. State (585 N.E.2d 22, 1992), a conviction was reversed due to timing issues. Urine tests are insufficient to prove intoxication, as seen in Moore v. State (645 N.E.2d 6, 1994), where THC in urine did not prove THC in blood. The implied consent law requires drivers to submit to tests, with refusal triggering automatic license suspension and potential use as evidence of guilt. In State v. Hunter (898 N.E.2d 455, 2008), a blood draw was suppressed due to improper procedures. For controlled substances, Estes v. State (656 N.E.2d 528, 1995) clarifies that a positive urine test doesn’t prove the substance was in the blood, a defense I pursue, especially with valid prescriptions (IC 9-30-5-1(d)). I challenge test results by examining calibration, officer qualifications, chain of custody, and timing to suppress evidence.

Nurse Blood Draws under Indiana Law

Blood draws must comply with IC 9-30-6-6, requiring a trained professional under a physician’s protocol. In State v. Hunter (898 N.E.2d 455, 2008), a non-compliant blood draw was suppressed. I scrutinize these procedures to challenge admissibility.

DUI Checkpoints under Indiana Law

DUI checkpoints must follow constitutional guidelines, as established in Brown v. Texas (443 U.S. 47, 1979) and Indianapolis v. Edmond (531 U.S. 32, 2000), which ruled that checkpoints for general crime detection violate the Fourth Amendment. Sobriety checkpoints are permissible but must adhere to a neutral plan and minimal intrusion, as outlined in State v. Gerschoffer (763 N.E.2d 960, 2002), where a checkpoint was deemed unconstitutional due to vague purposes and excessive discretion. In Subtlett v. State (815 N.E.2d 1031, 2004), courts evaluated factors like neutral plans, minimal intrusion, and effectiveness. Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion, as in Ashba v. State (816 N.E.2d 862, 2004), where weaving justified a stop. I analyze checkpoint protocols, police reports, dashcam footage, and witness statements to suppress evidence if violations occur, leveraging cases like Toan v. State (691 N.E.2d 477, 1998) and Hampton v. State (681 N.E.2d 250, 1997) to challenge whether the defendant was operating a vehicle.

Prior Convictions and Enhanced Penalties in Indiana

A prior conviction within five years elevates a misdemeanor to a Level 6 Felony, with mandatory jail time (5 days for one prior, 10 days for two). In State v. Rans (739 N.E.2d 164, 2000), an out-of-state conviction was not substantially similar, avoiding felony enhancement. A prior conviction within seven years can elevate a charge to a Class D Felony, increasing penalties up to three years in prison, substantial fines, and extended suspensions, as in Mann v. State (754 N.E.2d 544, 2001). In Collins v. State (491 N.E.2d 1020, 1986), separate convictions violated double jeopardy. I review prior convictions to ensure they meet statutory criteria (IC 9-13-2-130) and negotiate to reduce charges or penalties.

Refusal Suspensions under Indiana Law

Refusing a certified breath test results in a one-year license suspension, even if not guilty of OVWI. Prosecutors may terminate suspensions via plea agreements, or judges can override them if in society’s best interest. I explore these options to restore driving privileges.

Hardship Licenses and Specialized Driving Permits in Indiana

A DUI license suspension in Indiana is an immediate consequence of a DUI arrest, often before the criminal case is resolved. Under IC 9-30-6, failing a chemical test (BAC of 0.08 or higher) results 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. I contest suspensions by questioning probable cause or test administration, leveraging cases like State v. Edmund (616 N.E.2d 377, 1993), and request hearings within 10 days to explore defenses, as in Howard v. State (818 N.E.2d 469, 2004).

Specialized Driving Permits, also known as hardship licenses, allow limited driving for essential purposes like work, medical appointments, or education. Eligibility may require completing court-ordered programs or installing an ignition interlock device (IID). Indiana law previously restricted hardship licenses to work-related driving, but Specialized Driving Permits allow broader use, though not for CDLs or out-of-state driving. Prior alcohol offenses or test refusals can complicate eligibility, potentially requiring an alcohol monitor. I streamline the application process, prepare documentation, and represent clients in hearings to secure approval, addressing procedural errors as in Subtlett v. State (815 N.E.2d 1031, 2004) and State v. Gerschoffer (763 N.E.2d 960, 2002). Click the following link form more information on hardship licenses and specialized driving permits. 

Frequently Asked Questions and Miscellaneous Information about Drunk Driving Law in Indiana

• • What is the legal limit for drunk driving in Indiana?

Indiana’s legal BAC limit is 0.08% for drivers 21 and older, 0.02% for those under 21, and 0.04% for commercial vehicle drivers. Impairment charges can apply even below these limits if intoxication is evident.

• • What are the legal penalties for drunk driving in Indiana?

Penalties vary by offense count and BAC level, including fines up to $5,000, jail time up to one year, license suspension up to two years, ignition interlock installation, probation, and community service. Repeat offenders face harsher penalties.

• • What are other potential consequences of a drunk driving arrest or conviction?

Consequences include employment difficulties, professional license issues, and immigration consequences.

Why Hire an Indiana DUI Criminal Defense Attorney?

I combine deep knowledge of Indiana DUI laws with a client-focused approach, challenging stops, tests, and penalties using precedents like Boyd v. State (519 N.E.2d 182, 1988) to protect your future.

Contact Indiana DUI Defense Attorney Jeff Cardella Today

A DUI charge doesn’t have to derail your life. Contact me for a free consultation to fight suspensions, penalties, and convictions. I advocate for you, leveraging my experience to navigate Indiana DUI laws and protect your rights.

Phone: 317-695-7700   

Email: jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com

I handle cases throughout all of Indiana, including the Federal District Courts, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The main geographic areas that I practice law in are:

• Indianapolis, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Noblesville, Carmel & Fishers, Hamilton County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Danville, Plainfield & Avon, Hendricks County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Franklin & Greenwood, Johnson County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Muncie, Delaware County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Anderson, Madison County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Lebanon & Zionsville, Boone County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Shelbyville, Shelby County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Martinsville, Mooresville & Morgantown, Morgan County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)

DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an Indiana Criminal Defense attorney or attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.