My client, a 36-year-old FedEx worker, was observed by a fellow driver weaving in and out of his lanes while driving his personal vehicle on a local interstate. The other driver called the police and followed my client for a number of miles until the police officers were able to ascertain my client’s location and effectuate a traffic stop. After stopping my client and interacting with him, the officers formulated the opinion that he was under the influence of some type of drug or alcohol. Field sobriety tests were not conducted on the scene, but my client did agree to provide a sample breath for the arresting officers. My client’s breath result confirmed that he had no alcohol in his system. However, the officers also asked for a sample of his urine to test for drugs or other substances. My client was found to have been in possession of a type of synthetic marijuana. He was ultimately charged with misdemeanor possession of an illegal drug and operating his vehicle under the influence of drugs. After months of representation, my client’s drug charge was dismissed. The OVI charge was amended to a reckless operation. My client agreed to undergo a voluntary drug assessment which indicated that no counseling was necessary. As a result of his plea to the reckless driving he was simply order to pay $500 plus the court costs with no other sanctions from the court.


My client, a 44-year-old field service manager for a local equipment manufacturing company, was charged with his second OVI. After submitting to a chemical test, he was charged with having a breath alcohol concentration of .129. Unfortunately for my client, he also had a lengthy traffic record, including a 1995 conviction for vehicular homicide, which was thankfully non-alcohol related. And in addition to having the prior OVI conviction, my client was alleged to have been driving extremely erratically at the time of offence, and according to the officer, performed poorly on all the field sobriety tests. After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, I filed motions on my client's behalf challenging the evidence. After a number of months of representation, the case was set for a suppression hearing. At that hearing the prosecution was unable to substantiate the breath test and it was excluded from evidence. Based upon the results of the suppression hearing, the prosecution agreed to offer to amend the charge of OVI to a non-moving violation with the dismissal of the balance of the charges, in lieu of proceeding to trial. Fortunately for him, he was able to avoid some of the nastier penalties that could have been imposed had he been convicted. Based upon the agreed resolution, however, my client's administrative license suspension was terminated. He was fined $375 plus court costs and was given a six-month licenses suspension backdated to the date of his ticket. He was also ordered to complete the three day driver intervention program and 40 hours of community service at an organization of his choosing. He was placed on a non-reporting probation status, and received no jail time, no yellow license plates, and no ignition interlock device.


My 35-year-old female client with no prior criminal or traffic record, was charged with “wrongful entrustment of a motor vehicle” for allowing her boyfriend to drive her car while he was allegedly under the influence of alcohol. When she came to meet me, she extremely frightened and nervous at the possibility of having to serve jail time, a license suspension, probation, etc . After discussing her version of the events and reviewing the facts and circumstances of her case, and how those facts related to the application of the elements of the offense, I became convinced we could achieve a positive outcome. As it turns out, the prosecuting attorney eventually agreed to dismiss my client’s charges prior to trial in exchange for her agreement to simply pay the nominal court costs associated with her case. Therefore she received no conviction whatsoever in this matter, and was greatly relieved at the resolution.


My client, a network engineer for a fortune 500 company, was arrested and charged with his sixth lifetime OVI offense. After being stopped for erratic driving and observed acting impaired by the officer, he was arrested and submitted to a breath test which yielded a result of .250, which is more than three times the legal limit. Unfortunately for my client, he was also on probation at the time of the offense for a 2013 conviction. Therefore, based upon his prior history, he was facing the potential of a minimum of 60 days in jail and up to one year in jail on the new charge, as well as the potential for 174 days of incarceration on the probation case. My client, who is an admitted alcoholic, has been battling his addiction for years. He's experienced many years of sobriety for stretches of time, yet still battles his demons every day. So, based upon my recommendations, and his desires to get clean, while his current case was pending, he completed an intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program and has remained sober since the date of this most recent offense. Additionally, as part of the strategy of handling his case I filed a motion to suppress the breath test. At the date of the hearing, it was discovered that a significant guideline had not been followed by the arresting agency in regards to the machine that was used to take my clients breath sample. Based upon the lack of compliance with the appropriate regulations, my client’s high breath sample was suppressed, thereby guaranteeing a significant reduction in jail time. The case was then set for trial. At the trial date the prosecution offered to treat the offense as a second OVI, thereby ensuring a substantial reduction of incarceration. Based upon the agreed pleas, however, my client was found to be in violation of his probation status, which meant that he could still be subjected to additional significant jail time. However based upon his efforts in regards to counseling and some other evidentiary issues in the case, he was also able to minimize his term of incarceration on the probation violation as well. As a result of the packaged resolution, my client was ordered to serve 10 days in jail on the most recent case. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $525 plus the court costs. Furthermore his license was suspended for two years but he will have the ability to have limited driving privileges on the conditions that he install an ignition interlock device and place yellow license plates on the vehicle. He was also placed on probation on the new case for a period of two years and was ordered to have a SCRAM device on his ankle in lieu of additional jail time. As a consequence of violating his probation my client was also ordered to complete 20 days of work release for a total of 30 days incarceration on both cases. I am happy to say my client is currently clean sober and working and contributing to society.


My client, a 27-year-old man who drives a truck for US foods, and who also currently serves in the US Army reserves, was charged with OVI and OVI per se based upon a breath sample that yielded a result of .161, which is more than twice the legal limit. To complicate matters for my client, he is also a CDL holder, which means an OVI conviction would disqualify him from being able to drive a commercial vehicle for a year. Additionally, the facts of the case did not seem too promising for us. The officer alleged some very bad driving as well some inappropriate behavior and poor performance on the field sobriety tests. However, after several months of representation, negotiations with the prosecuting attorney paid off in the form of a plea bargain. Prior to setting the case for trial, my client was offered a resolution to avoid an OVI conviction and consequently avoided a disqualification of his commercial driver’s license as well. He ultimately entered a guilty plea to a physical control violation which is a nonmoving, zero point offense. Most importantly for my client, this conviction does not trigger a one-year disqualification of his CDL. Furthermore my client’s administrative license suspension was terminated pursuant to the plea agreement and he was granted limited driving privilege is under the balance of the judge’s court suspension. My client was additionally ordered to complete the driver intervention program, pay a fine and court costs, and complete a one year period of probation. And since he was not convicted of OVI, and did not have a CDL disqualified, he was able to keep his job.


My client, a 33-year-old married father of two, who drives for a living, found himself charged with an OVI and facing possible termination from his outside sales job if he was convicted. While the arresting officer believed my client was noticeably and visibly impaired by alcohol, the videotape evidence that I observed seem to contradict a number of the officer’s opinions. Based upon a review of the evidence, we asked the court for a motion hearing to challenge the validity of my client’s arrest. Prior to that hearing date, and based upon some of the evidentiary issues in the case, and my client’s lack of criminal or traffic record, the prosecution agreed to offer, and we accepted a plea to a reduced charge of reckless operation. Since reckless operation is not an OVI, and is also a non-alcohol related offense, we were able to save the client’s job in outside sales. My client was granted broad driving privileges so that he could continue all necessary and required driving for work. He was also ordered to pay a fine, complete a three day driver intervention program and serve a period of one year probation as a condition of the plea agreement.


My client, a 42-year-old divorced father of two, was being investigated as a potential accomplice to a burglary of his ex-wife's home. He was also charged with violating a protection order which had been granted to the ex-wife after the alleged burglary incident occurred. As it turns out, however, my client was ultimately not implicated in the burglary. He was eventually exonerated and never charged in that offense. He was however still alleged to have violated the protection order. My client vehemently denied any violation of the order, or having any inappropriate contact with the protected party. My client was very active and involved in his own defense which I appreciated very much. After several months of representation, I prepared to represent him at a jury trial. On the day of trial, the prosecuting attorney, based upon evidentiary issues with the case, believed that there was insufficient evidence to convict my client and therefore agreed to an outright dismissal of the case for time served.


My client, a 21-year-old student, was charged with Hit-Skip (or leaving the scene of an accident) for failing to stop after an alleged incident. My client’s vehicle was allegedly witnessed striking a street sign owned by the City, in addition to a mailbox belonging to a private residence, and driving off without stopping. Officers eventually tracked down his information and confronted him at his home. He admitted to having driven at the time and was cited therefore with the hit-skip. Unfortunately, when I first spoke with my client, he was unaware of the seriousness of the offense. Hit-skip is considered a serious traffic offense. It is a first-degree misdemeanor, which means it is punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1000 fine. It also carries the penalty of a mandatory class five driver’s license suspension which can range from six months to three years. Upon the conviction for a Hit- Skip, the BMV also requires individuals to get in file high risk insurance (or an SR-22 bond). In an effort to successfully resolve the case, and based upon my recommendation, my client was able to pay restitution to the private individual for their mailbox as well as to the city for a replacement of the street sign. Eventually, based upon some evidentiary issues that we argued, the fact that my client paid restitution, and the fact that he had a relatively clean traffic record, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the Hit-Skip charge against him. Consequently, my client agreed to plead guilty to a simple failure to control, which is a minor misdemeanor. My client was ultimately fined $10 plus court costs as a result.


My Client, a 29 year old man who works in sales, was charged with his second OVI conviction in six years. He was also charged for OVI per se based upon his .121 breath test. While the arresting officer alleged my client was clearly impaired, my client believed he performed well on the field sobriety tests and did not feel as though he was impaired. After months of representation and based upon challenges to the evidence in the case, the prosecuting attorney agreed to reduce the charges prior to a trial date. My client was given the choice of pleading to either a nonmoving zero point physical control violation, or a non-OVI, non-alcohol-related reckless operation. He chose the physical control violation and was subsequently ordered to complete three days in the hotel program, perform 20 hours of community service and pay fines and court cost. Furthermore, his one-year license suspension was terminated and replaced with a four month suspension with driving privileges. Based upon the resolution, he was able to save his job in remain employed.


My client, who is employed as a corrections officer at ODRC, and who had no prior criminal history whatsoever, found himself being accused of domestic violence and assault against his live-in girlfriend. While he denied the allegations, there was some evidence that an assault did occur. However, there was also evidence to support my client’s versions of the events. Based both upon the facts of the case and my clients insistence and his innocence, the case was set for trial. However prior to the trial date my client underwent a comprehensive counseling assessment which indicated that he did not require any additional counseling. Based partly on this fact, his lack of any criminal history, the facts and evidence in the case and the prosecuting witness’ desires, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges against my client.


My client, a 46-year-old divorced mother, was charged with driving left of center and nearly causing an accident while allegedly operating her vehicle under the influence. She refused to take a chemical test but did agree to perform field sobriety tests at the scene. Based upon the driving signs and her performance on the field sobriety tests, the responding officer placed her under arrest. After review of all the evidence, and several months of representation in the case, the prosecuting attorney ultimately agreed to resolve the matter prior to trial. The case was ultimately concluded when my client agreed to plead to a reckless operation, which was a significant reduction from the OVI. While my client was ordered to pay fines and court costs and complete the three day class, her one-year license suspension for refusing was terminated, and it was replaced by a licensed suspension of only six months. Further she was granted broad driving privileges and did not have to undergo a probationary period.


My client, a 21-year-old student, was stopped for having an obstructed rear license plate. After the officer approached my client, he asked my client to step out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Prior to, during and after the field sobriety tests, the officer indicated that my client exhibited multiple clues of alcohol impairment. Needless to say, based upon the officer’s opinion, my client was eventually arrested and charged with OVI. He was then transported to the police department where he provided a breath sample which yielded a result of .128. After a review of the evidence, it was noted that there were some inconsistencies between the officer’s written report and what appeared on the audio/video evidence from his cruiser. Based upon these evidentiary concerns, I filed a motion to suppress the breath test and a motion challenging the probable cause for my client’s arrest. At the hearing, the officer, while subject to cross-examination, testified to observations that were inconsistent with both his report and the audio/video evidence. After the hearing was concluded, the judge found that there was indeed was no legal probable cause to arrest my client. Consequently, both the OVI per se charge and the OVI impaired charges were dismissed. My client’s administrative license suspension was also terminated. He ended up with a conviction for the obstructed plate only and was ordered to pay a nominal fine plus court costs.


My client, a 26 year old Quality Control Engineer for a large auto parts manufacturer, was initially stopped by law enforcement for allegedly driving outside his lane of travel. Upon making contact with my client, the officer allegedly noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage on my client’s breath. Further, the officer noted my client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. My client also admitted to having consumed several beers. Based upon these observations, my client was asked to participate in field sobriety testing. He complied with the officer’s request, but evidently did not perform the test to the officer’s satisfaction since he was ultimately arrested for operating his vehicle under the influence. After his arrest, my client agreed to provide a urine sample which ultimately yielded a result of .265, which subjected him to mandatory jail time and yellow license plates if convicted. Once a thorough investigation of the facts and circumstances was complete, motions were filed challenging, among other things, the admissibility of the urine test. As it turns out, I believed there were legitimate legal issues to argue, and ultimately, after more than 9 months or representation, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the OVI Per Se charge and amend the case to a reckless driving offense. Not only did my client not serve any jail time or have yellow license plates on his car, he didn’t have any license at all. He simply agreed to pay a $250 fine plus court costs and complete a ono-on-one alcohol assessment. He was not placed on probation.
I believe preparation is the key to a successful outcome, and that attention to detail is critical to attaining positive results for my clients. In each case that I handle, I want to feel as though I'm the most prepared person in the courtroom.  I take pride in being equipped to argue my client’s case.  In order to be prepared, it’s important to know intimate details about my client’s situation, his or her life, and their individual facts and circumstances. While a good attorney should certainly be familiar with the legal aspects of your case, I believe that being familiar with my client’s story as well, helps me to provide my clients with the type of dedicated, aggressive and caring representation that they deserve. 

​ Communication is also extremely important, and keeping clients informed is key.  I believe the better my client understands the process, the facts of the case, and potential outcomes, the easier it is to satisfy my clients, which is ultimately my goal. While I will not inundate my clients regarding the minutia of their case, I will make it a point to convey and discuss any critical updates in their case. ​And while I do not routinely call clients to simply check in, I always invite them to do so if they have any questions or concerns, or if they just want to check the status of their case.

​Although I've handled literally thousands of criminal and traffic cases, I realize that every case is different.  And while not every case is tailor-made for a positive outcome, I make every effort to put your case in the best position possible for a successful resolution.  In every case I handle, all effort is made to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the state’s case and formulate a strategy to best attack the facts of your case. I will always carefully review the state’s case against you, searching for possible holes we can poke in the prosecutor’s evidence.  When necessary, I will review the applicable case law, statutes and regulations relevant to my client’s case.  I will typically and routinely engage in discussions with the prosecuting attorney and arresting officers, often times multiple times during the pendency of a case.  In my experience, I’ve found that by doing these things; by investing the right amount of time and effort into my client’s cases, the odds of a successful outcome significantly increase.

The sampling of case results listed below is not a comprehensive accounting of all the cases handled by Mr. Fox.  However, these are examples of real clients who trusted Mr. Fox to represent them on their DUI or other criminal/traffic matters.  Please keep in mind that while Mr. Fox has an established record of success, he cannot, and will not, guarantee results.  Since all cases are factually and circumstantially unique, the results achieved in these cases may not be indicative of the results in your case. The only guarantee that Steve can make is that he will put forth his best effort to zealously represent each client who places their trust in him.  And while Mr. Fox obtains favorable results in the majority of his cases, in those cases where the desired result is not obtained, he will do everything he can to ensure the minimal punishment possible.

OVI & DUI and Criminal Defense Case Results

In my experience, the blueprint for a successful outcome is built upon the principles of preparedness, knowledge and communication.