Fargo DUI Attorney
Quickly Get Help With Your DUI by Calling Our 24 Hour Helpline
If you are charged with a DUI in North Dakota, we will explain the entire process for you. Time is of the essence. If you are served the Report and Notice and you do not request an administrative hearing within 10 days, your license or privileges to drive will be suspended.
"Experience Counts!"
Hi, my name is Richard Edinger. In my 25th year of handling DUI cases like yours, I know of only one way to help maximize the chances of a favorable outcome, act quickly. The quicker you take action, the better off you will be. That is why I have made your next step very simple and convenient.
Call us on our 24 hour helpline for free so that we can tell you exactly what to do next.
Call Our 24 Hour Helpline Now
701-298-0764
Don't put off your defense
another minute!
Schedule a free call with Mr. Edinger
"I was accused of a serious crime. Mr. Edinger believed in me and fought for me. He knew the law and legal system. But most importantly he was a straight shooter. He did not sugar coat things. He told me things I needed to hear not what he thought I wanted to hear. He fought for me and the situation turned out favorable for me."
David
"Richard was very clear on the process and what options were. He turned my tough case into a dismissal. You want a great attorney, he is your man."
Anonymous
"Mr. Edinger is one most competent and knowledgeable lawyers i have ever dealt with. Even though my problem was minor he gave me straight answers and resolved it in a fast and efficient manner. I would recommend him for any legal issues that you have."
Jeff C
In North Dakota, there are two separate cases in a driving under the influence (DUI) case. There is an administrative proceeding in which the North Dakota Department of Transportation attempts to suspend your North Dakota driver license or your privileges to drive in North Dakota. The second case is the criminal case in which you face the possibility of jail time, a fine, and other penalties.
The administrative proceeding is started when a person is served a Report and Notice. The person must request an administrative hearing within 10 days after being served the Report and Notice. There are no exceptions to this! The administrative proceeding is separate and distinct from the criminal case. Thus, even if the criminal case is ultimately dismissed, if you did not request an administrative hearing within 10 days, your license or privileges to drive will be suspended.
In North Dakota, a DUI case is either a misdemeanor or a felony. This depends on whether one has any prior DUI convictions and whether the motorist caused damage to property or caused injury or death to a person. If a person has a prior DUI conviction, there is mandatory jail time that the court must impose if there is a conviction. For a second DUI conviction within 7 years, there is a mandatory minimum 10 days in jail. For a third DUI conviction within 7 years, there is a mandatory minimum 120 days in jail. A fourth DUI within 15 years is a felony, with a mandatory minimum of 366 days imprisonment. There are also substantial fines and other consequences upon a DUI conviction.
The Quickest & Easiest Way To Get In Front Of Your DUI Charge
Go to sleep tonight knowing that your legal rights are finally protected. Give us a call on our 24 hour helpline.
Call 701-298-0764
Case Results
These are just a few examples of successful cases that Mr. Edinger has had in his 25 year career. These are not examples that should be taken as promises or yardsticks with which to anticipate your settlement or verdict; every case is different.
City of Fargo v. R.L.
Mr. Edinger argued that Defendant was unlawfully seized when the officer initially made contact with him. Judge Thomas Olson agreed, and
suppressed all the evidence against the defendant. Subsequently, the City dismissed all charges.
State v. M.T. (Morton County, North Dakota)
Defendant was charged with a felony DUI. Mr. Edinger argued that the officer illegally seized the defendant because he was outside his jurisdiction when he seized the defendant and started his investigation. Judge David Reich agreed and suppressed all the evidence against the defendant. Subsequently, the charge was dismissed.
State v. E.S. (Cass County, North Dakota)
At a bench trial before Judge Douglas Herman, Mr. Edinger argued that procedures were not followed and therefore the blood test should not be admitted. He also argued that because the trooper did not conduct standard field sobriety tests, the State did not meet their burden of proof that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Judge Herman agreed and found the defendant not guilty.
State v. B.A. (Cass County, North Dakota)
Defendant's vehicle was stopped because he had an air freshener hanging from his rear view mirror. Mr. Edinger filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the seizure was illegal. Judge Douglas Herman agreed and suppressed all the evidence against the defendant. Subsequently, the charge was dismissed. In the companion administrative appeal, Judge Herman reversed the hearing officer's decision and reinstated the defendant's drivers license based on the same rationale.
City of Fargo v. J.J.
Defendant was charged with DUI. his BAC was .15. After his arrest, the defendant bailed out almost immediately. Thereupon, he was stopped again by a different Fargo police officer. The second police officer had determined the defendant was fine to drive, and sent him home. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the intoxilyzer machine had to be inaccurate because if the defendant was intoxicated, he would have been arrested a second time for a DUI. The jury agreed, and found the defendant not guilty.
State v. D.H. (Cass County, North Dakota)
Defendant was charged with DUI, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Mr. Edinger believed the state trooper had illegally frisked the defendant because he did not have reasonable articulate suspicion to believe the defendant was armed and dangerous. Subsequently, Mr. Edinger filed a motion to suppress, arguing the frisk and pat down was illegal. Prior to the motion hearing, the State agreed with Mr. Edinger and dismissed all three charges.
State v. J.T. (Cass County, North Dakota)
Defendant was charged with DUI and facing a mandatory minimum 60 days in jail, if convicted. Mr. Edinger filed a motion to suppress, arguing the stop of defendant's vehicle was illegal because the officer did not witness any traffic violation. The officer had stopped the defendant solely because the defendant did not slow down at the yield sign. There was no traffic coming, so the defendant proceeded through the intersection at the maximum speed allowed. Judge Georgia Dawson ruled the stop was illegal. Subsequently, the State dismissed the charges due to lack of evidence.
State v. M.M. (Cass County, North Dakota)
Defendant was charged with DUI and facing a mandatory minimum of 60 days in jail, if convicted. Defendant’s BAC was .23. During the early morning hours, Defendant was leaving the Amtrak station parking lot in Fargo. There was no traffic on the street. From 300 feet away, the police officer witnessed the defendant fail to signal his turn out of the parking lot. The officer followed the defendant for several blocks, and did not observe any illegal driving or erratic driving. According to the Fargo city ordinance, a turn signal is only required if “a vehicle is affected by such movement.” Mr. Edinger successfully argued the stop was illegal because no traffic was affected by the defendant’s failure to use his turn signal. The officer was 300 feet away, and since the streets were barren, the defendant did not have to use his signal. Judge John Irby agreed and ruled the stop was illegal. Subsequently, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
State v. E.N. (Cass County, North Dakota)
Defendant was charged with DUI, having a BAC of .10. The trooper stopped the defendant for having a cracked taillight. At the motion to suppress the hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the stop was illegal because the taillight was still working properly, and the state statute does not require the taillight to be in pristine condition. Judge Steven Marquart agreed and granted the motion to suppress. Subsequently, the State dismissed the charge due to lack of evidence.