San Antonio DWI Lawyer

Kurt Gransee is a former Bexar County DWI Task Force Prosecutor.  In his role as a DWI Task force prosecutor he worked on nothing but DWI’s, intoxication assaults and intoxication manslaughters five days a week for 52 weeks per year.  In that role he learned which issues and what evidence was more likely to lead to a not guilty verdict or a dismissal.  Kurt Gransee has been consistently voted as one of San Antonio’s Best Criminal Defense Lawyers and one of the Best DWI Defense Lawyers in San Antonio.

When one drink too many leads to criminal charges, you need the skilled defense of an experienced San Antonio DWI lawyer to protect your rights, and your reputation. Occasionally Police Officers jump to conclusions about someone’s intoxication and in nearly all cases they will use tests that are intended to create the impression that someone is intoxicated when it may just be a misunderstanding about the test or the defendant may be uncoordinated.

One drink too many can lead to criminal charges with Draconian fines and penalties. But being pulled over and registering .08 or more on a Breathalyzer or blood test does not automatically mean that you will be convicted of a crime and lose your license. Before you make any statement or enter a plea, talk to an experienced DWI attorney.

San Antonio DWI Lawyer Drunk Driving Attorneys Free ConsultationThe DWI defense team at Rush & Gransee, L.C., has a solid track record of favorable outcomes, including dismissed charges, acquittals at trial, felonies reduced to misdemeanors and victories in license hearings. We have successfully represented police officers, dentists, professors, doctors, professional athletes, soccer moms, blue collar workers, college students and people from all walks of life.

Read Our FREE DWI Guide

If you were arrested for drunk driving in Bexar County, Wilson County, Karnes County, Guadalupe County, Bandera County, Medina County, Frio County, Comal County or a nearby jurisdiction, call an experienced San Antonio DWI lawyer at 210-223-9200.

Successful Cases for DWI Defense

Expand to Read

David D. 

Defendant was stopped for weaving.  After the field sobriety tests the officer requested a breath or blood sample.  The Defendant refused to provide any samples and a blood sample was taken pursuant to a warrant.  The blood sample came back with a .24 level.  The arresting officer was subpoenaed by defense counsel for Texas Department of Public Safety Hearing.  The officer failed to appear and the DPS hearing was dismissed so the Defendant was able to keep his license.

Luciano R.

Defendant was in a motor vehicle accident.  Police Officers at the scene determined the defendant was intoxicated.  Defendant voluntarily gave a sample of his breath the registered .15.  The arresting officer was subpoenaed by defense counsel for Texas Department of Public Safety Hearing.  The officer failed to appear and the DPS hearing was dismissed so the Defendant was able to keep his license.

Roland M.

Defendant was stopped going 94 mph.  The arrested officer determined that the defendant was intoxicated.  The defendant volunteered to take a PBT which came back as .135.  The defendant also consented to a breath sample at the police station that registered a .11.  The subpoenaed arresting officer did not appear at the DPS hearing so that the Defendant did not lose his license.   The Defendant was able to enter a pretrial diversion program so that the DWI case will ultimately get dismissed and expunged.

Joseph V.

The Defendant was stopped for speeding.  The officer conducted 3 field sobriety tests which the defendant performed poorly on and it was determined that he was intoxicated.  A warrant was obtained for a blood draw and Defendants blood alcohol came back as a .14.   The Defendant was able to enter a pretrial diversion program where his DWI will be dismissed and expunged.

Waleed E.

The Defendant was traveling 103 mph in a 65 mph zone.  The defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and blew a .158 on the intoxilyzer.  Originally the prosecution was taking a very hard stance against the defendant because of the reckless driving-speed and the high breath test.  Ultimately after 9 months of settings and motions the State offered to drop the DWI charge to Obstruction of Highway and furthermore granted deferred adjudication.  The defendant is eligible for record sealing.

Ruben K.

Defendant was stopped for a minor traffic violation.  When the officer approached the car, he noticed an open can of beer in console.  The officer had the defendant perform 3 field sobriety tests which the defendant allegedly failed.  The defendant was charged with DWI-open container.  Defense counsel saw the case as winnable and convinced Ruben to turn down probation and push the prosecution.   Because of some prior criminal history and the open container of alcohol the prosecutor originally wanted 18 months regular probation and almost $1000.00 in fines and costs.  Ultimately, by turning down the prosecutor’s probation offer and setting the case for trial we were able to get the case dismissed after completing a 12 month pretrial diversion program.  The defendant can get the case expunged.

Connor R.

Defendant was stopped for driving at night without the car’s headlights being on.  After failing the field sobriety tests the defendant was given a blood test which indicated a blood alcohol content over .15.  The defendant was charged with a Class A DWI, “extreme intoxication”.  Ultimately, we were able to get the Class A DWI reduced to Class B “Obstruction of a Highway”.  The Defendant was also given deferred adjudication that will allow the sealing of the record.

Arturo B.

The defendant was in an accident.  The police were told, by bystanders, when they arrived at the scene of the accident that the defendant appeared intoxicated.  The defendant failed the field sobriety tests and his blood alcohol result was a .136.  Upon searching the defendant incident to arrest marijuana was found in his pocket.  The possession of marijuana was dismissed and the defendants DWI was reduced to obstruction of highway.

Edward T.

The defendant was stopped after the police officer saw the defendant’s car weaving, drive upon a raised median and hit a curb.  The defendant staggered when he excited the car and failed the field sobriety tests.  There was an open can of beer in the car.  The defendant’s breath test showed a .092 BAC.  The defendant was charged with a felony DWI 3rd.  We won the DPS driver’s license hearing.   We were able to get the Felony DWI reduced to a misdemeanor DWI after proving to the prosecutor the defendants staggering was caused by a medical condition and the open container of alcohol made it more likely the defendant was actually under .08 when driving.

 

Lorenzo H.

The defendant was stopped for speeding.  The defendant was detained for a DWI after the officer noticed signs of intoxication.  The Defendant’s blood result was over 2x the legal limit.  We won the DPS driver’s license hearing and got the DWI reduced to an obstruction of a highway and the defendant was given deferred adjudication thereby avoiding a conviction.  The defendant is eligible for record sealing.

 

Heather R.

The defendant was charged with DWI.  Ultimately the defendant was given deferred adjudication for obstructing a highway.  The case was closed and the defendant was not convicted and is eligible to have the case sealed.

 

Priscilla C.

The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding.  The defendant allegedly failed the field sobriety tests.  The breath test sample came back more than 2x legal limit.  The defendant’s case was reduced from DWI class A “extreme intoxication” to obstructing a highway.  The defendant was further given deferred adjudication avoiding all convictions.   The defendant is eligible for record sealing.

 

 

Walter B.

The defendant was seen hanging his head out of car window.  The officer stopped the defendant thinking he was ill but instead found what he thought was a drunk driver.  An analysis showed a BAC of .15 and the defendant was charged with DWI class A “extreme intoxication”.  The charge was reduced to obstructing a highway and the defendant was given deferred adjudication.  The defendant is eligible for record sealing.

 

Steven C.

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving and was charged with reckless driving.  The defendant entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and the case was dismissed.  The defendant is eligible for an expunction.

 

Isaac V.

The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding.  The officer detected many clues of intoxication.  The defendant failed the breath test.  We won the driver’s license hearing, “DPS hearing” and got the DWI reduced to an obstruction.  The defendant was placed on a short period of deferred adjudication and is eligible for record sealing.

 

Kevin R.

The defendant was charged with DWI and we were able to get him into the veteran’s treatment court track 1, where the case was dismissed and expunged.

 

Timothy A.

The defendant fell off his motorcycle then fled on foot; when caught he was taken to the hospital because of injuries.  The defendant’s hospital records were obtained which showed a BAC of 216 mg/dl.  We were able to show that the hospital blood tests were inaccurate.  The hospital blood test was on serum which when converted to whole blood is around .17.  Because of the original incorrect serum blood test and the very high BAC he was charged with DWI Class-A “extreme intoxication”.  Ultimately, we were able to get the case reduced all the way down to obstructing a highway plus the defendant was placed on deferred adjudication.  The defendant is eligible for record sealing.

Valentine O.

Client was charged with a DWI and had failed a breath test.   Case was dismissed.

Jesus V.

Client was charged with a DWI.  We were able to get the case thrown out based upon a violation of the defendant’s Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial.

Charles H.

The defendant was in a motor-vehicle accident and the arresting officer took the defendant to the hospital because of the severity of the accident.  The defendant left the hospital without being seen by a doctor.  A charge of DWI-2nd was filed against the defendant.  We hired a medical expert who opined that the defendant had suffered a head injury and that is why he appeared to be intoxicated.  The case was dismissed on the day of trial.  The case was ultimately expunged.

 

Jennifer R.

The defendant was stopped for making an illegal U-Turn and accelerating away from the officers.  According to the officers the defendant then failed the field sobriety tests and refused to take a blood or breath test.  The case was dismissed on the day of trial.

Pablo P.

A Texas trooper stopped our client for making a wide right turn.  According to the trooper our client appeared disorientated and failed the field sobriety tests.  The breath test was refused.  After numerous consultations with the prosecutor and providing him with photographic evidence of the scene, thereby creating doubt in the officer’s version of events, the case was rejected.  All charges were dismissed.

 

Corey J.

Our client was stopped by a deputy for going 17 miles an hour over the speed limit.  The officer put in his report that the client had glassy eyes, slurred speech, and a strong order of alcohol coming from his breath.  When asked on a scale of 1 to 10 how drunk was he, my client stated, “a 3 or 4”.   Clients breath test came back as .127.  First, we won his driver’s license hearing so that he kept his driving privileges.  We then filed a motion to suppress and set it for a hearing challenging the officers probable cause and arrest.  The Court ruled in our favor resulting in all the charges being dismissed.

 

Mark S.

Our client was apprehended after being observed traveling 30 miles an hour down a federal interstate and then he stopped for no reason and wouldn’t move at a flashing yellow light.  The officer observed blood shot eyes, thick tongued tied slurred speech and admitted to consuming alcohol.  While standing there was a noticeable sway.  Our client then refused to blow into a portable breath testing machine and later refused to take the breathalyzer.  Because of the long delay in charging the defendant after his initial arrest we filed a motion to dismiss because of the denial of our clients right to a speedy trial.  Ultimately the case was dismissed.

 

Francisco C.

The defendant was stopped for failing to stop at a stop sign.  After observing clues of DWI the officer arrested the defendant for DWI.  A motion to suppress was filed and the case set for trial.  Ultimately the case was dismissed.

 

Jessica R.

The defendant was stopped because she allegedly stopped at a railroad crossing with her vehicle too far into the railway crossing.  The defendant allegedly failed the field sobriety tests; also, the defendant told the officer she, “couldn’t do this exercise sober”.  The defendant took the breath test and was just barely over the legal limit at a .088.  We determined that the case was a good case to try because of the low blow and pictures from the scene called into question the officer’s version of events.  The case was dismissed on day of trial.

Richard R.

The defendant was seen driving erratically and then run a stop sign.  The defendant failed the field sobriety tests and his alcohol level was a .12.  This was the defendant’s second DWI.  We were able to get him into a pretrial diversion program and the case was dismissed.

 

Mary A.

The defendant was stopped for weaving while only going 40 mph down loop 410.  The defendant refused all field sobriety tests partially based upon the unsafe road conditions.  It was the defendant’s second DWI.  The defendant was found not guilty in a jury trial.

 

Kevin P.

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving.  In a motion to suppress court hearing we were able to point out many errors in the field sobriety tests conducted by the police officer; therefore, the prosecutor dismissed the case.

 

Juan G.

The defendant was stopped for driving at night without his headlights on.  The defendant consented to the breath test and blew a .125.  At a motion to suppress hearing the officer testified about what he said to the defendant about taking the breath test.  It was clear that the officer was attempting to convince the defendant to take the test.  It is against the law for an officer to use persuasion to get the defendant to consent to the breath test.  After the hearing the judge threw out the breath test and the state then dismissed the case.

Chad K.

The Defendant was stopped for speeding.  The officer detected a strong smell of alcohol coming from the defendant’s breath.  After observing the defendant and listening to his speech the officer determined that the defendant was intoxicated.  During cross examination of the officer at the DPS driver’s license hearing we established that there was insufficient evidence of DWI and the prosecutor dismissed the case.

 

George H.

The Defendant was stopped for speeding and the officer suspected that he was DWI after coming into contact.   The officer testified at a hearing that the defendant from a stop sign had accelerated to over 60 mph and then came to a stop a specific location.  The officer also testified that the speed was calculated by pacing the defendant.  We hired an investigator to go out and measure the distance traveled by the defendant while being paced.  The court did not believe the officer because it was almost impossible to pace the defendant for the required time to establish speed had the client been going as fast as alleged.  The case was thrown out and expunged.

Vince S.

The defendant was stopped for running a red light and taking a corner too fast.  The officer detected the smell of alcohol and the defendant failed the field sobriety tests; however, the officer primarily relied upon the HGN test (follow the pen with your eyes test).  We had the defendant’s medical records and history reviewed by our medical expert.  Our expert diagnosed the defendant with thyroid toxicosis with exophthalmous which caused his eyes to bulge slightly.  This condition invalidated the HGN test which resulted in the prosecutor dismissing the DWI.

 

Jessica Y.

The defendant was stopped because of observed erratic driving.  She admitted to taking Lexapro.  The case was dismissed.

 

Rosa M.

The defendant was stopped for going 65 in a 45 mph zone.  The police officer alleged that the defendant smelled of alcohol, admitted to drinking and failed the field sobriety tests.  The breath test result came back as a .10.  The State was unable to prove that the breath testing protocol done at the time of the defendant’s test was done properly; therefore, the case was dismissed.  Also, we won the DPS hearing (driver’s license hearing) so the defendant was able to keep her license.

 

Jean B.

The defendant was charged with DWI after being involved in a motor vehicle accident.  Two officers and a witness believed that the defendant was intoxicated.  The officer reported that the defendant was unsteady on feet, had blood shot eyes, and failed the HGN test.  The defendant consented to the breath test and blew a .13.  We won the DPS (driver’s license) hearing and the breath test we got thrown out because the officer failed to follow the proper procedures.  Ultimately the DWI was dismissed.

Omar M.

The defendant was charged with DWI-Open Container.  The officer stopped the defendant for running a red light.  According to the officer the defendant’s speech was slurred, he had a strong smell of alcohol on his breath and he had an alcoholic drink in the car with him.  The defendant refused to cooperate with the police.  The case was dismissed after setting for trial because the Prosecutor did not believe they could win.

Ronald N.

The defendant drove his vehicle into someone’s yard striking a parked car.  After refusing all field sobriety tests he was arrested for DWI.  We won the DPS hearing and the case was dismissed.

 

Paul M.

The defendant was stopped for going 7 mph over speed limit and weaving.  Defendant was a vet with a previous head injury.  The defendant blew into the intoxilyzer and registered a .08.  The court granted a motion to suppress and the case was thrown out.

 

Bradley O.

The defendant was doing burnouts in a parking lot when he was involved in an accident.  The defendant refused to cooperate with the field sobriety tests and the blood draw.   We won the DPS (driver’s license hearing) and the DWI was ultimately dismissed.

 

 

Maria S.

The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane.  Upon contacting the driver of the vehicle, the officer had a suspicion of DWI.  The defendant refused to cooperate with the officer and did not do any of the field sobriety tests.  We won the DPS hearing and the DWI was dismissed.

 

Steven S.

The defendant was stopped for a defective tail lamp and crossing the double white line on roadway.  We were able to show the taillights complied and there was only 1 minor weave.  Case dismissed.

 

Ricardo R.

The defendant drove on the wrong side of a divided roadway and did not stop immediately for the police officer.  According to the police officer the defendant failed the field sobriety tests.  The blood test came back at over a .15.  Motions to suppress the stop and blood test results were filed.  The case was dismissed.

 

Roland M.

The defendant was stopped for driving after striking a wall causing severe damage to his car including a flat tire.  After failing the field sobriety tests the defendant was charged with DWI.  The defendant was able to enter a pretrial diversion program and the case was dismissed.

 

Aurora L.

The police were called to gas station because a highly intoxicated customer was going to drive off from the premises.  When the officer arrived, witnesses pointed to the defendant asleep in her vehicle and the car keys were in her hand.  The defendant failed the field sobriety tests administered by a State Trooper.  The intoxilyzer read .196 blood alcohol level.  We won the DPS Drivers License hearing and the DWI was dismissed.

Jeffrey T.

The defendant was on probation for felony DWI and was caught violating probation by drinking.  We were able to get the judge to deny the MTR and continue the Defendant on probation.

 

Isidro F.

The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding.  The officer conducted field sobriety tests that the defendant failed.  A blood test showed that the defendant was 50% over the legal limit.  We won the DPS hearing (driver’s license hearing) so the defendant did not lose his license.  The DWI was reduced to obstructing a highway and the prosecution was deferred so that the case can be sealed later.

The Clock Is Ticking . . .
You must request a Department of Public Safety hearing within 15 days of your DWI arrest.  If we are hired within 15 days of your arrest we will request the drivers license hearing.  Call us if you cannot get a lawyer hired within the 15 day deadline so we can instruct you on the proper procedure to request a hearing.  If this deadline lapses, your license will be automatically suspended for the presumptive period. The automatic suspension will start 40 days after your arrest if you do not request a hearing within 15 days. We will represent you at your license suspension hearing to salvage your driving privileges. If you lose your license we will get you a an occupational license that will allow you to drive for almost any purpose.

Drunk Driving Defense in San Antonio Texas

A breath or blood test over .08 doesn’t mean you are guilty of DWI.  There are many hurdles that the State must overcome to prove you were driving while intoxicated.  The breath and blood test should be evaluated for errors in administering the test, errors in equipment operation and maintenance.  Houston has thrown out hundreds or possibly even thousands of breath test results because of errors.  In San Antonio many breath tests and blood tests results have been tossed out because of problems with the individuals that supervised the breath and blood programs.

A common defense is that the breath or blood test doesn’t correspond with what is seen on the police officer’s video.  This is commonly referred to as the disconnect defense.  If someone looks sober on the video how can they possible be over a .08.  In other words, “are you going to believe your eyes, or a computer printout of a test result”.

Also it is not uncommon for officers to stop someone based solely on a “guess” or “hunch” that someone is DWI.  An officer has to be able to either describe a crime that was seen or that based upon articulable facts seen it was reasonable to stop an individual to investigate.  Also, many stops are for speeding.  Speeding is NO indication of DWI and shouldn’t be a basis to believe someone is DWI.

We handle all DWI cases, both misdemeanor and felony:

  • First-time DWI
  • Repeat offenses
  • Refusal of the breath test
  • CDL truck drivers
  • Under-21 drivers
  • Excessive intoxication (.15 or greater)
  • Child endangerment
  • Intoxication assault (DWI accident causing injury)
  • Intoxication manslaughter (fatal DWI accident)

The penalties for a DWI conviction are harsh and have lasting consequences, financially and in many other facets of life. Even on a first offense, you face thousands of dollars in fines and surcharges, plus potential loss of your license. A second or subsequent offense within five years can result in a drivers license suspension where an occupational license isn’t available and can trigger jail time as a condition of probation or home monitoring, ignition interlock, major fines and other penalties.

Deferred adjudication is available, as of September 2019, for individuals charged with DWI if they are charged as first-time offenders and not charged with a blood alcohol level of .15 or more.  Deferred adjudication has advantages over regular probation but it is not perfect.  An advantage of deferred adjudication is that it may allow some individuals to have their DWI arrest and plea non-disclosed or sealed.  A disadvantage of a deferred adjudication for a DWI is that it cannot be expunged and it can be used to enhance a subsequent DWI.  Also, the availability of deferred adjudication has resulted in some jurisdictions no longer offering pretrial diversions or an obstruction of highway for DWI offenses.

A Former DWI Prosecutor in Your Corner

San Antonio DWI lawyer, Kurt Gransee, previously served as a prosecutor on the Bexar County DWI Task Force. He is intimately familiar with the procedures and equipment used by police when they investigate suspected drunk drivers. Those insights help him to ask the right questions and challenge the prosecution’s evidence, through motions or at trial, to cast doubt on the charges. Did the officer have reasonable cause for the traffic stop? Were the field sobriety tests properly administered? Does the squad car camera tell a different story? Can the Breathalyzer results or blood samples be trusted? Were you properly informed of your rights? Also, more importantly the breath or blood test is a reading of your blood or breath at the time of the test, NOT when driving.  The number of the breath or blood test has built in variables plus you could have been dramatically lower 1-2 hours earlier when driving.

We explore your defenses and prepare for trial. Very often a trial is the best option and setting a case for trial will occasionally result in getting the case dismissed or reduced to a lesser charge.  We also always push for a dismissal of the charges or at a minimum a plea agreement that avoids a DWI conviction and allows for getting the record nondisclosed or sealed.  Sometimes we explore potential plea agreements that avoid jail or a DWI conviction in exchange for probation, community service, alcohol treatment or other conditions of the court. The decision to take a deal or try the case is ultimately yours; we will advise you of potential defenses and likely outcomes. We will work together throughout the process. Our efforts we will be collaborative, you will be involved in deciding what route to take after being advised of your options.

Drunk Driving Accidents

Intoxication assault (serious bodily injury) and intoxication manslaughter (fatality) are serious felony crimes, punishable by prison terms up to 10 years and 20 years, respectively. If convicted and sentenced to prison, a person will likely serve more than half or more of the sentence.

We have been successful in intoxication manslaughter cases obtaining acquittals for our clients or getting probation.  Very few criminal defense firms have been able to obtain an acquittal for their clients or probation when someone was seriously injured or died in a drunk driving accident.  We have done both!

Our criminal law attorneys have been successful with motions to suppress, trials, and other strategies in seeking to spare clients from going to jail or prison. We examine every possible defense and mitigating factor, including the underlying basis for DWI and whether intoxication was the cause of the accident. Did the other driver run a red light or contribute to the accident in some way? Were there obstructions or other factors? We also engage prosecutors in negotiations for alternatives to incarceration, including house arrest, community service or substance abuse treatment.

We have represented many individuals charged with intoxication assault and intoxication manslaughter. Some clients were given probation, some clients had their cases reduced to misdemeanors, and one client was given probation after a jury trial for a triple intoxication  manslaughter that we got reversed on appeal and ultimately the case was dismissed and expunged.

Don’t Say or Sign Anything Without Consulting A San Antonio DWI Lawyer

A DWI is never open-and-shut. Find out how we can improve your situation. Contact our San Antonio firm to arrange a free initial consultation with an experienced San Antonio DWI lawyer about your drunk driving charges.

Read Our FREE DWI Guide