Settlements & Verdicts

In a case involving license revocation after a DWI charge, Jeffrey Sheridan was able to prove that the responsible commissioner mailed the Notice and Order of Revocation of a client’s license four days later than they claimed – leaving the client little time to get her affairs in order. The court ruled this to be unfair, rescinding both the revocation and plate impoundment order, and removing them from the client’s record.

In 1991, Jeffrey Sheridan won a case involving a woman who wished to contact a lawyer before submitting to alcohol concentration testing. She was improperly charged with test refusal because she contacted friends and family for advice before taking a breath test, and wanted to talk to a lawyer. Police officers now must tell drivers that they have the right to talk to a lawyer and “assist the driver in the vindication of that right.”

Jeffrey Sheridan won a case where an officer claimed a client failed their field sobriety test by using the squad car’s video to show that the client performed field sobriety tests perfectly. The officer claimed the client failed every test. Accordingly, the breathalyzer test was thrown out of court, since there was no legal reason to administer it, and the client’s license revocation order was rescinded.

In a case where a client was arrested by an airport police officer miles away from the airport, Jeffrey Sheridan argued that the stop was illegal, since the office was outside of their jurisdiction. The court agreed, all evidence obtained from the illegal stop was suppressed, and the client’s license revocation was rescinded.

In a case heard by the Dakota County District Court, an officer testified that he sped up to catch a car in the distance, exceeding speed limits and then observing minor traffic violations that “justified” a stop. Jeffrey Sheridan argued successfully that the stop was unlawful, and that police cannot commit traffic violations to get into a position to observe other drivers. The stop was ruled illegal and the client’s license revocation was rescinded.

For years, driver’s licenses that prohibit the consumption of alcohol or drugs (B-cards) did not provide proper constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure by police. In 2012, Jeffrey Sheridan argued successfully that B-Card holders deserved more protection, and a Dakota County District Court judge agreed that any evidence obtained during illegal searches should be kept out of court due to the “Exclusionary Rule,” even for B-Card holders.

In a case involving license revocation after a DWI charge, Jeffrey Sheridan was able to prove that the responsible commissioner mailed the Notice and Order of Revocation of a client’s license four days later than they claimed – leaving the client little time to get her affairs in order. The court ruled this to be unfair, rescinding both the revocation and plate impoundment order, and removing them from the client’s record.

In 1991, Jeffrey Sheridan won a case involving a woman who wished to contact a lawyer before submitting to alcohol concentration testing. She was improperly charged with test refusal because she contacted friends and family for advice before taking a breath test, and wanted to talk to a lawyer. Police officers now must tell drivers that they have the right to talk to a lawyer and “assist the driver in the vindication of that right.”

Jeffrey Sheridan won a case where an officer claimed a client failed their field sobriety test by using the squad car’s video to show that the client performed field sobriety tests perfectly. The officer claimed the client failed every test. Accordingly, the breathalyzer test was thrown out of court, since there was no legal reason to administer it, and the client’s license revocation order was rescinded.

In a case where a client was arrested by an airport police officer miles away from the airport, Jeffrey Sheridan argued that the stop was illegal, since the office was outside of their jurisdiction. The court agreed, all evidence obtained from the illegal stop was suppressed, and the client’s license revocation was rescinded.

In a case heard by the Dakota County District Court, an officer testified that he sped up to catch a car in the distance, exceeding speed limits and then observing minor traffic violations that “justified” a stop. Jeffrey Sheridan argued successfully that the stop was unlawful, and that police cannot commit traffic violations to get into a position to observe other drivers. The stop was ruled illegal and the client’s license revocation was rescinded.

For years, driver’s licenses that prohibit the consumption of alcohol or drugs (B-cards) did not provide proper constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure by police. In 2012, Jeffrey Sheridan argued successfully that B-Card holders deserved more protection, and a Dakota County District Court judge agreed that any evidence obtained during illegal searches should be kept out of court due to the “Exclusionary Rule,” even for B-Card holders.

In a case involving license revocation after a DWI charge, Jeffrey Sheridan was able to prove that the responsible commissioner mailed the Notice and Order of Revocation of a client’s license four days later than they claimed – leaving the client little time to get her affairs in order. The court ruled this to be unfair, rescinding both the revocation and plate impoundment order, and removing them from the client’s record.

In 1991, Jeffrey Sheridan won a case involving a woman who wished to contact a lawyer before submitting to alcohol concentration testing. She was improperly charged with test refusal because she contacted friends and family for advice before taking a breath test, and wanted to talk to a lawyer. Police officers now must tell drivers that they have the right to talk to a lawyer and “assist the driver in the vindication of that right.”

Jeffrey Sheridan won a case where an officer claimed a client failed their field sobriety test by using the squad car’s video to show that the client performed field sobriety tests perfectly. The officer claimed the client failed every test. Accordingly, the breathalyzer test was thrown out of court, since there was no legal reason to administer it, and the client’s license revocation order was rescinded.

In a case where a client was arrested by an airport police officer miles away from the airport, Jeffrey Sheridan argued that the stop was illegal, since the office was outside of their jurisdiction. The court agreed, all evidence obtained from the illegal stop was suppressed, and the client’s license revocation was rescinded.

In a case heard by the Dakota County District Court, an officer testified that he sped up to catch a car in the distance, exceeding speed limits and then observing minor traffic violations that “justified” a stop. Jeffrey Sheridan argued successfully that the stop was unlawful, and that police cannot commit traffic violations to get into a position to observe other drivers. The stop was ruled illegal and the client’s license revocation was rescinded.

For years, driver’s licenses that prohibit the consumption of alcohol or drugs (B-cards) did not provide proper constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure by police. In 2012, Jeffrey Sheridan argued successfully that B-Card holders deserved more protection, and a Dakota County District Court judge agreed that any evidence obtained during illegal searches should be kept out of court due to the “Exclusionary Rule,” even for B-Card holders.