Skip ContentBob (not his real name) was at home after working all day watching the 4:30 PM news and drinking whiskey. Previously he had driven to the liquor store next to a 7-11 to pick up some vodka for his wife. He had had one beer before leaving. While he was watching the news, someone started to bang on the door. Bob opened the door and was confronted by a man started yelling that Bob had run over his skateboard. He tried to force his way into the house, but Bob was able to push him out into the street. In the process, he cut Bob with a knife. Bob called 911 and the man disappeared, never to be found. Nor was any skateboard found.
A police officer contacted Bob in response to his 911 call regarding the disturbance at his residence, but arrested him for DUI instead. The allegation was that Bob drank and then drove to a convenience store, hitting a skateboard on his return trip to home. Bob had only told the officer about the claim that he had hit a skateboard and admitted to drinking a beer before he had driven to the store. The officer smelled the strong odor of alcohol, believed he had more than just a single drink, "might have driven DUI." The client took a breath test, which showed a BAC of .150. He had no prior DUIs.
At the Department of Motor Vehicles license revocation hearing, the Hearing Officer ruled that the officer never established a time of driving, but only estimated it based on Bob's statements. That evidence was ruled as 'inherently unreliable' and therefore his time of driving could not be proven and the breath test could not be proved to have been taken within the 2-hour window mandated by law. The action was dismissed.
The jury found Bob not guilty after hearing what had actually happened.