Case Results

Small Sampling of Successful Cases!


September 2016

Fremont Court - September 2016

Our client was passenger in the car with his girlfriend and both were the victims of a road rage incident where the other car followed them into their apartment complex and partially blocked him in. This understandably scared him, so he decided to get out and find out what was going on. Because he feared for his safety, he grabbed the only thing available inside of his car, one of his work tools, a socket wrench and got out of the car to try and scare away the other driver and passenger.

When he came around to the driver's side of the aggressor's car the driver began to get out and move towards him, so he blocked the aggressor in a defensive manner. Because he still had his house keys in his hand, the aggressor suffered a very minor abrasion on their thumb.

The District Attorney charged my client, who was merely defending his family, with 2 misdemeanors: The violent crime of Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Vandalism for the minor damage to the car.

After a long series of negotiations with the attorney for the people, we were able to achieve a very good result in that the assault charges were dismissed and our client entered a plea only to the vandalism charge which carried with it a sheriff work program informal court probation and a fine instead of jail time. Most importantly, he will avoid having any violent crimes on his record.

This case demonstrates the importance of having competent legal counsel at your side as our client was merely defending his family, yet found himself facing very serious criminal charges when he was not the aggressor.

Fremont Court - September 2016

Our client was stopped by the California Highway Patrol after almost swerving into a 18 wheeler. He admitted to smoking a blunt just 30 minutes prior to driving. District attorney charged with driving while under the influence of a drug as a misdemeanor.

After intense negotiations with the district attorney, the people's first offer was a "Wet Reckless."

After further negotiation, we were able to achieve a standard reckless driving charge, which resulted in only informal court probation only, and a very small fine instead of jail, mandatory DUI classes, large fines and mandatory license suspension.

This is also important because, unlike a "wet reckless," a standard reckless driving charge is not "priorable," meaning if the client should pick up a DUI within the next 10 years it will only be his first instead of his second.

Fremont Court September 2016

Our client was charged with driving on a suspended license as a misdemeanor in addition to several other driving violations. After long negotiations with the District Attorney's office, we were able to argue for The People to drop all misdemeanor charges and the client pled to only ONE infraction charge with the balance of the complaint DISMISSED. Instead of paying thousands of dollars in fines and facing potential jail time, the client only needed to pay one small fine which we arranged a payment plan on.


February 2015

"It was important to the client because it meant he could keep his job"

Fremont Court

Client DD was facing his 3rd DUI in less than 5 years. He was arrested with a high Blood Alcohol Content of 0.21, which, with the recent past DUI convictions, meant the District Attorney would be seeking a stiff sentence with mandatory jail time.

Mandatory jail time on a 3rd DUI has a MINIMUM sentence of 120 days jail that cannot be served through the Weekend Work Program / Sheriff's Work Program.

Such a long jail term meant the client would certainly lose his job.

The Law Offices of Adam Allen Arant worked first to secure the client's wellbeing and got him enrolled in a detoxification / inpatient alcohol treatment center.

Because his client works full-time and cares for his young daughter, Mr. Arant also negotiated with the District Attorney and court to avoid his client being taken into custody to set bail, which is usually mandatory in a 3rd DUI scenario.

Mr. Arant arranged to avoid bail setting by arranging for the client to be placed on an electronic monitor known as a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor or "SCRAM" bracelet, which ensures that the individual being monitored does not consume any alcohol while in the program.

Due to the negotiations by The Law Offices of Adam Allen Arant, and the client's excellent progress in the difficult path of recovery from substance abuse, Mr. Arant worked out a deal where the client served his sentence through weekend jail at the North Alameda County Jail.

This was extremely important for the client because it meant the client could keep his job and work during the week to continue to support his family.

Another great victory for the defense!


January 2015

"An excellent and hard-fought victory for the defense"

Client ST was charged with 2 Felony counts of California Health and Safety Code Section 11350 - Possession of a Controlled Substance.

Client fell asleep at the wheel of his SUV while driving home from a friend's house in Union City and flipped his vehicle off the side of the road. Upon contact by police, Xanax pills were found in his wallet and several ecstasy pills were found in his vehicle.

Although the initial negotiations by Mr. Arant with the Alameda County District Attorney resulted in a good offer of one misdemeanor count of Health and Safety Code Section 11350 - Possession of a Controlled Substance, Mr. Arant knew that his client was a student who hoped to transfer to a 4 year college soon and being on a probation for a criminal drug offense would make it difficult, if not impossible to transfer to the schools of his choice.

After additional negotiation with the District Attorney and a conversation with the District Attorney and Judge in the Judge's chambers, Mr. Arant was able to negotiate for a Deferred Entry of Judgement, which meant that as long as the client did not get any new offenses for a period of several months, Mr. Arant and the client could come back to court at the end of that time and get the case dismissed. This meant the client would not be on probation during that time and would therefore not be hindered in his application to schools / jobs by any criminal record - an excellent and hard-fought victory for the defense!


January 2015

"We obtained an excellent result"

Client J.R. was overly tired after a long night of drinking, and thought that after a substantial amount of sleep she would be okay to drive home from her friend's house. However, not long after getting on the freeway, she began to get very sleepy and felt the safest thing to do would be to pull over and "sleep it off" on the side of the freeway. Although this is certainly safer than continuing to drive, it alerted the CHP, who encountered her pulled over and stopped behind her to do a "welfare check."

Although the police typically need a reason to contact you, such as alleging that you committed a vehicle code violation while driving like speeding, swerving, running a red light, or driving without your headlights on, the "Community Caretaker" exception allows the police to contact any person who may appear to be in danger or in need of assistance, such as any person pulled over on the side of the freeway.

After contacting our client, the CHP officer detected the presence of alcohol on her person, and asked her to complete a series of roadside Field Sobriety Tests. She completed those tests, and lawfully refused the roadside Preliminary Alcohol Screening test, (the handheld breathalyzer). The CHP officer arrested her on suspicion of DUI and took her to the police station to draw her blood and then booked her on DUI charges

Her Blood Alcohol Content came back at .19, nearly 2.5 times the legal limit, so our client faced a possibility of up to 20 days jail and the 9 month DUI school. However, after careful negotiation with the Santa Clara County District Attorney, we obtained an excellent result where our client would only serve FOUR days of Sheriff's Work, (Sheriff-supervised community service), NO JAIL and a requirement to complete the 3 month DUI school, which is the minimum school term for a DUI!


January 2015

"Our client left with tears of joy and our office pleased with the justice served"

Client with a case in Pleasanton Court was facing DUI charges. Her car had run out of fuel on the freeway, so she had pulled over to the right - hand side and waited for her boyfriend to bring her some more gas. While waiting for him, the CHP came by to do a welfare check to make sure she was ok.

The CHP officer detected the odor of alcohol and then conducted the standard Field Sobriety Tests. Our Client performed well on the physical tests, but unfortunately blew a .12 at the roadside Preliminary Alcohol Screening (P.A.S.) test, which necessitated bringing her to the local jail for further testing. At the jail, she blew a .11 on the breathalyzer, which meant she would be arrested for DUI.

The client is a single mother who works 7 days a week to support herself and her family, so she absolutely needed the best possible defense team to reduce these charges.

After reviewing all of the discovery in the case, The Law Offices of Adam Allen Arant successfully negotiated for a WET/RECKLESS, a charge with much better consequences for the client since there would be absolutely no jail time, sheriff's work, or community service, which means she would not have to take any days off of work. The fine is cut in half, and she is required to complete only the 12 Hour DUI school vs the 30 Hour class. Our client left with tears of joy and our office pleased with the justice served.


November 2014

People v. D.R. - Santa Clara County, Palo Alto Courthouse

Santa Clara County is extremely tough on crime, especially DUIs, and even tougher on multiple DUI offenders.

My client was facing his 3rd DUI with a BAC of 0.23, nearly 3 times the legal limit. He also had 3 prior Drunk in Public charges (PC 647(f)), with one even occurring earlier this year. At arraignment, the DA stated she wanted to remand my client into custody due to him being a "clear danger to the community" but I was able to negotiate a possibility of a low bail amount and put the issue over to the next hearing 4 weeks later so my client could remain out and work.

Meanwhile, I had my client begin attending AA classes immediately, seek outpatient therapy through his health care provider, and begin the process of enrollment into a Sober Living Environment to attempt to lower the amount of any actual jail time.

At the next hearing, I had my bail bondsman at the ready to post bail at the courthouse so my client would not actually see the inside of a jail cell prior to sentencing. However, due to my efforts, I negotiated with the judge and DA for the client to walk out of the courthouse WITHOUT having to post any bail!

Even better, although the DA was seeking 180 days jail (mandatory minimum of 120 days for the 3rd DUI + 60 days), which meant my client would lose his job, I worked out a deal where my Client will serve two separate 30 day sentences which will be 60 days apart, so he can return to work in between so he can keep his job. He will wear an electronic SCRAM bracelet to monitor his blood alcohol levels while out of custody, which helps ensure he will not drink any alcohol when he is physically out of jail.

Perhaps even more importantly, I encouraged him to seek counseling and perform community service voluntarily to show the court that he is both remorseful about his past mistakes, and also grateful for the opportunity to remain out of custody and serve his community.


September 2014

"He was able to be home with his family during the holidays"

Client, RS, was on parole from State Prison for gun related charges and got into a serious car accident while intoxicated. He collided with a guardrail on a busy street in Fremont and after being released from the hospital was immediately taken into custody on the parole violations and for DUI with accident.

Client was facing the possibility of being sent back to State Prison mere months from completing his Parole term.

Our office shifted Mr. Arant's court schedule to be able to appear in court for our Client 3 times within a week in order to be able to negotiate with the District Attorney for no Parole Violations and Credit for Time Served on both cases, which meant he was released from custody and home with his family during the upcoming holidays.


June 2014

People v. K.A. - Alameda County - Fremont Hall of Justice

Client faced alleged violation of Penal Code section 484 - Misdemeanor Petty Theft.

Our client was very concerned about her immigration status due to her being in the United States on a H-1B work visa.

With this in mind, we negotiated with the District Attorney's office for them to dismiss all Theft charges in exchange for our Client's agreement to plead to a non-theft related Infraction charge.

The successful negotiation of this case means that our Client will very likely face no immigration consequences as a result of this case.


May 2014

People v. T.Y. - Alameda County - Fremont Hall of Justice

Our Client was suffering from jet lag after traveling extensively overseas and accidentally fell asleep at the wheel in South Fremont, causing a minor traffic accident. Although no injuries were involved, the police arrived and questioned our Client. After admitting that he had consumed one beer earlier that evening with dinner, the police conducted a full DUI investigation and arrested our Client for DUI. The District Attorney later filed a criminal complaint alleging DUI violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152 (a) and 23152 (b).

After heated negotiations with the District Attorney's office and the judge presiding over the case, Attorney Adam Arant successfully negotiated the misdemeanor DUI charges down to an Infraction Dry and Reckless.


May 2014

People v. K.K. - Alameda County - Fremont Hall of Justice

Our client was charged with Penal Code section 484 - Misdemeanor petty theft when she was apprehended with unpaid merchandise in her possession while exiting a local retailer.

Our client was concerned about the negative effects of this case on her immigration status due to her being in the United States on a H-1B work visa.

With this in mind, we negotiated with the District Attorney's office for them to dismiss all Theft charges in exchange for our Client's agreement to plead to a non-theft related Infraction charge.

We presented a substantial amount of information about our Client's life, including her schooling and work history as well as information about her character in order to demonstrate that she is a good candidate for relief. The successful negotiation of this case means that our Client will very likely face no immigration consequences as a result of this case.


May 2014

People v. J.P. - Fremont Hall of Justice

Our client was a decorated police officer who due to a momentary lack in judgment received a DUI and thereafter lost his job in law enforcement which quickly added to the problems at home and prompted a filing for divorce.

Our client needed to terminate his probation early so that he could get back to work as a law enforcement officer and be better able to provide for his family, whatever form that family might take in the future.

We collected dozens of documents and letters of recommendation to demonstrate all of the exceptional work he had done since the date of the arrest, including voluntarily enrolling himself into rehab, meeting all of the terms of his probation successfully for two years, performance of substantial amounts of community service, and remaining clean and sober despite losing his job and family.

After extensive negotiations with the court and District Attorney, we demonstrated that he was a prime candidate to have his probation terminated an entire year early and the court agreed, terminating it right there on the spot.

We are happy to report that as a result of our efforts, our Client was able to secure a job in law enforcement and now has that Second Chance that we all deserve.


April 2014

People v. S.D. - Santa Clara County - South County Courthouse

Our Client was stopped at a DUI checkpoint in downtown Morgan Hill. Client was wine tasting befire the checkpoint and had only consumed the equivalent to one glass of wine prior to driving.

We presented evidence that there was no impaired driving, she performed on par with a sober person during the field sobriety exercises and that her blood alcohol level was rising at the time of driving, (Rising Blood Alcohol Syndrome / Defense"). Through presentation of expert evidence by our Forensic Toxicologists, we were able to negotiate with the District Attorney to drop all DUI charges in exchange for a plea to an Infraction Dry and Reckless charge.

This is extremely important because the Infraction does not carry with it any probation terms, any license suspension, or any jail time. Also, it is not "priorable," meaning that if the client received another DUI in the next 10 years, this Infraction cannot be used against her.


December 2013

"Not a day was spent in jail!"

San Jose court -- Client, a married professional with children was charged with P.C. 314 - Indecent Exposure in Santa Clara County and faced mandatory P.C. 290 sex registration as well as potential jail time. This would mean his name and face would appear on the "Megan's Law" type of websites that identify local sex offenders.

Through extended negotiations with the District Attorney, we managed to get the Indecent Exposure charge reduced down to Lewd Conduct, which does NOT carry the serious mandatory sex registration requirement! We also avoided any physical custody time for our client - not a day was spent in jail.


December 2013

In a Fremont case where the police recommended PC 148 - Resisting Arrest and DUI charges, our client's BAC came back at 0.28, nearly FOUR times the legal limit. A jail sentence was a distinct possibility based on the facts. However, we were able to negotiate with the District Attorney and avoid any Resisting Arrest charges or jail time. Our client did not spend another day in jail thanks to our efforts - he received one day of outside supervised work as a jail alternative.


November 2013

"He was able to spend the holidays with his family"

In Fremont court, we fought to successfully reduce bail from $100,000.00 to $30,000.00 in a recent possession of a stolen gun case, P.C. 25850, receiving stolen property. This allowed our client's family to be able to afford bail and bail him out so he could be home to get back to work to help support them and, more importantly, to be home with them for the holidays.


September 2013

People v. K.S., Fremont Hall of Justice

Our 18-year-old Client accidentally ran his passenger side front wheel into the curb while turning through a near 90-degree left-hand curve in the road.

Police claim our Client was speeding and took the curve at an unsafe speed. Eventually our Client was charged with violating California Vehicle Code sections 23103 - misdemeanor reckless driving; 23109 (c) - misdemeanor excessive display of speed and 22350 - infraction unsafe speed.

Client was facing the potential of the loss of license and jail behind the 2 misdemeanor charges.

After reviewing all of the evidence, including requesting all of the prosecution's photos and videos of the scene, Adam Arant engaged in extensive negotiations with the District Attorney's office and arranged for all misdemeanor charges to be dropped in exchange for a plea to a lesser infraction.

Thanks to the efforts of Adam Arant, our Client did not spend a minute in jail, did not have any probation, and was not required to take time away from his family, work, or school obligations to perform any community service.

Our Client resolved the case with a plea to a moving violation infraction which carried a fine. Due to the young age of our Client, he was unfamiliar with the court processes, Adam Arant took the extra time to personally guide him through setting up a payment plan with the county for payment of the fine.