Levi Trumbull Lawsuit: Why a 0.00 BAC Arrest Could Still Win in Court

Legally reviewed for accuracy. Last verified July 24, 2026. This article does not constitute legal advice.

Short Answer: The Levi Trumbull lawsuit involves a still developing civil rights claim, which is currently not a filed federal case arising out of a March 2025 traffic stop where Trumbull was arrested for DUI even though he had a 0.00 breath alcohol concentration level in the breathalyzer. The citations against him have since been dropped, but there has been a filing of a $1 million notice of intent to sue against Frederick County. As at July 2026, no federal suit has been filed against anyone over the case.

If you have looked for information regarding “Levi Trumbull lawsuit,” chances are high that you may have seen the same thing that everyone else sees – a lot of people who mention it but never seem to say when an actual lawsuit has been filed or what its current status is. That is because there is no lawsuit as of now, but that is precisely why it is worth taking time to explain what happened.

The Traffic Stop That Sparked It All

It began on March 29, 2025, when Levi Trumbull was traveling through Frederick County, Maryland, near the intersection of Route 355 and Lowes Lane. Levi Trumbull, a content creator well-known for his interactions with police, allegedly ran a red light and was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy.

This deputy, whose identity is known to be Christian Roush, was working for the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office at the time of the incident and requested Trumbull to submit to field sobriety tests. He refused to do so since he has the right to refuse according to Maryland law.

He was subsequently arrested. Upon arriving at the detention center, he was tested by a Drug Recognition Expert as well as administered a breathalyzer test. The results of the test showed 0.00 blood alcohol concentration.

Charges Crumble – But Not for Lack of Merit

The two traffic infractions issued in connection with the stop were presented to the judge on May 8, 2025. Deputy Roush did not appear at the hearing. By the standards of Maryland courts, this automatically led to the dismissal of both traffic infractions.

A dismissal is not a conviction – but it is still an important legal concept. In some civil actions, notably malicious prosecution, the case against the defendant needs to have been resolved in favor of the defendant. A dismissal would suffice for this purpose.

Why “Lawsuit” is Doing Quite a Bit of Work Here

This is where the majority of media coverage tends to fall short: as of the writing of this article, there has been no civil rights complaint filed against Frederick County, its Sheriff’s Department, and Deputy Roush. The reality of the matter is that there has only been an intention to sue notice for roughly $1 million in damages.

An intention to sue notice is a mandatory preliminary procedure before litigation in many civil suits against governmental bodies – it is a warning, not a court filing. In accordance with Maryland’s Local Government Tort Claims Act, claimants have to give such a notice before they can file a lawsuit against a county or its officials. Failure to do so may result in a perfectly good case being precluded from going forward from the start.

The statute of limitations for Maryland civil rights cases is generally three years from the time of the offense, meaning that Trumbull has until approximately March 2028 to file.

The Constitutional Issue In Question

0.00 BAC doesn’t automatically mean that a DUI arrest was unlawful. The law on DUI, both in Maryland and other states, includes impairment of a driver caused by drugs, apart from alcohol, so 0.00 BAC in itself is no proof of the unconstitutionality of the arrest.

What it does mean is that the theory about alcohol is ruled out completely, thus focusing the whole case on the issue of probable cause for a deputy’s belief that Trumbull was under the influence of something at the time of the arrest. It is a Fourth Amendment issue, and it is precisely the question that will be answered should there be a civil rights case. It is evaluated based on what the police officer believed, not on the results of the chemical test. However, 0.00 BAC, combined with dismissed charges and the officer not showing up in court, is quite a scary pattern for a government attorney.

What Makes It Different from Other 0.00 BAC Wrongful Arrests

Trumbull’s case is certainly not an isolated instance of a driver who was under the influence of no alcohol whatsoever being arrested on account of DUI, but it’s worth comparing Trumbull’s case to others because this can help understand why some lawyers consider his case fairly well-arguable.

In almost all known instances of 0.00 BAC arrest cases around the country, the outcome typically depends on the presence of additional evidence gathered by the arresting officer other than the breathalyzer test results, including the field sobriety test failure, odd behavior of the defendant, slurred speech, or presence of paraphernalia of drugs in the car. If such evidence is there, then even a 0.00 BAC reading won’t work against the prosecution’s case.

What tends to tip these cases in the plaintiff’s favor is the lack or insufficiency of such secondary evidence — more like Trumbull’s case. The latter refused to do field sobriety tests, eliminating one of the most common techniques used by law enforcement officials in order to prove the case of impairment after an absence of traces in a breathalyzer test. Taken together with dropped charges and non-appearance in the court of the officer who made the stop, the facts of the case here speak more in favor of the plaintiff than other similar cases in which the government has certain behavioral evidence from the scene.

It does not mean that the result is guaranteed since each of the Section 1983 cases is unique. But this helps to understand why the case attracted the attention of the law.

People Who May Be Similar in Their Situations

Trumbull’s case is one good example for people who wonder if there is enough evidence in their cases to file for civil rights violations. You should consider doing that if:

• There is no probable cause for your arrest that meets the Fourth Amendment standards
• The charges against you have been dropped or dismissed, meeting the “favorable termination” criteria needed in some cases
• You suffered tangible damages – lost wages, tow and impoundment fees, attorney’s fees, emotional distress, or time spent in jail
• You were exercising your legal rights when the incident took place – for example, refusing to take a voluntary sobriety test
• There was a government official who acted under color of law in the arrest you underwent

What Actually Happens in Such a Case

• Pre-suit notice. Before filing a suit against the Maryland County and Sheriff’s Office, a claimant must first abide by the written notice requirement of the Local Government Tort Claims Act.
• Evidence gathering. Bodycam video footage, dispatch audio, the arrest report, Drug Recognition Expert evaluation documentation, and calibration data of the breathalyzer device must all be collected. In this case, bodycam video and the 0.00 reading are the only two evidentiaries that bear the most weight.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint. Upon meeting notice requirements and still not reaching an agreement, the next legal recourse would be to file a Section 1983 complaint, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution along with the claim of malicious prosecution, since the charge was dropped.
• Qualified immunity defense. The local government will undoubtedly file for dismissal based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, asserting that the conduct of the deputy did not violate a “clearly established” right.
• Discovery and depositions. Assuming the lawsuit does not get thrown out on a motion to dismiss, the deposition of the deputy becomes essential in defining precisely what he witnessed prior to making the arrest.
• Settlement or trial. In such a case, settlement occurs in most instances prior to going to trial, especially when video and chemical testing make the government’s position difficult to prove.

Note: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing party in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to attorney’s fees, hence the reason civil rights lawyers will take such cases on a contingency fee basis, with no initial costs for the arrested individual.

What’s Strong and What’s Still Weak in the Situation

In favor of Trumbull:

• A 0.00 BAC, ruling out alcohol impairment as a defense
• Two citations, both of which have been ruled on without a conviction
• A legal refusal of the FSTs which cannot be used alone as probable cause
• Notice of Intent to Sue, protecting the claim and triggering procedural deadlines

Still against Trumbull:

• There is no federal complaint filed by July 2026 – a notice of intent is not a complaint
• Drug impairment is another legal theory the county can use that was never tested
• The Local Government Tort Claims Act of Maryland provides some actual procedural barriers
• Qualified immunity is a hard defense to refute, even under favorable facts
• Without the complaint being filed, there is still no idea of what is contained in the body cam video and DRE report

In the Case That This Happened to You

• Obtain your records right away – your arrest record, your breathalyzer test results, your citations, and whatever records of your case’s dismissal.
• Make sure that you preserve your own videos. Your dashcam and your phone videos will be overwritten, and so should be preserved early on in case there is any sort of legal problem.
• Do not wait until the criminal proceedings against you are over before you contact a civil rights lawyer – tort claims statutes have their own deadlines, and they are often sooner than one might think.
• Find lawyers who have experience in Section 1983/4th Amendment litigation, not just personal injury lawyers.
• Be wary of the big numbers. “$1 million dollar claim” is a demand, not an award.

Final Thoughts

What makes the case of Levi Trumbull interesting is not its uniqueness but rather the purity of its facts – a failed test that the arrest was based on, charges that fell through due to the lack of appearance of the police officer, and a man who used his legal rights without any doubt. In contrast to other arrest cases related to a 0.00 BAC reading, the lack of evidence proving the driver’s impairment gives the plaintiff stronger reasons to pursue the lawsuit, though whether or not he will file a federal suit is a question for now.

FAQ’s