Levi Trumbull Lawsuit: The 0.00 BAC Arrest, Dismissed Charges, and the $1 Million Civil Rights Claim

The Levi Trumbull lawsuit has become one of the most closely watched civil rights stories to come out of Maryland in 2025 and 2026, and the reason is almost absurdly simple: a man was arrested for drunk driving after blowing a perfect 0.00 on the breathalyzer.

That single number is doing most of the work in this case. It’s the reason the story went viral, the reason civil rights attorneys are paying attention, and the reason a $1 million notice of intent to sue is now sitting on Frederick County’s desk.

Here’s what actually happened, what the law says about it, and what it would take for Trumbull, or anyone in a similar position, to win.

What Happened During the Traffic Stop

On the night of March 29, 2025, Levi Trumbull was driving through Frederick County, Maryland, near Route 355 and Lowes Lane when a sheriff’s deputy pulled him over, alleging he had run a red light. Trumbull is not a random motorist with no context for what came next. He’s a content creator known for filming and documenting interactions between police and the public, and by most accounts he handled the stop calmly and within his legal rights.

The deputy, later identified in public reporting as Deputy Christian Roush of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, asked Trumbull to perform field sobriety tests. Trumbull declined. That’s not an admission of guilt. Maryland law allows drivers to refuse roadside sobriety testing without it automatically establishing impairment.

Trumbull was arrested anyway, taken into custody, evaluated by a Drug Recognition Expert, and given a breathalyzer test at a detention facility. The result: 0.00 blood alcohol concentration. His vehicle was towed and impounded.

Why the Charges Were Dismissed

The traffic citations connected to the stop went to court on May 8, 2025. Deputy Roush did not appear for the hearing, and under Maryland court rules, that absence resulted in an automatic dismissal of both citations. There was no trial on the merits, no finding of guilt, and no conviction. The case ended on a procedural default.

That detail matters more than it might seem. For certain civil claims, particularly malicious prosecution, the law requires that the underlying charges ended in the accused person’s favor. A dismissal, even a procedural one, generally satisfies that requirement.

The Levi Trumbull Lawsuit Timeline

The Legal Question at the Center of the Case

A 0.00 BAC does not automatically make a DUI arrest illegal. Maryland’s DUI statute, like most states’, covers impairment by drugs as well as alcohol, so a zero alcohol reading doesn’t by itself prove the arrest was unconstitutional. What it does is eliminate the alcohol theory entirely and force the question back onto a narrower one: did the deputy have probable cause to believe Trumbull was impaired at all, by anything, at the moment of arrest?

That’s a Fourth Amendment question, and it’s the one a civil rights lawsuit would have to answer. Probable cause is judged by what the officer observed and reasonably believed at the time, not by what the test later showed. But a 0.00 result, paired with dismissed charges and a deputy who skipped his own court date, is the kind of fact pattern that makes a county’s legal team nervous, even if it doesn’t guarantee a win.

Who Has a Case Like This?

The Trumbull situation is a useful template for anyone wondering whether their own arrest could support a civil rights claim. Generally, you may have grounds if:

• You were arrested without probable cause. The officer’s stated reasons don’t hold up to Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
• Your charges were dropped or dismissed. Favorable termination is often a required element of related claims.
• You suffered real, documentable harm. Lost wages, towing and impound costs, legal fees, emotional distress, or time in custody all count.
• You were exercising a legal right at the time, like declining a voluntary sobriety test.
• The arrest involved a government actor: a municipal, county, or state officer acting under color of law, which is required for a Section 1983 claim. Private security personnel generally don’t qualify.

How a Civil Rights Claim Like This Actually Moves Forward

1. Pre-suit notice. Before suing a Maryland county or sheriff’s office, a claimant must comply with the Local Government Tort Claims Act, which requires written notice within a strict statutory window. Miss it, and an otherwise strong case can be barred entirely.
2. Evidence gathering. Bodycam footage, dispatch audio, the arresting officer’s report, DRE evaluation records, and breathalyzer calibration data all get pulled together. In this case, the bodycam video and the 0.00 result are the two pieces of evidence doing the heaviest lifting.
3. Filing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If pre-suit notice is satisfied and no resolution is reached, the next step is a federal complaint alleging a Fourth Amendment violation, and likely a malicious prosecution claim given the dismissal.
4. Qualified immunity fight. The county will almost certainly move to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, arguing the deputy’s conduct didn’t violate a “clearly established” right. This is where most Section 1983 cases live or die early.
5. Discovery and depositions. If the case survives the motion to dismiss, the deputy’s deposition becomes critical. Attorneys will press on exactly what observable facts, if any, supported the arrest decision.
6. Settlement or trial. Most cases like this settle before reaching a jury, particularly when video evidence and a clean chemical test undercut the government’s position.

One detail worth knowing: under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing plaintiff in a Section 1983 case can recover attorney’s fees from the government defendant. That’s why most civil rights attorneys take these cases on contingency. There’s no upfront cost to the person who was arrested.

What’s Actually Strong, and What’s Still Missing

Working in Trumbull’s favor:

• A 0.00 BAC that wipes out any alcohol-based theory of impairment
• Both citations dismissed, with no conviction on record
• A legal refusal of field sobriety testing that can’t be used as the basis for probable cause
• A documented notice of intent to sue, which preserves the claim and starts the procedural clock

Still working against him:

• No confirmed federal complaint has been filed as of this writing. A notice of intent is not a lawsuit.
• Drug impairment remains a separate, untested legal theory the county could still raise.
• Maryland’s Local Government Tort Claims Act creates real procedural hurdles.
• Qualified immunity is a genuinely difficult defense to overcome, even in sympathetic cases.
• Without a filed complaint, the public still doesn’t know what the bodycam footage or DRE findings actually show in full.

If This Happened to You: What to Do First

1. Request your records immediately: arrest report, breathalyzer results, citations, and any dismissal paperwork. These don’t stay available forever.
2. Preserve your own footage. Dashcam and phone video can be overwritten or deleted; save it the moment you suspect a legal issue.
3. Don’t wait for the criminal case to fully close before talking to a civil rights attorney. Notice deadlines under tort claims acts run independently and are often shorter than people expect.
4. Look specifically for Section 1983 / Fourth Amendment experience, not just general personal injury practice.
5. Treat any headline dollar figure skeptically. A “$1 million claim” is a demand, not an award. Actual damages are tied to documented harm, and punitive damages require proof of malicious or reckless conduct.

Final Thoughts

The Levi Trumbull lawsuit isn’t notable because it’s unusual. False arrest and probable cause disputes happen regularly. It’s notable because the facts are unusually clean: a zero result on the one test the arrest was supposedly built around, charges that collapsed when the officer didn’t show up, and a person who, by all public accounts, simply exercised rights he was legally entitled to use.

Whether or not a federal complaint is ever filed, the case is a clear illustration of how Fourth Amendment protections, probable cause standards, and Section 1983 liability intersect with an ordinary traffic stop, and why early legal advice matters more than people think.

Frequently Asked Questions