Attorney Barrouk offers every client a free consultation to review your DUI, criminal, or family case to provide you with invaluable advice and information.
Attorney Timothy M. Barrouk has developed an excellent reputation in Central Pennsylvania for successfully representing clients in litigation areas including criminal law, DUI, and family law (i.e. divorce, custody, support and adoption). A strong trial court advocate who is not afraid to fight for his clients, Tim has tried twelve cases through to verdict in the past year alone and has set over three times as many for trial – only to have the opposing counsel settle with a favorable pre-trial resolution.
At home in the courtroom, Tim has earned a statewide reputation as one of the very state’s top cross-examiners of cooperating witnesses (snitches), complaining witnesses (alleged victims), and police officers (especially the State’s forensic DUI experts) and was named a 2010 Rising Star by SuperLawyers, a prestigious nationwide legal association.
Attorney Barrouk’s Philosophy
Attorney Barrouk has rapidly developed a reputation as an attorney who will “roll up his sleeves” and aggressively fight for your rights to the fullest extent of the law.
He believes that there is no such thing as an impossible case and has proven that with hard work and dedication, good results closely follow. His professional motto is “Amazing things happen when you declare ‘Ready for Trial, Your Honor’.”
Areas of Practice
Attorney Barrouk has represented countless clients on charges ranging from Summary Offenses to First Degree Murder. He has fought many cases for clients charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWI), including multi-kilogram cocaine distribution cases. He has additionally represented clients charged with Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Burglary, Simple Assault, Child Endangerment, Drug Possession, and Underage Drinking, and all categories of DUI.
A noted custody law authority, Tim also represents individuals in need of a skilled family law advocate. Tim specializes in all aspects of divorce and custody and uses all ethically available methods to ensure the best interests of the children are realized. He has received extensive training in asset recovery, investigation for equitable distribution, and finding hidden or non-declared assets.
Specialized DUI Training
Like all the attorneys at The McShane Firm, Attorney Barrouk continually attends rigorous, specialized DUI training to ensure the best possible DUI representation. Highly-trained in DUI blood and breath testing, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (roadside DUI tests), and forensic science, Tim has the skill to explain these complex issues to a jury in plain language, making him an unequaled trial advocate.
Some highlights of Attorney Barrouk’s specialized DUI training include:
Instructor Rating of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (roadside DUI tests) – a higher level of training than most Pennsylvania police officers.
Multiple plaques in recognition of attendance at the NCDD Summer Session held at Harvard School of Law in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Alco-Sensor FST Operator and Instructor certification – the same breathalyzer equipment used by police officers nationwide.
Attorney Barrouk is a graduate of Indiana University of Pennsylvania where he was a member of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity. After graduating from Indiana University of Pennsylvania he attended Widener University School of Law focusing his studies in trial advocacy.
He spends most of his evenings working to get his clients the best results possible. In his free time, he has served in leadership roles for local political organizations. He is an avid sports fan and enjoys golfing when time permits.
⋅ holds a current Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) rating as recognized by the USDOT;
⋅ instructor rating in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, Advanced Roadside Impairment Driving Enforcement, Drugs that Impair Driving and Drug Recognition Expert Courses based on the NHTSA curriculum.
⋅ been conferred plaques in recognition of attendance at the NCDD Summer Session held at Harvard School of Law in Cambridge, Massachusetts;
⋅ passed the proficiency based testing in Advanced Forensic Blood and Urine
Presenting a case study at a national DUI conference
Commonwealth v. Fredrick
Mr. Fredrick was observed by police straddling the center line of the highway and was pulled over. The officer stated that he could smell alcohol on the driver’s breath and that he had failed all of the field sobriety tests. He was taken to Nason Hospital for blood testing and the report showed a blood alcohol content of 0.226%.
The Commonwealth charged Fredrick with a DUI – highest rate of alcohol. After a bench trial, Fredrick was found guilty of the charges against him and was sentenced to 72 hours to 6 months incarceration, plus fines and court costs.
Attorney Tim Barrouk of The McShane Firm appealed Fredrick’s conviction to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The issue presented was that the sample that was tested was serum and not whole blood and thus by law required a valid conversion factor. The Commonwealth failed on its duty to present a conversion factor. Thus, the court found that “…the evidence was insufficient to establish every element of DUI- highest rate of alcohol.” Therefore, the court reversed the previous conviction.
The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Fredrick
Commonwealth v. Angles
The Defendant was accused of Driving Under the Influence. An Officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and observed the vehicle leave its lane of travel on several occasions. The Officer than performed a traffic stop and had the Defendant perform standard field sobriety tests. The Defendant was then taken Gettysburg Hospital for a blood test. The Gettysburg Hospital blood test stated that the Defendant’s Blood Alcohol Concentration was .231%.
At trial, a Jury convicted the Defendant of DUI with a blood alcohol content of above .16%. However, we were able to successfully appeal this verdict and the trial court awarded a new trial. Specifically, the Trial Court held that the weight of the evidence did not support the blood alcohol result.
The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Angles
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michaels
This case involved a Petition to Compel the Commonwealth to provide a duplicate copy of a computer hard drive for expert analysis in a child pornography case. Under Federal Law, a duplicate copy of the hard drive will only be provided to an expert to view in the government’s facility. This greatly restricts the expert’s ability to perform a comprehensive analysis of the hard drive because the expert is not able to bring his full reference library and all of his equipment. Additionally, it forces the expert to work with unfamiliar systems. The Court held that Federal Law did not supercede the Pennsylvania Discovery Rules and therefore issued a protective order for our expert to receive the mirror image hard drive and perform comprehensive analysis. This provides the Defendant with the opportunity to fully address the alleged evidence against him.
The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michaels
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis
Police received a dispatch from an individual at a movie theater who stated that they saw the Defendant fall over and that there was a bottle of wine under the seat. The caller then followed the Defendant to his vehicle and stated that he appeared intoxicated. The caller then provided the police with the Defendant’s license plate number and make and model of vehicle. Police identified the vehicle and began to follow it. While the police were following the vehicle, the vehicle was observed traveling below the speed limit and touched the yellow line. The Officer candidly testified that she did not witness a violation of the motor vehicle code or driving that would cause her to pull the vehicle over. I was successful in arguing that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant’s vehicle and therefore all evidence acquired after the stop was inadmissible. Specifically, the Caller identity was never disclosed and therefore his tip had to corroborated by the Officer following the vehicle. The Court held that the Officer did not have sufficient independent observations to corroborate the tip and that the stop was not valid.
The full order in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis