What began as a traffic stop the day after her wedding became an ordeal that Brianna Longoria says affected her health, education, career and newlywed life. Now, Sud & Pierce founding partners John H. Sud and Benjamin D. Pierce are representing Longoria in a lawsuit challenging her arrest and what the lawsuit alleges is a broader, unofficial DUI quota within the Phoenix Police Department.
The case has attracted local and national media attention after body-camera footage and testing records raised serious questions about why Longoria was arrested for DUI despite a breathalyzer reading of 0.000 and subsequent blood testing that found no alcohol or drugs in her system.
A Wedding Weekend Turns Into a DUI Arrest
Longoria, an aspiring nurse from California, traveled to Arizona in December 2024 to marry her fiancé so that her ailing father could attend the wedding.
On December 29, 2024—the day after her wedding—Longoria was driving through downtown Phoenix with her new husband when Phoenix Police Officer Mary Metheny pulled her over.
According to the lawsuit, Metheny initially claimed that Longoria had run a red light. Body-camera footage reportedly contradicted that allegation, showing that the traffic signal was green when Longoria proceeded through the intersection. Metheny later sought to void the red-light citation after reviewing the footage.
What began as a traffic stop nevertheless developed into a DUI investigation.
Longoria underwent field sobriety testing and a preliminary breath test. The breathalyzer registered 0.000.
On body-camera footage, Metheny can be heard acknowledging the result: “Triple zeroes like I thought.”
Despite the absence of alcohol, Metheny suspected that Longoria could be impaired by marijuana or another substance and placed her under arrest for DUI.
Longoria was handcuffed, transported to the precinct and booked.
Additional Testing Found No Alcohol or Drugs
At the precinct, Officer Anette Hannah performed additional testing. Body-camera footage cited in the lawsuit captured Hannah describing Longoria’s results as “super in the norms.”
Longoria also submitted to blood testing.
In January 2025, those results came back negative for alcohol and drugs, including marijuana.
Nevertheless, Longoria had already been arrested, booked and subjected to the consequences of a DUI case.
The criminal charge was dismissed in April 2025. Longoria’s driving privileges were ultimately reinstated in July 2025 after an administrative law judge dismissed the suspension for lack of reasonable grounds for the arrest.
For Longoria, however, dismissal of the charge did not erase what had happened.
Body-Camera Footage Raises Questions About a DUI “Quota”
The circumstances surrounding Longoria’s arrest became even more troubling when body-camera footage revealed a conversation between Officers Hannah and Metheny about DUI arrests.
During the conversation, Hannah expressed concern that she could be removed from her squad if she did not make a DUI arrest.
“They’re gonna kick me off squad if I don’t get a DUI,” Hannah can be heard saying.
Metheny reassured her that there were nights when she did not make any DUI arrests.
Hannah then responded that she could not “just conjure one up.”
Metheny replied: “You can. You can.”
Longoria’s lawsuit contends that the exchange is evidence of a de facto DUI quota—an unwritten expectation that officers assigned to DUI enforcement must generate arrests or potentially face employment consequences.
The Phoenix Police Department has denied having DUI quotas. The department has stated that DUI enforcement assignments are based on operational needs and that officers are expected to make enforcement decisions based upon observed driving behavior, indicators of impairment and the totality of the circumstances.
The lawsuit raises the question of whether a different expectation existed in practice.
How Sud & Pierce Is Helping Longoria Fight Back
Sud & Pierce founding partners John H. Sud and Benjamin D. Pierce are representing Longoria in her claims against the City of Phoenix and the officers involved.
Their work has focused on examining the evidence surrounding Longoria’s traffic stop, arrest and prosecution, including police reports, body-camera recordings, breath testing, subsequent blood testing and records concerning the original basis for the traffic stop.
That evidence revealed a series of issues that became central to Longoria’s claims:
- The officer initially claimed Longoria ran a red light, while body-camera footage reportedly showed that the light was green.
- Longoria’s breathalyzer registered 0.000.
- Additional testing at the precinct produced results an officer described as within normal ranges.
- Longoria’s subsequent blood test was negative for alcohol and drugs.
- The officers’ own body cameras captured a conversation concerning the perceived need to obtain DUI arrests.
- The red-light citation that initially led to the stop was later voided after the officer reviewed the body-camera footage.
Speaking with ABC15 about the case, Sud explained that the goal extends beyond addressing what happened to one client.
“We’re trying to correct the policy that is going on here, which is an apparent de facto DUI quota by the officers, because we don’t want this to happen to anyone else,” Sud said.
Sud also told PEOPLE that the evidence appeared to support the firm’s concerns about a quota and that Longoria was, in his view, a victim of that alleged practice.
The lawsuit seeks accountability for what Longoria alleges was a wrongful arrest and prosecution, relief from the continuing effects of the arrest on her record, and changes intended to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The Consequences Didn’t End When the DUI Was Dismissed
Longoria’s experience demonstrates how the consequences of an arrest can continue even after the underlying criminal charge is dismissed.
According to the lawsuit and published reports, Longoria was undergoing treatment for cervical cancer at the time. The loss of her driving privileges delayed treatment because of transportation difficulties.
The arrest also disrupted her education and plans to become a nurse. The lawsuit alleges that the DUI arrest created potentially serious consequences for her intended healthcare career.
Longoria and her husband also incurred legal and transportation expenses, and the couple was unable to take their planned honeymoon.
Although prosecutors eventually dismissed the DUI charge, Longoria has expressed concern that the arrest itself remains on her record and could require explanation during future background checks.
For someone who blew 0.000 on a breathalyzer and whose blood subsequently tested negative for both alcohol and drugs, those consequences are precisely why Longoria and her attorneys contend that dismissal of the criminal charge alone is not enough.
The Case Draws Local and National Media Attention
Longoria’s case and the allegations concerning Phoenix Police DUI enforcement have attracted significant media attention in Arizona and across the country.
ABC15 Arizona investigated the arrest, body-camera footage and allegations of a de facto DUI quota. Read the ABC15 investigation.
12News Phoenix reported on the allegations and the scrutiny facing the Phoenix Police Department following Longoria’s arrest. Read the 12News coverage.
PEOPLE brought Longoria’s story to a national audience, detailing the negative breathalyzer and blood tests, the alleged DUI quota and the effects Longoria says the arrest has had on her life. Read the PEOPLE coverage.
FOX26/KMPH in California also reported on Longoria’s arrest, the subsequent negative testing and the allegations raised in the lawsuit. Read the FOX26/KMPH coverage.
Sud & Pierce founding partners John H. Sud and Benjamin D. Pierce also appeared on Outspoken with Bruce & Gaydos to discuss Longoria’s case, the “triple zeros” breathalyzer result and the lawsuit. Listen to John Sud and Benjamin Pierce discuss the case on Outspoken with Bruce & Gaydos.
The breadth of the coverage reflects an issue that potentially extends beyond a single DUI prosecution: what happens when incentives within law enforcement may conflict with an officer’s obligation to evaluate each driver and each case based solely on the evidence?
Seeking Accountability and Change
Police officers perform an essential and often difficult public service. The substantial authority entrusted to law enforcement also carries substantial responsibility.
An arrest can affect a person’s freedom, reputation, employment, professional licensing, finances and family. When an arrest is allegedly unsupported by the evidence—or when government policies or practices potentially create pressure to make arrests without sufficient justification—the consequences can extend long after the criminal case itself ends.
Sud & Pierce is pursuing Longoria’s case to seek relief for the harm she alleges she suffered and to challenge the alleged practices that she says contributed to her arrest.
The lawsuit remains pending. The allegations against the City of Phoenix and the individual officers have not been finally adjudicated, and the Phoenix Police Department denies that it maintains a DUI quota.
Sud & Pierce, PLLC is a boutique law firm with offices in Phoenix, Arizona and Bellaire, Texas, representing clients in complex litigation. If you believe your rights have been violated by a government agency or other institution, contact Sud & Pierce to discuss your legal options.