Our Client, Pablo, was stopped by the Illinois State Police for improper lane usage. He performed field sobriety tests and submitted to a preliminary breath test which resulted in a reading of .129. Pablo was ultimately arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. At the police station, Pablo submitted to a breathalyzer and his blood alcohol concentration was .103.
We filed a motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence. At the end of the hearing, we argued that the trooper did not present Pablo with a choice to take or refuse the portable breath test which was contrary to both Illinois statute and case law. Further, we argued that without the preliminary breath test, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Pablo.
The judge determined that the results of the preliminary breath test should be suppressed. Moreover, the judge agreed that without the preliminary breath test, the trooper lacked enough evidence to arrest Pablo. The judge granted the motion to quash and the State dismissed the DUI.
Our Client, Elizabeth was stopped for failing to signal when turning into an alley in Summit, Illinois. The officer arrested Elizabeth for driving under the influence of alcohol and for having open alcohol in her vehicle. Elizabeth refused to take a breathalyzer, and thus, her license was set to be suspended for one year.
We filed a Petition to Rescind her one year suspension and set the case for trial and hearing on the Petition to Rescind.
At trial, in stipulated the testimony, the officer indicated that Elizabeth admitted to drinking alcohol at a bar prior to being stopped. Further, the officer noted that she had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage emitting from her breath. He further noted that her balance was uncertain and she swayed. Specifically, he indicated that she held the side of her vehicle while walking to the back of her vehicle. He noted that she lost balance during the beginning of the walk and turn test and then indicated that she wanted to be placed under arrest.
We argued that the stipulated testimony was contrary to the video because Elizabeth never leaned on her vehicle while walking to the back of her vehicle. The judge agreed and found that the state could not meet their burden of proof and found Elizabeth not guilty of DUI. Further, the judge granted our Petition to Rescind Elizabeth’s suspension.
Our client, Tracy, was stopped for improper lane usage by a Cicero Police Officer. Due to poor weather conditions, Tracy was handcuffed, detained, and brought back to the Cicero Police Department where she was given field sobriety tests.
We filed a motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence.
During the hearing, the officer admitted to handcuffing Tracy before she placed her into the squad car and brought her back to the police station. The officer further testified that Tracy was not placed under arrest until after Tracy failed the field sobriety tests which were given at the Cicero Police Station.
We argued that Tracy was arrested prior to failing the field sobriety tests. She was arrested when she was placed in handcuffs, and at that time, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Tracy for driving under the influence of alcohol.
The court agreed and granted our motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence. Tracy’s DUI was dismissed.
Chad was involved in a minor vehicle collision where he rear-ended another vehicle at a stop light.
He was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of drugs. He refused to submit to chemical testing, and thus, his license was set to be suspended for one year.
We filed a petition to rescind Chad’s suspension.
At trial, the officer testified that Chad’s speech was slow and his pupils where dilated. The officer testified that Chad admitted to taking a prescribed medication and had the pill bottle in his car. The officer testified that Chad was acting very slow and tired. The officer further testified that Chad failed field sobriety tests.
The officer was asked to state his opinion regarding whether Chad was under the influence of Drugs. We objected to that question citing the officer’s lack of training in determining whether a person was under the influence of alprazolam. The judge sustained the objection and did not allow the officer to testify whether he believed Chad was under the influence of drugs.
Accordingly, Chad’s driving privileges were restored and he was found not guilty.
Our client Michael was pulled over by an Evergreen Park Police Officer for an obstructed license plate. Michael was arrested and charged with driving on a revoked license, no proof of insurance, and an obstructed license plate.
We filed a Motion to Quash the Arrest arguing that the officer did not have the right to stop Michael.
During the hearing, the officer testified that Michael was stopped for an obstructed license plate but was not speeding nor was he having any issues staying within his lane. The officer explained that the numbers on the temporary plate were wearing off making the first couple numbers illegible. The officer further testified that he believed he had to walk right up to Michael’s car in order to read the plate number to call it in.
A body camera recording was played that showed the officer call the plate number in while he was still in his squad car before he walked up to Michael’s car. Therefore, the officer was able to read Michael’s plate number from inside his squad car.
During closing argument, we argued that the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Michael because he was able to clearly read the plate number from within the squad car, and therefore, the plate was free from obstruction.
The court agreed and granted the Motion to Quash the Arrest and all charges were dismissed.
Steve was arrested by the Alsip Police Department and was charged with a Battery to a Police Officer. The case went to trial where four witnesses, including Steve, testified.
The State first called the Officer who testified that he saw Steve and his daughter arguing outside of a bar in Alsip. The officer testified that when he went up to Steve to separate him and his daughter, Steve turned around and pushed him in the chest with two hands.
Following cross examination of the officer, we called two witnesses who both testified that Steve was grabbed from behind by the officer and Steve, who had not yet turned around, reacted by shrugging the Officer off of him. Lastly, Steve testified corroborating the other two witnesses.
At the end of the trial, we argued that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a “knowing” battery to the Police Officer.
The Court agreed, and found Steve not guilty of Battery.
Dan was convicted of multiple DUI’s more than fifteen years ago while using an attorney other than us. When Dan was convicted, his license was revoked. Over the past fifteen years, Dan was arrested several times for driving on a revoked license.
Dan hired us to conduct a formal hearing before the Secretary of state to regain his driving privileges. After Dan’s first hearing, the Secretary of State granted Dan a Restricted Driver’s Permit. The Secretary of State found that we met the heavy burden of clear and convincing evidence that he would be a safe and responsible driver.
Our client, Paul, was stopped in Midlothian because he was drifting between lanes and almost collided with a police car.
Paul was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
At trial, the officer testified that Paul had a strong odor of alcohol emitting from his breath. The officer further testified that Paul had mumbled and slurred speech as well as glassy and bloodshot eyes. The officer explained that Paul stumbled while walking to the rear of his vehicle. The officer testified that in his opinion, Paul was under the influence of alcohol.
After extensive cross-examination and without calling our client, we argued that the State failed to prove that Paul was driving under the influence of alcohol.
Paul was found not guilty of DUI.
Our client, Steven, was involved in a car accident. Steven was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
At trial, the State introduced a video into evidence where Steven can be heard speaking from inside a squad car after he was arrested. The complaining witness then testified by way of stipulation that Steven sideswiped her vehicle. She further testified by way of stipulation that she believed Steven was under the influence of alcohol. The arresting officer testified that Steven had bloodshot/glassy eyes and slurred/mumbled speech. The officer further testified that Steven appeared confused and repeatedly asked what was going on and why he was there. The officer testified that she believed that Steven was under the influence of alcohol.
At the end of the trial, we argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven was driving under the influence of alcohol. We argued that it was clear from the video that Steven’s voice was not slurred or mumbled.
The court granted the Petition to Rescind the Statutory Summary Suspension and found Steven not guilty of DUI.
Our Client, Tom, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with no proof of insurance, and disobeying a traffic control signal.
Police reports reflect that Tom was sleeping at the wheel and was stopped for two light cycles at the intersection of Higgins Road and Arlington Heights Road.
At trial, the officer testified that he smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage on Tom’s breath. The officer further testified that he had slurred speech and bloodshot, glassy eyes. The officer stated that Tom had difficulty following directions. The officer testified that based upon all these observations it was his opinion that Tom was under the influence of alcohol.
At the end of the trial, we argued that Tom had no balance issues, and that any difficulty following directions was a language barrier rather than any indicia of impairment. We further argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tom was under the influence of alcohol.
Tom was found not guilty of the DUI as well as the remaining traffic offenses.
Tom later referred to the trial as a “masterpiece.”