People of Illinois v. C. B.
Our client was pulled over by a state trooper on Interstate 290 traveling westbound through a construction zone at 72 mph. The officer had testified prior to stopping our client that he had calibrated his speedometer as well as his GPS device to determine that our client was in fact speeding. The officer stopped our client, and after speaking with him and obtaining his driver's license and insurance card, he ordered him out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.
The officer testified that during the performance of the field sobriety tests, our client failed the One Leg Stand Test, and the Walk and Turn Test. This case was heard in DuPage County, Illinois.
Upon cross-examination we had our chance to ask the officer questions. We asked the officer if after our client put his foot down at the 19th second, whether or not he allowed our client counting until 30 seconds? The officer states "no", and terminated the test at that point. We leveraged this as best we could based on the fact that the NHTSA manual indicated that when a client puts their foot down before 30 seconds, he should be given the opportunity to raise the foot up again and continue counting. Also, we were able to show that the officer's testimony about our client's performance on the Walk and Turn Test, was not as damning as the state would have liked it to be to our client.
The bottom line, our client received a not guilty on the DUI. This means that his DUI will be expungeable and he was very satisfied with the results.
People v. K. L. - Rolling Meadows November, 2011
On 4-11-11 in South Barrington, at 4:30 in the morning, it is very dark and the streets are not lit at all. Our client had missed a turn and the officer who arrived on the scene saw her blue BMW in the ditch because she had driven it there after missing the turn. When the officer asked our client, "Who was driving the vehicle?" he noticed that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, according to him. She had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath.
When asked about the crash, the officer said that our client told him that she did not remember the crash. The officer said that he could smell alcohol on her breath. He asked if she was drinking, and she supposedly replied that she was at America's Bar but only had 2 drinks. The officer then asked our client which way she took to get to the point where she was at now. She said that she couldn't remember anything after making a turn onto the street.
The officer set up a video camera and recorded her performance on 3 standard field sobriety tests. On the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the officer flunked her in both eyes indicating that she had recently consumed alcohol. On the Walk and Turn Test our client, while on video tape, could not perform the test at all. It took her 2 tries to stand in the starting position and was never able to get into the correct starting position. She started to perform the test before the officer told her to begin and simply walked away from the officer and would not come back to where the officer was. The officer flunked her on this performance test also. In the performance of the One Leg Stand Test, it appeared on the video, that she started the test before she was told to begin and she could not perform the test at all. She could not keep her balance, she put her foot down at least three times and used her arms to balance the entire time. The officer placed her under arrest and gave her 2 tickets for failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident and driving under the influence of alcohol.
A very lengthy and aggressive cross examination of the arresting officer led the judge to find our client "not guilty" of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol as well as "not guilty" of failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident. Our client was discharged from court and we are in the process of expunging her arrest record.
People v. M.P. Rolling Meadows November, 2010
Our client was stopped by the State Police for driving 83 mph in a 55 mph zone. Upon stopping our client, he told the officer he did not know how fast he was going, and had an odor of alcohol on his breath and admitted to drinking alcohol. When the trooper came back to the car after running a license check, our client had used mouthwash to cover up the alcohol odor, and when asked why he used the mouthwash, he told the trooper it was because he had bad breath. Our client failed all field sobriety tests. Once again, our aggressive cross examination of the trooper resulted in our client found "not guilty" of DUI. No conviction, no fines no court costs, no alcohol classes.
People v. D.R. DeKalb December, 2010
Our client was driving his car when he almost struck a police officer who was out of his car removing debris from the road. The officer had one of his hazard lights activated. When our client nearly struck him, the officer followed our client and video taped other driving including drifting over lane lines and failing to stop at designated stop lines. When stopped, our client had slurred speech, a staggered gait and swayed while balancing. He apologized for his driving, failed all his field sobriety tests, admitted to smoking cannabis and also said the one-hitter pipe in his car belonged to him. A thorough, lengthy and aggressive cross examination resulted in our client being found "not guilty" of DUI and receiving supervision on the charge of drug paraphernalia (no conviction). Our client's driver's license was not revoked, no alcohol classes and no fines and court costs were assessed.
People v. A.B. Maywood/Maybrook January, 2011
Our client was stopped for drifting both to the right and left of her lane of travel, and crossing the double yellow line marking as she drove her car. When she was stopped, the officer noted a strong smell of alcohol on her breath, slurred speech as she spoke, glassy and red eyes, frequent eye blinking and an admission that she drank 2 martinis shortly before she was stopped. The officer also found a glass bottle of Pinot Grigio on the passenger floor board, which had the seal broken and the bottle less than l/4 full. Our client failed all field sobriety tests administered. Our cross examination was so outstanding and aggressive that out client, not only was found "not guilty" of the DUI, the judge also dismissed the rescission of her driver's license which had called for her driving suspension for one year. No conviction, no fines, no court costs, no alcohol classes, and no suspension of driving privileges.
People v. C.M. Waukegan June, 2011
This was our client's 3 rd DUI arrest. He had 2 prior DUI convictions from another state. Our client was stopped on the side of the road with his hazard lights flashing when the officer pulled up to check on his safety and asked if our client was "all right." Our client's head was resting on his chest and he was passed out behind the wheel of his car with his engine running. Our client looked up at the officer and slurred his answer, then put his car in gear and drove off. He did not stop until he was in his driveway. Our client had difficulty exiting his car and was swaying while standing. He failed all field sobriety tests given and refused the breath test. Everything was captured on video. At trial, our cross examination was aggressive and relentless. Our client was found "not guilty" of his 3 rd DUI offense, paid no fines, no alcohol classes. Most importantly, his driving privileges were not revoked, which would have cost him his job and resulted in his inability to support his family and sent him to jail.
People v. D.S. Rolling Meadows April, 2011
This was our client's 2 nd DUI in five years, which meant not only a revocation of his driving privileges for at least 1 year, but also a 3 year suspension because he refused to take a breath exam. At about 4:40 A.M., our client was stopped for speeding, 52 mph in a 30 mph zone and for driving his car across the double yellow median lines. When he was stopped by the officer, he had slurred speech, red and bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath, an admission that he drank alcohol, that he was speeding, and that he had no idea where he was. He failed a field sobriety test. Our skillful cross examination resulted in our client being found "not guilty" of the DUI and the judge finding in our favor that there would be no suspension of his driver's license yet alone 3 years. No conviction, no alcohol classes, no fines, no court costs and no 3 year sentence
People v. P.L. Skokie May, 2011
Our client possessed a professional license which would have been impaired had he been convicted, or even if he had pled guilty. Our client was stopped for doing 56 mph in a 30 mph zone, which was under construction in both directions. The officer stopped our client and video taped his driving and performance on the field sobriety tests. The officer noted an alcohol odor from his breath, that he had glassy eyes, that he was confused, and that the video tape showed his inability to do the field tests. At trial, an exhaustive and thorough cross examination resulted in a "not guilty" on the DUI. No conviction, no alcohol classes, no fines and no court costs.
People v. K.G. Skokie June, 2011
The arrest was our client's 2 nd DUI charge. The allegations against him included driving over 80 mph on I-90, in a 55 mph zone, failing to pull over and stop his car despite the officer following him with lights and siren on for over 1 ½ miles, having a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, red and glassy eyes and slurred speech, admitting to drinking and a having a portable breath test reading of .13. He failed all of his field sobriety tests and 3 open bottles of beer were found in his back seat . Our aggressive cross examination of the officer resulted in our client being found "not guilty" of DUI, "not guilty" of the open alcohol charge and receiving supervision for the speeding ticket. Our client was happily amazed at the result which prevented him from having his driver's license revoked for at least 1 year. No alcohol classes and no fines.
People v. L.B. Waukegan June, 2011
This was our client's 3 rd DUI arrest for DUI. A civilian was driving behind our client's car and telephoned the police to report very erratic driving. The officer found our client's car, got behind it and turned on his video recorder to capture the driving he saw. Our client's car veered into the middle of a two lane road and then veered left even more so that her car was now driving on the wrong side of the road. There was another car coming in the proper lane of traffic and a head-on collision almost occurred. Her car was pulled over and the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from her, slurred speech, admission to drinking alcohol, failure of all field sobriety tests. Our client blew a .098 in the portable breath machine. Back at the police station, she provided insufficient breath samples on 3 attempts to blow in the machine. We conducted a lengthy and aggressive cross examination which resulted in our client being found "not guilty" of the DUI, and "not guilty" of driving on the wrong side of the road. No conviction on the DUI for the 3 rd time, no alcohol classes, no fines and no jail .
DUI DuPage County, 18th Judicial Circuit, Wheaton, Illinois
People v. J.Z.
Our client was an over-the-road truck driver and was charged with the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol after a Willowbrook police officer indicated that our client was stopped on the roadway and he observed the subject to have glassy, red, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. He failed all field sobriety tests and admitted to drinking. Because he was an over-the-road trucker, his ability to earn a living would have been impaired, had he plead guilty to this charge, even though it was his first DUI and the state was offering supervision. We proceeded to a contested trial and very aggressively cross-examined the arresting officer. The video tape of the entire incident was admitted into evidence by the prosecution in an effort to secure a conviction against our client. As a result of the trial, the court found our client not guilty of all charges and he was discharged. There was no conviction entered against him, nor did he have to plead guilty for court supervision. His ability to drive as an over-the-road trucker was not impaired in any way.
People v. A.N.
Our client was stopped by a Lombard police officer allegedly for traveling at a high rate of speed. When stopped, the officer found out that our client’s driver’s license was expired and that his insurance was also expired. In speaking to the police officer, our client told him he was coming from a baseball game and that he had been drinking on his way to and at the game. When asked to exit the van, according to the police officer, our client walked into the middle of the street, stopped and swayed. Our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, red, bloodshot, glassy eyes and failed all field sobriety tests given, according to the officer, who also stated our client could not recite the alphabet and could not count backwards from 67 to 43. According to the officer, our client told him that he only had 4 beers on the bus on the way home from the game and normally does not drive drunk. He asked the officer if he could park his car and walk home. He was told no and was placed under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. Our client refused to take the breath test, and the state argued that this was a consciousness of his guilt by refusing to take that test. The state offered our client supervision, and we turned down that offer and proceeded to trial. At a trial, due to the very cross-examination of the arresting officer, our client was found not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, did not have to complete any alcohol classes, nor did he have to obtain an evaluation. He was found not guilty on that charge.
People v. M.S.
Our client was arrested by the Highland Park Police Department for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because it was our client’s fourth DUI arrest, he was not eligible for a period of court supervision and the prosecutor’s office sought a period of incarceration. According to the Highland Park police officers, our client was weaving from side to side as the officer followed behind his vehicle, weaving over and straddling the dashed centerlines, speeding and continuing to weave side to side prior to the officer stopping him. When the officer activated his overhead lights, according to the officer, the vehicle kept driving for about one-half of a block before coming to a stop while blocking a left turn lane at an intersection. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noted the subject had extremely red, bloodshot, glassy eyes, and an inability to balance when exiting the car. The officer’s indicated that our client had to place his right hand on top of the vehicle in order to maintain his balance, and was swaying back and forth while standing. His speech was so slurred that at times he was not understandable. The officer said our client indicated that he was “buzzed” and could not even count from one to four. According to the officer, our client failed all of the field sobriety tests, which according to the officer, was all verified by a video tape of the occurrence. Because the prosecutor’s position was as stated above, we proceeded to a contested trial in this matter, and as a result of this trial, our client was found not guilty of the charges of driving under the influence of alcohol, in spite of the fact that the officer indicated he had a video and this tape was admitted into evidence by the prosecutor in an effort to convict our client. Our client never had to obtain an alcohol evaluation, do any classes or jail time, nor did he have his license revoked as a result of these charges. He was discharged from all offenses and found not guilty.
People v. T.D.
Our client was pulled over by a Lake in the Hills Police Officer for not having a proper light affixed to his rear license plate. The officer noted that there was a strong odor of alcohol coming from our client’s breath and vehicle. The officer also testified that our client failed all field sobriety tests and our client was charged with DUI.
At a hearing, we were able to extract from the officer that he was trained using the standards promulgated by the National Highway and Safety Administration DUI Enforcement Manual. Using this manual, we were able to force the officer to admit that all of the field sobriety tests that our client performed for the officer were invalid based on the manner in which our client was tested. The judge ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest our client for DUI and the DUI charges was dismissed by the prosecutor. The statutory summary suspension was also dismissed in this case.
We Win Cases Other Lawyers Send Their Clients To Jail On
Free case evaluation: Don't let anyone pressure you into pleading guilty. Contact a criminal defense lawyer at the law offices of Michael T. Norris and John W. Callahan today.