FREE ILLINOIS DUI CASE EVALUATION

Tactics in Illinois DUI Cases

So exactly what can I do for you when I say that there are quite a few defense tactics?

Let me show you what I mean through actual examples.

Handling Two Cases at a Time
I had a client (let's call him Joe) who had been arrested for DUI on 7/17/01 AND on 8/7/01, approximately three weeks apart, by two different police departments. Joe's BAC on the first arrest was .141 and .224 on the second arrest. Joe was also facing a three month suspension on his first case and a one year suspension on his second case. I filed a Petition to Rescind Summary Suspension and went to hearing on the one year suspension on 10/16/01. Prior to the hearing I reviewed the officer's report with Joe, which contained a detailed description of the field sobriety tests given. Joe was adamant that no field sobriety tests were given. Rather, he told me that two police officers found him sleeping in his car with the motor running and immediately arrested him. I decided to conduct my own investigation and photographed the scene. At the hearing, only one police officer (officer 1) testified on behalf of the State. He claimed that the walk and turn test was performed on a marked yellow line on the street. I then confronted him with a photograph of the scene that did not show a yellow line anywhere in the area. Needless to say, we won the hearing based on officer 1's shaky testimony and on the fact that the State's Attorney asked the officer about the arrest happening on the wrong date. I then filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence based on no probable cause, which was ultimately heard on 1/31/02. In the meantime, I reminded Joe that he could not drive because the first suspension (three months) was still in effect. Joe nonetheless continued driving, against my advice, and subsequently picked up FOUR Driving While Suspended charges. He was now facing MANDATORY jail sentences of a combined 250 days, with the last three offenses being Class 4 felonies, upon conviction. Worse yet, Joe was arrested as part of an undercover sting operation right outside one of the courthouses. This operation received front page coverage in the Chicago Sun Times. I rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and managed to convince four separate prosecutors to dismiss ALL of Joe's Driving While Suspended charges. I then prepared for the Motion to Quash hearing by subpoenaeing BOTH officers (Officer 1 and Officer 2) to court. Prosecutors are hesitant to have more than one officer testify for fear of defense attorney's impeaching their testimony through inconsistent statements. And that's EXACTLY what I did! I had previously ordered a transcript of the suspension hearing, and at the Motion to Quash hearing then asked the following questions of both officers: What side of the street were the field sobriety tests performed on? What line was used for the walk and turn test? Who administered the field sobriety tests? Whose decision was it to place Joe under arrest? Not surprisingly, Officers 1 and 2 gave inconsistent answers. Officer 1 even attempted to change his testimony from what he testified to at the suspension hearing. When I confronted him with the certified transcript of his suspension hearing testimony, he stuttered and stammered about how he may have been confused. The judge, however, denied my motion. I was upset and was not going to be denied, so I filed a Motion to Reconsider her ruling. The matter was set for hearing on 3/26/02. Just before the Motion to Reconsider hearing, the prosecutor pulled me aside and asked if I would mind if the State DISMISSED the DUI. Of course I didn't mind! When the case was called, the prosecutor informed the judge that he would be dismissing all charges. The judge rather jokingly asked if she could review the motion to see exactly where she had erred and the prosecutor replied "based on a review of the transcripts of earlier proceedings, the State would not be able to meet it's burden at trial based on credibility problems with our witnesses testimony." Joe then received supervision on his first case, paid his license reinstatement fee from the Summary Suspension, and was able to drive on a valid license. All told, he paid $500 in fines, did his alcohol classes, and served NO JAIL TIME while retaining his driving privileges. Let me give you another example.
Hit & Run Victim Arrested for DUI
This one involves a client I'll call Pete. Pete was the victim of a hit and run accident on 10/31/01. His car was a total wreck after the accident. Pete walked into a nearby liquor store to make a phone call home to his wife after the accident. A police officer then walked in to the liquor store. While on the pay phone with his wife, Pete asked the officer for help. The officer refused to help and Pete became upset. An argument ensued which resulted in Pete being arrested for DUI! Pete came to my office upset and seeking help. He claimed the officer never offered field sobriety tests or a breath test. In court, the prosecutor gave me a copy of the officer's report which indicated that Pete had failed both field sobriety tests given and refused to submit to a breath test! Pete was now facing a six month suspension along with the DUI charge. I filed a Petition to Rescind Summary Suspension and the matter was set for hearing on 1/10/02. Prior to the hearing, I subpoenaed my clients home telephone records and the tow report. I also subpoenaed records from the pay phone company that indicated a phone call was placed from INSIDE the store to Pete's home on 10/31/01 from 12:19 a.m. to 12:35 a.m.. At the hearing, the officer testified that my client committed a traffic violation at 12:25 a.m., which lead to a traffic stop and his ultimate arrest for DUI. The officer claimed to have not seen any accident. I then called my client's wife as a witness to testify that she was on the phone with Pete from 12:19 to 12:35 a.m.. The court would not allow her to testify that the phone call took place and ultimately denied our petition. Undeterred, I filed a Motion to Reconsider. When I appeared in front of the same judge on the motion, he essentially agreed that he had made certain mistakes at the hearing and granted me a new hearing. He also removed himself from the case. On the next hearing date, I showed the prosecutor the telephone records and the tow report indicating that Pete's car was a complete wreck. I reasoned with him that Pete could not possibly have committed the traffic offense the officer claimed at 12:25 a.m. because he was making a phone call INSIDE the liquor store at that time. I also told him Pete's version of the events. After the prosecutor conferred with the officer, the suspension was lifted and the case dismissed. The same judge that was initially on Pete's case was also on another of my client's (I'll call him Dave) case.
Another Explanation
Dave rear ended another vehicle. The officer happened to be standing nearby. He smelled alcohol on Dave's breath, noticed his slurred speech and wrinkled clothes, administered four field sobriety tests, and then arrested Dave for DUI. This was Dave's THIRD offense. He worked as a truck driver and would definitely lose his license and job. At trial, the officer testified that my client failed four field sobriety tests and that in his opinion Dave was intoxicated. On cross examination of the officer, I established the following: The officer had not encountered Dave before and therefore did not know his normal speech pattern. Dave's clothing was consistent with a person who had just gotten off work and that the officer could not tell me whether their wrinkled condition was due to intoxication or work. That the odor the officer smelled could not tell him if Dave was intoxicated. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test the officer administered to my client told him nothing about whether or not Dave was intoxicated. That the officer had no recollection of the results of the finger-to-nose test. That the officer did not administer the One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn tests according to protocol. Dave then testified that he had a speech impediment since he was a child, had worked all day before the accident, was very nervous during the tests, and that one of his legs was shorter than the other due to a childhood injury. In his ruling, the judge stated: "Mr. Sotiropoulos, I am not convinced that your client's physical disability impaired his ability to perform the tests. However, that is not the question before me. The question is whether or not the State has met its' burden. The answer is no. Do I believe the defendant may have been intoxicated? Yes. Do I believe the State proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close." The judge entered a finding of not guilty on the DUI charge. The prosecutor was so focused on the DUI charge that he forgot to elicit testimony from the officer regarding the three accompanying traffic offenses (following too closely, negligent driving, and failure to keep in lane). Those charges were dismissed after I made a motion at the close of the State's evidence. The end result was that Dave received supervision on a driving without insurance charge and paid a $55 fine.
Insufficient Evidence
A few months earlier, in the same courthouse, another of my clients (I'll call him Greg) was facing DUI charges after being found asleep in his car with the motor running while it was parked in the drive-thru of a White Castle restaurant. Greg wanted to plead guilty and get it over with. I pleaded with him to let me try the case. After much debate, Greg finally agreed. At trial, the State's case was dismissed after it presented it's evidence after I made a motion for a directed finding, without us having to put on any evidence of our own. The judge agreed with me that the State had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Getting a Good Plea Bargain
The last case I'll share with you is that of a client of mine (I'll call him Tim) facing DUI and open alcohol charges. Tim's car was observed weaving in and out of traffic. After the officer stopped him, Tim performed four field sobriety tests. The officer claimed Tim failed all four tests miserably. The officer also found open alcohol in Tim's car and charged him with improper lane usage as well. Tim originally had a public defender assigned to the case, but came to me after being referred by a former client of mine for whom I had obtained not guilty trial verdicts on 2nd offense DUI and companion marijuana charges. At our first meeting Tim asked "What can you do for me that a public defender can't?" I replied that all I could do was my best. On the day of trial, I was able to convince the prosecutor to entirely dismiss the DUI and alcohol charges if Tim would plead guilty to a charge of reckless driving, upgraded from improper lane usage. Since the reckless driving plea came from an upgrade of a simple traffic offense (improper lane usage) as opposed to a reduction from a DUI charge, Tim would still be regarded as a first offender if he ever is arrested for DUI again (and thus eligible for supervision). After I explained everything to him, Tim said "Now I know why I paid what I did for you. Now I can see what you can do for me that a public defender can't."

Could the same be true for you? I don't know now, but if you call for your free consultation, I will explore all these types of possibilities with you.

The lesson to be learned from this example is that a case--your case--may be able to be defended by one or more challenges to the charges you are facing.

That's what I do for my clients.

Defense Representation for: Chicago Illinois dui, Bridgeview Illinois dui, St. Charles Illinois dui, Oakbrook Illinois dui, Schaumburg Illinois dui, Joliet Il dui, Du Page County, Illinois dui, Will County Illinois dui