DUI Cook County
People v. L.N.
We proceeded to trial for our client who was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, improper lane usage and failing to use their turn signal. Our client was seen by a police officer exiting a bar, and the officer that our client drove in the wrong lane of traffic, traveling eastbound in the westbound lanes. The officer indicated that other vehicles had to take evasive action when this was occurring, and that when he got behind our client's car, he observed that the vehicle did not use a turn signal while turning south on one street and east on another. Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer noted a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, bloodshot, watery, glassy eyes and an admission that our client drank four alcoholic beverages at the bar. The stop occurred at 3:59 a.m., and obviously the officer did not believe our client's statement that she only had four drinks, especially after she admitted she was at that bar since 7:30 p.m. Our client was administered four field sobriety tests, according to the police officer, which she failed. The officer noted mood swings in our client, in that she was alternately crying and composed during the entire procedure. All of the officer's observations were captured on a video tape. Nevertheless, we proceeded with an aggressive defense of our client, which consisted of an extremely lengthy and thorough cross-examination of the officer. At the close of the case, the judge found our client not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and not guilty of the charge of driving the wrong way into oncoming traffic. He found her guilty of failing to use her turn signal and fined her $100.00.
People v. M.P.
Our client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, having no insurance and improper lane usage for hitting a parked car while under the influence of alcohol. The officer responded to the scene of an accident. The response to the accident wasn't very great, since our client was driving immediately behind the officer at the time he ran into the parked car. The officer simply made a U-turn and came to the resting place of the accident. Upon meeting our client, the officer noticed that he was confused, disoriented, had glassy bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. He had great difficulty locating his license, and the officer had to eventually find it for him. Upon exiting his vehicle, our client was extremely unstable and almost fell over to one side. He staggered when he walked in order to perform the field sobriety test, and according to the officer, failed each and every test that was administered to him, including the one-leg stand test, the walk and turn test and horizontal gaze nystagmus test. At the police station, our client admitted that he had been drinking and that he was drinking while taking prescription medication, which included Paroxetene, Lamictal and Concerta. The prohibitions for the first two medications included the fact that he should not take any alcohol with those drugs. As a result, the officer arrested our client for driving under the influence of alcohol and other minor traffic violations, and also took steps to tissue a suspension of his driving privileges for six months. Upon our aggressive representation of him, we successfully contested the suspension of his driving privileges and were successful in convincing the judge to order the state to reinstate his driving privileges and to rescind the statutory summary suspension. In addition, we obtained the dismissal of the charges against our client for driving under the influence of alcohol and for not having any insurance. Because our client ran into a parked car, he plead guilty to improper lane usage and that was all. Despite facts indicating to the contrary, our aggressive defense of our client found him to be able to obtain a discharge of the driving under the influence of alcohol matter, as well as the rescission and reinstatement of his driving privileges.
People v. N.F.
Our client had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because he was asleep at the wheel of his car, and his car was over the white line. It was a Bartlett arrest, and the officer approached our client, detecting a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, noticed bloodshot and glassy eyes and our client admitted he was drinking alcohol that evening. The officer had our client step out of the car and perform field sobriety tests, which the officer indicated our client failed. After failing all of the tests and admitted to drinking more alcohol that he originally admitted to, the officer placed him under arrest. We immediately filed a petition to stop the suspension of our client's driving privileges and also were prepared to present a vigorous defense on his behalf. Our defense was extremely successful, and all charges against our client were dismissed, most importantly, the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. Because of our aggressive approach, the petition to rescind the summary suspension, which we filed on his behalf was also granted, and our client suffered no suspension of his driving privileges, which at this point in time for him would have been a six month suspension. This was significant for our client because this was the first time he was arrested and needed to get the suspension of his driving privileges off of his record so that the insurance company would not cancel him or have to pay a great deal of money over the next three years for coverage. As a result of our representation, not only was our client not convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol but the Secretary of State was ordered to reinstate his driving privileges and remove the suspension from his driving record.
DUI Cases, 1st Municipal District, Chicago, Illinois
People of the State of Illinois v. M.F.
Our client was arrested for driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street, and when arrested, had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, bloodshot, glassy eyes and became involved in an argument and fight with the police officer. The officer said our client refused all tests. Our client indicated to the contrary. He was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving the wrong direction on a one-way street, disobeying a traffic signal, reckless driving, failing to produce a driver’s license and operating an uninsured vehicle. Additionally, the Secretary of State decided to suspend his driving privileges for one year because this was his second DUI. We proceeded to a contested hearing on the issue of whether or not Springfield could suspend his driver’s license and won. The court issued an order directing the Secretary of State to rescind, or cancel, the suspension of his driving privileges and to remove the suspension from his driving record. We then proceeded to a trial on all of the other charges stated, and our client was found not guilty on all charges and discharged. He never had to obtain an alcohol evaluation, attend driving classes, he never had his driving privileges suspended or revoked and never received a conviction on anything.
DUI Cases in the 2nd Municipal District, Skokie, Cook County, Illinois.
People of the State of Illinois v. S. B.
Our client was stopped by the Des Plaines Police Department for straddling the broken white line separating two lanes of traffic for approximately one block. She corrected into the outside lane and then drove on to the shoulder, where she almost struck mailboxes. Our client over-corrected, crossed the broken white line again, and over-corrected again, almost striking a curb. When the officer turned on his emergency lights, our client made a right hand turn around an island rather than using the correct lane, scraped the curb, and drove up onto the curb when it stopped. When approaching our client, the officer noted an extremely strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot, glassy, watery eyes, the belt around her waist was not buckled, she was extremely slow in exiting the car, had to use the driver’s door for support, had to use the door and the vehicle’s roof for guidance while walking from the vehicle. According to the police officer, she took and failed four field sobriety tests. The Secretary of State issued a summary suspension and attempted to suspend her driving privileges. We proceeded to a contested hearing and aggressively cross-examined the arresting officer on his observations. After a contested hearing on the issue of whether or not the state could suspend her driving privileges, our petition to rescind was granted and the Secretary of State was ordered to reinstate her driving privileges, did not suspend her driver’s license, and removed the summary suspension from her driving record. We subsequently proceeded to a trial in her case, and she was found not guilty of all charges, including driving under the influence of alcohol. She never had to plead guilty or obtain an alcohol evaluation, do the classes or accept supervision for driving under the influence of alcohol because of our representation.
People of the State of Illinois v. R. H.
Our client was stopped for speeding 39 m.p.h. in a 15 m.p.h. zone. When stopped, our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot, glassy and glazed eyes, slurred speech, poor balance with difficulty walking and standing and was arrested with open alcohol in his car, which was recovered. We proceeded to successfully contest any suspension of his driving privileges so no suspension was entered and proceeded to a trial on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. Our client was found not guilty of that charge. As a result of our representation, he did not have court supervision nor did he have to suffer a suspension of his driving privileges.
People of the State of Illinois v. R.P.
Our client was stopped on the highway and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and improper lane usage for an accident occurring at I-294. Upon arrival, the officer noted very heavy front-end damage on our client’s car, and when asked what happened, our client talked to the police officer telling him that he lost control of the car and crashed into a guard rail. He spoke in a slurred, mumbled voice and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. He had bloodshot, glassy eyes and his balance was swaying at times and even stumbling into the officer while caught trying to explain to the officer what happened. When asked if he had been drinking, our client stated he had multiple glasses of alcoholic beverages and refused any field sobriety tests. Our client was arrested and charged, and the Secretary of State sent him a notice that his driving privileges would be suspended. Because this was our clients second DUI, he is not eligible for court supervision, and the state offered a conviction on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and he would additionally have to suffer the three-year statutory summary suspension that would be imposed by the Secretary of State’s office. We contested both the summary suspension issue and contested, at trial, the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result of our efforts, the statutory summary suspension was dismissed and the Secretary of State’s Office was instructed and ordered by the court to reinstate our client’s driving privileges. At trial, our client was found not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and was discharged from all other offenses. Even tough it was a second DUI, our client was found not guilty of everything and suffered no interruption in his driving privileges.
People of the State of Illinois v. J.S.
Our client was stopped for speeding 63 in a 35 m.p.h. and for weaving over various lanes. When stopped, the officer found that our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot, glassy eyes, told the officer he had been through this before and stated he had been drinking at least four drinks before being stopped. According to the officer, our client also told him “I am so drunk, so what do you expect from me?” According to the officer, when asked to produce his driver’s license, he dropped all of the papers from his wallet and could not produce a driver’s license because, as the officer found out later, our client’s license was taken for two other DUI’s that he had been arrested for. The Secretary of State sought to suspend his driving privileges for three years, and the state sought incarceration because this was his third charge of driving under the influence of alcohol when he already had two pending. With respect to this client, we tried this particular case, and as a result of our efforts, the statutory summary suspension asking that our client’s license be suspended for three years was removed, and all charges were dismissed against him. As to the other DUI charges, we proceeded to trial on those also, and our client was found not guilty after a contested hearing in Rolling Meadows on the other DUI.
DUI Cases in 3rd Municipal District, and Rolling Meadows, Cook County, Illinois
People of the State of Illinois v. BD
Our client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol for the first time because a police officer allegedly saw him make a left turn into the right hand lane and cut off other traffic. When stopped, the officer said he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from our client’s breath, bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and when asked if he had been drinking, our client allegedly admitted to drinking alcohol. Our client was then asked to exit his car and submit to field sobriety tests, which our client did and he failed all of them according to the police officer. When back at the police station, our client took a breath test, which measured .127. Although it was our client’s first DUI and the state offered our client a period of court supervision, we declined the offer and filed our motions asking that this case proceed to a contested trial. We were able to get the summary suspension of their driving privileges dismissed, even though he blew over a .08 so that there was no record of ever being suspended as a result of his taking a breath test and blowing over .08. We were also able to get the results of the breath test suppressed from evidence, and all charges were dismissed against our client. As a result of this disposition, our client did not have to take court supervision, did not have to attend alcohol classes or obtain an alcohol evaluation, and did not have to submit any kind of a letter from his employer. All charges were dismissed, including the summary suspension.
People of the State of Illinois v. M.R.
This was our client’s second charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and he was not eligible for court supervision. The state wanted a conviction on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, which would have revoked his driving privileges for at least one year. The officer alleges that he saw our client traveling 71 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone. After pulling behind the vehicle, our client’s car stopped at a green light, and as the light turned red, went through the intersection. After the officer activated his emergency lights and tried to bring the car to a stop, the vehicle struck the median several times and was unable to stay in its line of traffic. While speaking with the driver, the officer says he could detect a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. When asked to exit his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests, according to the officer, our client failed all of the tests and was subsequently given two tickets for driving under the influence of alcohol, one of which was for driving with a blood alcohol content over .08. Our client received that ticket because back at the police station, he took a breath test, which registered a .196. We proceeded to file motions to contest the results of the breath test, and we were successful in suppressing the .196 blow. As a result of our efforts, all charges against our client were dismissed, including the two driving under the influence of alcohol charges, as well as the charges of no proof of insurance, speeding, disobeying a traffic control device, improper lane usage, failure to signal, and failure to wear a seatbelt. Additionally, the summary suspension that would have suspended my client’s driving privileges for a minimum of one year was rescinded as a result of our efforts.
People of the State of Illinois v. D.S.
The police officer said that he observed our clients vehicle cross over the center lane marker three different times while it was weaving over the road. The officer attempted to stop the car, and our client allegedly continued to drive for another thirty seconds. When the officer spoke to our client, the officer says our client eyes were bloodshot and glassy, he had an odor of alcohol on his breath, he admitted to drinking that night, alcohol was found in the car, and when asked to perform six separate field sobriety tests, according to the officer, all of the tests were failed. When asked to take a breath test, our client refused to do so and his driving privileges were to be suspended for six months as a result of his refusal. We proceeded to a plea of not guilty in this case and to reject the states offer to issue our client a work permit on the condition that he obtain an alcohol evaluation and attend alcohol classes, and the states offer for supervision. As a result of taking this case to trial, the suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded after our efforts so that no suspension ever took effect. Our client was found not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result of our efforts, once again, our client was acquitted of driving under the influence of alcohol charges and suffered no suspension of his driving privileges.
People of the State of Illinois v. T.R.
According to the officer, our client drove one-half of a mile without headlights, crossed over the white line and remained there for an entire block, had a very hard time talking when stopped and it took four attempts for our client to grab the door handle and open it up. According to the officer, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and our client had such a difficult time talking, the officer could not understand most of what our client was saying. She would not say where she was coming from, and when exiting the car, she had to use the door and frame for support in order to steady herself. While to the rear of the car, she had to use her left had to support herself on the car and continued to use her hand to support herself, swaying back and forth while standing. She also failed all field sobriety tests. Because it was our client’s third DUI, the state offered significant time in jail, and we, of course, refused to plead guilty to the charges. We proceeded to trial on the charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and obtained a not guilty for our client after a contested trial. Additionally, there was no statutory suspension of her driving privileges and we obtained a rescission of the suspension that had been previously issued. Once again, as a result of our efforts, our client was found not guilty of all charges, and never suffered suspension of her driving privileges, even though it was her third DUI.
People of the State of Illinois v. J.F.
Our client was arrested with his second DUI charge after he had run off the roadway, struck a decorative boulder that was on one side of a street, continued to cross the street, struck a tree on the other side of the street, ran over a mailbox and ran onto the lawn of a residence. When the police officers arrived on the scene, he had, according to the police, a very strong odor of alcohol on his breath, when he exited his car, he could not stand up, he fell into his car twice, and the officer had to hold our client up so he would not fall over. When speaking with our client, the officer said that he could not understand any of the answers that our client gave, and our client admitted to drinking at a bar prior to this incident. He subsequently took a breath alcohol test and blew over the statutory limit. He was then charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content over .08, as well as other charges. Because it was our client’s second DUI, he was not eligible for supervision and would’ve had his license revoked for a year in addition to having his license suspended because of a statutory summary suspension, also filed in this case, for an additional one-year period of time. We proceeded to a trial in this matter and were able to obtain the rescission of his driving privileges based on work that we had done on his behalf, and the Secretary of State was ordered to reinstate his driving privileges and to dismiss the summary suspension. We subsequently proceeded to trial, even though he had a blood alcohol content over .8 and were successful in obtaining a not guilty on his behalf on all charges. As a result of our representation of him and his second DUI, and even though he blew over the statutory limit, he was found not guilty and all charges were dismissed. He suffered no summary suspension, no revocation by being convicted, nor did he have to attend any alcohol classes or obtain an evaluation.
People of the State of Illinois v. R.D.
Our client was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol after a traffic accident in which our client allegedly lost control of his vehicle, crossed over numerous lanes of traffic and wound up in a ditch. After ending up in a ditch, our client exited the vehicle and began running away. He was staggering up a hill when he was caught by the police and arrested. According to the police officers, our client had a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and admitted to drinking. This was our client’s first arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, and we turned down any request that our client receive court supervision for this offense. We proceeded to trial in this incident, and our client was found not guilty. He did not have to attend and complete any alcohol classes.
People of the State of Illinois v. S.W.
Our client was arrested after driving in front of a police car, and the officer alleged observed our client swerving within his lane of traffic several times, weaving outside the lane of traffic, driving off the roadway onto the curb where the officer activated his lights and stopped the vehicle. Upon approach to the car, our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred and mumbled speech, could not recite the alphabet, and failed five field sobriety tests. This was our client’s first arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, and the state offered him a period of court supervision on the condition that he obtain an alcohol evaluation and attend the classes. We refused the state’s offer of supervision and proceeded to trial. We contested the statutory summary suspension and won, and the court entered an order directing the Secretary of State to reinstate our client’s driving privilege and to remove the suspension from his driving record. We then proceeded to a trial in this case, and our client was found not guilty of all charges and discharged. Obviously, he never had a conviction on his driving record for driving under the influence of alcohol, never had court supervision, nor was his driving privileges ever impaired.
People of the State of Illinois v. Z.W.
Our client was arrested for driving under the influence for the fourth time. He was charged under the felony statutes and the state recommended, as an offer to settle his case, that our client go to the penitentiary. Obviously, we rejected that offer. Our client was stopped for crossing over a lane dividing line five times. When the car was stopped and the officer approached, our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath; bloodshot, glassy eyes; slurred and mumbled speech; and he took and failed four field sobriety tests. He was arrested and charged with felony driving under the influence of alcohol. We contested all of the charges. The Secretary of State sought to suspend our client’s driving privileges for three years, and we proceeded to a hearing on the issue of whether or not the Secretary of State could enter that suspension.
People of the State of Illinois v. B.B.
Our client was stopped for allegedly cutting off another car and cutting sharply into another lane of traffic. When stopped, our client was observed to have a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech. He failed all field sobriety tests and took a breath test, which showed a blood alcohol content of .127. The Secretary of State suspended his driving privileges and the state sought a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol if we rejected their offer for court supervision.
We successfully rescinded his suspension and obtained a court order directing the Secretary of State to remove the suspension and reinstate his driving privileges. We filed our pre-trial motion to suppress the results of his breath test from being used as evidence against him, and after a contested hearing, we won that motion, also. All charges were subsequently dropped and his case was dismissed.
Our client suffered no suspension of his driving privileges, did not have to accept court supervision, did not need to obtain an alcohol evaluation, and was dismissed entirely.
People of the State of Illinois v. V.R.
Our client was stopped for speeding, 71 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone. Prior to stopping his vehicle, the officer noted that his car struck the median several times and was unable to stay in its own lane of traffic. He was also noted to have a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot and glassy eyes, failing all field sobriety tests and finally, taking a breath test showing .196.
It was his second DUI, and at the time of his arrest on this charge, he had not even been to court on his first charge. The state sought a conviction, jail time and the revocation of his driver’s license for one year.
We litigated the validity of the breath machine and won. The breath test results were not admitted against him, the summary suspension was rescinded, and all charges were dismissed.
People of the State of Illinois v. P.G.
Our client was observed swerving across a solid yellow lane divider, crossing the dotted, white lane line three times, straddling a solid white line, and driving off the road onto the shoulder. When stopped, there was a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, swaying from side to side and failure of all field sobriety tests. According to the police, our client refused to take a breath test.
Because there was a child in the car, our client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and endangering the life of a child. The state sought convictions on all charges and jail time on the endangering charge.
We litigated every aspect of this case. We won the summary suspension hearing after a lengthy cross-examination of the officer. No suspension of any driving privileges was entered against our client as a result. Further, the DUI charge and the endangering the life of a child charge were dismissed. No conviction was entered, and there was no interruption of our client’s driving privileges.
People of the State of Illinois v. J.F.
Our client was stopped for driving off the roadway, across a lawn, striking a rock, continuing to drive across the street onto another lawn striking a mailbox and a tree. When approached by the police, our client smelled of alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, and blew over .08.
Because this was our client’s second DUI, he was not eligible for supervision and could only receive a statutory summary suspension and a revocation of his driving privileges upon conviction.
We litigated this case, too. The statutory summary suspension was rescinded so that no supervision was entered. After a trial, our client was found not guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.
People of the State of Illinois v. V.R.
Our client was stopped for driving without headlights, turning without signaling and driving over the white lines. There was a strong odor of alcohol about her, glassy eyes, difficulty talking, swaying front to back, needing the car for support, and slurring speech.
Because it was our client’s third DUI arrest, the state sought convictions and jail time.
We obtained the rescission of her driving suspension and all charges were dismissed.
DUI Cases, 4th Municipal District, Maywood, Cook County, Illinois
People of the State of Illinois v. W.C.
Westchester police officers stopped our client’s car westbound on Cermak Road apparently, according to the officer, drifting from lane to lane for approximately 5 - 6 blocks. When the emergency lights went on, the officer indicates our client weaved again from lane to lane, came to a stop in the middle of the street, striking the curb with both tires. As the officer approached our client, he noticed bloodshot, glassy eyes, a strong odor of alcohol, and an admission from our client that he had between five and seven drinks earlier. According to the officer, our client failed all of the field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because he was an over-the-road truck driver and had a CDL license, he could not afford even court ordered supervision or he would lose his entire ability to support himself. The Secretary of State’s Office sent a notice to our client that his driving privileges would be suspended, and it affected him because he was an out-of-state driver and over-the-road trucker. We proceeded to a contested hearing on whether or not the Secretary of State’s Office could suspend his license, and we won the hearing. The court entered an order directing the Secretary of State to remove the suspension of his driving privileges from all of his records and to reinstate him in order to be able to drive. Further, we proceeded to a contested trial on the issue of driving under the influence of alcohol, and our client was discharged completely. As a result of our very aggressive cross-examination of the arresting officer based on those facts, all charges were dismissed against our client and he was never suspended. He never had to take alcohol classes and never had to obtain an alcohol evaluation nor did he have his occupation affected by this arrest.
DUI Cases in 5th Municipal District, Bridgeview, Cook County, Illinois
People of the State of Illinois v. J.G.
Our client was stopped by Illinois State Troopers after allegedly crossing onto the shoulder of I-294 at a high rate of speed. The Officer testified at a hearing that there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from our client’s breath and that he stumbled, swayed and staggered throughout the encounter. The officer further testified that our client failed all field sobriety tests that he performed and our client admitted consuming alcohol prior to being pulled over by the State Trooper.
After a full hearing on a Petition to Rescind the Statutory Summary Suspension, the State’s Attorney decided that it would be fruitless to take the matter to trial and the charges of DUI were dropped against our client.
We Win DUI cases that Other Lawyers Said Were Impossible
Don't be pressured into pleading guilty. Contact a DUI defense lawyer at the law offices of Michael T. Norris and John W. Callahan today. We offer a free case evaluation.
DUI defense lawyers Michael T. Norris and John W. Callahan serve clients in Cook County, Lake County, and Will County in Illinois, including the cities of Chicago, Schaumburg, Skokie, Hoffman Estates, Cicero, Calumet City, Homewood, Blue Island, Berwyn, Tinley Park, Oak Lawn, Evanston, Wilmette, Palatine, Markham, and Rolling Meadows.
