DUI Cook County
Our client had been charged with aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, a felony, while his driver's license was suspended where the suspension was for 3 DUI's. The case had been pending in Bridgeview for a long time and we were the client's second attorneys on the case.
Our client was offered, in exchange for his plea of guilty to the one count of the felony aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and one count of the felony driving while his license was suspended, that he would be sentenced in the Illinois Department of Corrections to a period of 3 years. Our client was not a citizen of the United States and therefore, if he accepted any negotiated settlement that involved a conviction, he would have to serve time in the penitentiary and then be deported.
Consequently, our client declined the court's offer of 3 years in the penitentiary on both offenses. After our client declined that offer, it was revoked by the court and our client was told that if he was convicted after a jury trial, he would be sentenced to 7 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Consequently, we proceeded to pick a jury.
The arresting officer testified that, in his opinion, our client failed all the field sobriety tests. The officer further testified that our client asked to blow into the breathalyzer two separate times but failed to blow into the machine at any time and the machine basically timed itself out twice.
According to the officer, our client was under the influence of alcohol, was driving under the influence of alcohol and was driving while his license was suspended for the 5th or 6th time for an alcohol related offense. Our cross examination of the officer was lengthy and expert. We cast doubt on everything that the police officer said he did. Our client testified on his own behalf and at the end of the case, the jury found our client not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and not guilty of driving while our client's license was suspended for an alcohol related reason for the 4th or 5th time.
Our client was found not guilty of everything by the jury.
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.
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 Paroxetine, 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
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
People v. KB
Our client was stopped by the Rolling Meadows Police Department and charged with his fourth DUI. At the time our client was stopped, the officer found that he was riding a motorcycle without the proper equipment. As the officer turned to follow the bike and activated his emergency lights, the driver turned on to a street in order to pull over. The officer testified that his turn was wobbly and unsafe, and when the driver stopped the motorcycle, it took several tries to lower the kickstand. The officer said he approached our client and asked for a driver's license and insurance information. The officer said our client had red, glassy, bloodshot eyes, slow slurred speech, the strong odor of an alcohol based beverage coming from his breath and an admission from our client that he had been drinking beer that evening. The officer performed field sobriety tests on our client and came to the conclusion that as far as his balance, he was wobbly, swaying and unsure. The officer videotaped all of our client's performances on the field tests and arrested him for his fourth DUI. The officer also sent in documentation so that the Secretary of State would take steps to suspend our client's driving privileges. We began a very aggressive defense of our client because of the fact that with a fourth DUI, it was very possible that charges would be enhanced to a felony. We proceeded to file a motion to quash his arrest determining that the stop, in our opinion, was illegal, and we filed a separate motion to have the suspension of his driving privileges rescinded. We followed this up with photographic information and were able to present our case to the prosecutor and the arresting officer. As a result, on the second court date, the charges of driving under the influence of alcohol were dismissed. The suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded by order of the judge in this matter. All other charges regarding the officer's contact with our client were dismissed. Our client plead guilty to a minor traffic violation and received a $300.00 fine. Because of our very aggressive defense of our client, he did not receive any kind of a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, much less be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Moreover, because of our work, the suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded by the Secretary of State's Office.
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.
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.
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.