First Case

Our client, who is an Illinois driver (OWIs can have extraordinary consequences on an Illinois license), was arrested up north in Langlade County for Operating While Intoxicated and Operating With a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration. 

Police were dispatched to a one vehicle car crash and upon arriving at the scene noticed that our client smelled of intoxicants.  Client indicated to the police that she was driving and swerved to miss a deer which made her lose control of the vehicle and put it in a ditch.  Client told the police that she had 5 drinks and she hadn't had anything to drink since the crash.

According to the police reports, the client failed the field sobriety tests she was given, and she was placed under arrest for OWI.  At the police station the client agreed to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of her breath and blew a 0.10. 

The lawyers at Chirafisi & Verhoff put their defense right out front--that the prosecution would not be able to establish time of operation, which could have an effect on whether the test result would become admissible.  The prosecution initially refused to move on the charge and the matter was set for trial.

However, shortly before the matter was set to proceed to trial, the prosecutor agreed to amend the charge to Reckless Driving.  For all clients, this type of an amendment is a big deal, but in this situation because the client was an Illinois driver, the stakes were even higher.  The client was thrilled, no OWI conviction and no revocation of her driving privileges.

Second Case

Our Client called Chirafisi & Verhoff because he was stopped for Operating While Intoxicated and he has a commercial driver’s license.

Our Client knew that his ability to continue to do his job for the next year required that he be diligent in this case and make sure he fought it every step of the way.  Our Client was stopped for speeding and the officer immediately noticed the tell-tale signs of intoxication: slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and difficulty with his balance.  Client was asked to step from vehicle and perform field sobriety tests.  Client was unable to complete the tests and admitted to the officer that he had been drinking.  Officer arrested him for Operating While Intoxicated and requested that the defendant submit to a blood test, which the client agreed to do.  The blood test result came back at 0.237.

The case was scheduled for trial in municipal court and as the trial began, the prosecution attempted to get evidence admitted at the trial.  Attorney Corey Chirafisi objected and the Court precluded the evidence from being admitted.  Seeing that his case was in real jeopardy, the prosecution offered this client a reckless driving ticket.  The amendment saved the clients license and his job.

Third Case

Our Client was stopped for speeding by local law enforcement.  After having a conversation with the client, the officer was going to issue him a warning and let him get on his way; but the officer then asked the client for permission to search his vehicle, which the client gave.  The officer found marijuana in the vehicle and asked the client when he last smoked marijuana.   The Client told the officer that he had smoked a short time before the stop and was then arrested and charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle With a Restricted Controlled Substance. 

Our Client’s blood was taken and it did show a detectable amount of Delta-9 THC in his system.  That is a strict liability offense, meaning that the government does not need to show impairment, all they need to show is that person drove or operated a vehicle while they had Delta 9 in their blood.

The lawyers at Chirafisi & Verhoff drafted a motion to suppress based on an illegal detention of the client.  Before the motion was even heard, the prosecution agreed that they had some problems with the case.  The prosecution offered our Client an inattentive driving in lieu of the Restricted Controlled Substance charge.  No conviction, no license suspension, client gets to get on with his life.