OWI/PAC 4th offense- amended to Obstructing for a Fine

This case had enormous possible consequences for the client.  A 4th offense is not only a felony, this case would have required the client lose his driver's license for a minimum of 10 years.  

He was stopped for not wearing his seatbelt and having snow covering his license plate, making it unreadable. 

Because it was a 4th offense, the client's prohibited alcohol concentration was a .02.

The officer believed the client failed field sobriety tests and placed him under arrest.  The client's blood was drawn and he was over the legal limit at a .03.

After back and forth negotiating with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached where the client would enter a plea to a misdemeanor and pay a $200.00 fine.  No jail, no felony and no loss of driver's license.

OWI/PAC 1st- .13- Criminal Resisting Arrest- Amended to obstructing ticket

Client was called in by a passerby who was concerned he was sleeping in his vehicle and would not wake up.  The ambulance ultimately contacted the police when the client was awoken and smelled like alcohol and was in their opinion intoxicated.

The client was not very happy to see law enforcement.  Because he wasn’t driving, he wasn’t complying with the requests to step from the vehicle or listen to the officer’s commands.  This made the case start out challenging because the client was charged with not only Operating While Intoxicated with a test result of .13, but he was also charged criminally for resisting arrest.

Client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff and we got started.  First thing was the administrative review hearing.  At that hearing we were able to confirm that the officer had no idea how long the client had been sitting in his vehicle.  That fact made the test result irrelevant. 

We were able to convince the district attorney to dismiss the criminal resisting and then were left with the OWI charge.  The first offer was reckless driving, the client rejected that offer as well as an inattentive driving ticket. 

The client decided to resolve the case for an ordinance violation for obstructing for not obeying police commands when he refused to exit his vehicle.  He didn’t lose his license for a single day, did not have to do any alcohol classes.  Overall, he was very happy with the result.

Obstructing Charge Dismissed

Madison Police arrested our client during a beer party.  He refused to identify himself, and was arrested for obstructing.  Our attorneys argued the client’s refusal to identify himself did not constitute obstructing because he had not actually lied and had a right not to speak to the police--the charge was dismissed.  

Marijuana Possession, Vandalism, Obstructing – All charges dismissed before trial

Our client came to Madison from out of state for a visit and rented a hotel room.  Police were called to the room based on a noise complaint.  While standing outside of the room, police said they smelled the odor of marijuana and heard people talking loudly about smoking and whether smoking would set off the smoke detector.  Police knocked on the door and made contact with our client and also saw several guests in the room.  Our client originally refused to allow police into the room, and the officers found him to be “argumentative and uncooperative.”  Police claimed our client ultimately consented to a search of his room.  Upon entry, police observed a broken lamp and found marijuana wrapped in a towel in the bathroom.  They arrested our client for drug possession, obstructing and damaging property.  At the first hearing, the newly-hired Assistant District Attorney refused to discuss the merits of the case.  Instead, he made an offer to dismiss a citation also issued to our client for smoking in a hotel room if our client entered a plea to the other three charges.  Our attorney flatly rejected the offer.  At the final hearing before trial, our attorney met with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to handle the trial.  He asked her a simple question.  How do you plan to prove any of this?  Although less than enthusiastic to talk with law enforcement, our client had not lied to police.  Therefore, he had not obstructed the investigation in any way.  There were many people in the room, how was the ADA going to prove it was our client’s marijuana in the bathroom?   Finally, how was the ADA going to show the lamp was intentionally damaged, let alone who damaged it?  After several minutes of silence, the prosecutor responded.  “You’re right,” she said. “I’ll dismiss it all.”