OWI 3rd- PAC .18 amended to Reckless Driving

Our client was pretty concerned, as he was charged with a 3rd offense OWI when he was called in for sleeping in his vehicle in a gas station parking lot.  Client had looked around for lawyers and ultimately called Chirafisi & Verhoff for representation.

Prior to the administrative hearing, Corey Chirafisi reviewed the police reports and video and found what was ultimately the issue that got the case amended.  The reports were unclear as to what time the client had arrived at the gas station, which put admission of his test result in jeopardy for the prosecution.  The prosecutor initially was unwilling to move off of the OWI and wanted significant jail time and a lengthy driver’s license revocation. 

Finally, about 2 days before trial, the prosecutor realized that his case was starting to fall apart.  He was very hesitant to amend the OWI charge because it was the client's 3rd offense.  However, he did agree at the final conference to amend the charge to a reckless driving where the client paid a $200.00 fine and walked away with no revocation, jail or criminal conviction.

OWI and PAC of 0.09 Amended to Reckless Driving Before Trial

When our client contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff, he made one thing perfectly clear.  If he was convicted of either OWI or PAC, he would lose his license and in turn his employment.  He was scared, and the stakes were high.  He was also worried about the facts.  Police stopped our client for speeding after midnight going 13 mph over the limit.  When officers spoke with him, they immediately noticed the smell of alcohol coming from his breath.  The client admitted to police he had consumed six beers that evening and said he had a shot of Crown Royal less than 10 minutes before he was stopped.  Police also found a partially-full, open Miller Lite beer can behind the driver’s seat.  The client was arrested for OWI and provided a breath sample with reported values of 0.095 percent and 0.097 percent. 

Attorney Verhoff immediately went to work reviewing the evidence.  Although the client was concerned the evidence against him appeared overwhelming, Attorney Verhoff saw many pieces of evidence that helped the case.  The first thing he noticed was the police officer did not document in his report slurred speech, bloodshot eyes or other signs typically associated with impaired driving.  He also noticed the client was able to provide his license and proof of insurance as requested without any problems.  Most significantly, Attorney Verhoff noticed something very interesting about the results of the three standardized field sobriety tests.  The client’s performance on the two physical tests was poor. But on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (eye) test, which is the test prosecutors often find to be most reliable, the officer did not observe the required number of “clues” to suggest impairment.

During the course of negotiations, Attorney Verhoff argued that although the test result was over the limit, the other evidence, including the timing of the last shot, suggested that when police actually stopped the client, his alcohol concentration was below a 0.08 percent.  Moreover, given the lack of the typical indicia of impairment and his good performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, there was a strong argument the client was not impaired.  As for the remaining field sobriety tests, Attorney Verhoff informed the prosecution that the client could document a back injury, which would have an impact on his performance.  The prosecution originally insisted on a conviction for the OWI.  But at the last hearing before trial, after considering Attorney Verhoff’ s arguments, the prosecutor agreed to amend the OWI and PAC citations to reckless driving, rather than going forward with a trial.  Attorney Verhoff even was able to get the prosecutor to agree to dismiss the speeding ticket.  

OWI 2nd, PAC .12 - Amended to Reckless Driving

On the night of his arrest for Operating While Intoxicated, our client believed his professional life was over.  He was a driver for a national delivery company and knew an OWI would end his career with that company.  It is something he repeated over and over on the video on the night of his arrest. He was referred to our office and we went to work on the case. 

Initially, a motion challenging his arrest without probable cause was filed and argued in the circuit court.  We won that motion and the trial court suppressed all the evidence in his case.  The State was not happy with the decision and they appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals.

After lengthy briefs in the case the Court of Appeals ruled with the State and reversed the trial court, basically admitting all the evidence (including a .12 breath result) that had previously been suppressed.

So the client went from a virtual guarantee of winning to starting the whole case over and having to deal with the .12 test result.  As the matter moved closer to trial, Attorney Corey Chirafisi spent a lot of his preparation time meticulously reviewing the evidence-including watching the video of the defendant’s arrest- and was able to firmly establish that the arresting officer, who claimed a 20 minute observation period was completed, was not even in the room for almost half of the 20 minutes.

As we prepared the matter for trial, cuing up the video to show the jury, the prosecutor called and asked if the client was willing to accept a reckless driving ticket in lieu of the OWI.  The client was thrilled, he was able to continue in his career and suffered no conviction or revocation of his license--only a small fine. The case took almost two years to finish but perseverance paid off for the client with an amazing result. 

OWI/PAC 2nd - Charges Dismissed - 8th dismissal or amendment in the last 9 weeks

Some people believe if they test over the legal limit there is very little a lawyer can do for them. Many times they are wrong.

Our client was charged with OWI /PAC 2nd for running a yellow light.  The driving was on video and it was clear that the client did, in fact, run the light.  The client told the officer that he ran the light and just wanted to get home.  The client then refused to perform field sobriety tests or a preliminary breath test.  The client was immediately arrested and taken for a breath test which registered at 0.082.

The defendant hired Chirafisi & Verhoff and we went to work.  First, a review of the video indicated that while the client did refuse both the field sobriety tests and the preliminary breath test, but he did so after asking the officer if he could decline.  The officer told him “yes,” he did not have to do the tests.

Chirafisi & Verhoff then did something they don’t do in every case--but believed was appropriate for this case--they hired an expert to discuss both the workings of the breath machine and to put on evidence of an alcohol curve.  Once that was done and the notice of the expert was provided to the government, the State dismissed both the OWI and PAC charges. 

OWI/PAC - 8th Dismissed in Juneau County

Potential clients sometimes ask us why they should hire a lawyer or enter a not guilty plea if they know they committed the offense charged and the evidence looks grim.  There are a variety of answers to these questions.  Often a lawyer can help a client obtain better results at sentencing.  In other situations, the lawyer can review the case and make sure the police officers did their job properly.  Sometimes, as in this case, the lawyer can find problems with the police investigation that requires the judge to throw out evidence, leaving the government unable to move forward.  In this case, our client was stopped for speeding.  During the traffic stop, the trooper learned our client had multiple prior convictions for OWI and was subject to a permissible alcohol concentration for driving at 0.02 percent.  The trooper had our client provide a breath sample on a preliminary breath test (PBT) device, which showed a result of 0.127.  The trooper arrested our client and took him for a legal blood draw.  The test results from the blood draw showed an alcohol level of 0.138.  Our client was charged with two felony counts, OWI-8th and PAC-8th.  He also received a citation for speeding.  Our office immediately requested a hearing on the administrative suspension of our client’s license.  This is a step that many lawyers do not take, but one our firm conducts at every opportunity.  In this case, the administrative review hearing proved to be worth its weight in gold.  During the hearing, the trooper testified that he did not observe in our client any of the typical signs of consuming alcohol.  He did not observe an odor of intoxicants.  He did not observe red, watery or glassy eyes.  He did not observe slurred speech or a thick tongue.  The trooper never even asked if our client had consumed any alcohol.  Instead, the trooper admitted that he demanded our client submit to a PBT solely because he was aware of our client’s the prior OWIs and his lower permissible alcohol concentration for driving.  Using the answers provided in the administrative review hearing, Attorney Verhoff filed a motion to suppress evidence based on the trooper’s improper use of the PBT to establish probable cause for an arrest.  The motion was so strong that the District Attorney conceded the issue and dismissed the case on the morning of the scheduled evidentiary hearing.  Our client, who began the case wanting nothing more than the least amount of prison time possible, walked away having to pay a forfeiture on the speeding ticket.

OWI/PAC 1st - .12 with an Accident - Charges Dismissed

Our client somehow found his vehicle on the wrong side of the concrete barrier under a interstate overpass.  The State Patrol arrived on the scene and believed the client to be intoxicated.  According to police he had slurred speech, an odor of intoxicants and admitted to drinking, not to mention the vehicle on the wrong side of the concrete barrier.
Attorney Corey Chirafisi began working on the case and after review all the reports and viewing the video on the case he discovered that there was no indication as to what time the vehicle and been operated.  None of the four or five officers on the scene ever asked the client what time the accident occurred and the client never made any statements providing that information.
Attorney Chirafisi filed a Motion to Strip the Test of its Presumption of Reliability based on no information the test was taken within three (3) hours of driving.  The trooper conceded that she had no idea what time the driving occurred in the case.  The government then conceded that the test result would not be able to be admitted into evidence.  Shortly after, they gave the entire case up.  All charges were dismissed.

OWI/PAC 1st - 0.14 Amended to Inattentive Driving

The police found our client sleeping behind the wheel of his vehicle blocking the driveway of a person who was trying to leave. Upon making contact with our client, police noticed indicators of possible impairment and ultimately arrested our client for Operating While Intoxicated.  The client provided a breath sample which registered a result of 0.14.

The problem with the case for the prosecution was they couldn't establish a time of operation.  The car was not running when the police arrived and although the client did make some statements as to time of operation, they were vague enough to cause problems for the case.

Ultimately, the prosecution realized there was a real problem with her case and she offered to resolve the matter for an inattentive driving ticket.  Even though the client was almost twice the legal limit, he was able to avoid the OWI conviction.

OWI 1st, PAC .155 - NOT GUILTY

Our client was charged in Columbia County with Operating While Intoxicated 1st offense as well as having an alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit at .155.

Client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff regarding her arrest for OWI 1st and after speaking with the client it was clear that she had a real issue in her case, she was at home the time the police arrived at her home.  That issue posed two problems for the government, first, what time did she get home?  Second, had she consumed alcohol since she had been home?

The government thought they could prove the time of operation with another witness who told the police what time the vehicle arrived home and according to the police, the client stated that she hadn't consumed any alcohol since she had been home.  The government wouldn't move off the OWI charge, so the matter proceeded to trial.

At the trial held on July 25th, the government ran into multiple problems that proved to be the death of the case.  First, they could not produce any witness to establish the time that the client had arrived home.  The client testified as to the time of her arrival at home and the government literally had no response to her statement.  Second, the client testified that she had told the officer that she had consumed alcohol after returning home and in fact pointed to a drink she had on the counter when they were in the residence.

The jury had the case for 22 minutes before returning a not guilty verdict on both counts.  

Sauk County OWI/PAC – Evidence Thrown Out and Case Dismissed

Police stopped our client was for driving with a headlamp that was burned out.  The officer contacted our client and smelled an odor of intoxicants.  Our client admitted to be on his way home from a bar and to have consumed mixed drinks earlier.  Police had him perform field sobriety tests and based on those results arrested him for second-offense OWI.  He submitted a breath test and the reported result was 0.09 percent.  Attorney Verhoff filed a motion arguing that the police officer violated our client’s rights because the officer did not have a sufficient basis to ask him to do the field sobriety tests.  The judge agreed and threw out the test results and the client’s performance on the field sobriety tests.  Left with no additional evidence to prove the case, the Assistant District Attorney dismissed both charges.

OWI and PAC amended to Improper parking on a roadway

Our client was charged with an OWI and PAC first offense and his test result was a 0.22.  We filed and argued Motions to Suppress in our client's case.  Ultimately, the charges were amended to an improper parking on a roadway charge with a $500.00 fine.