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.  

Reckless Driving - Dane County

People charged with 1st offense OWI cases usually have very little to lose by putting the government to their burden of proof and trying their cases.  That was the case here.  Our client was stopped for speeding, and the officer stated that she had obvious signs of intoxication: slurred speech, an odor of intoxicants and bloodshot eyes.  She was put through field sobriety tests and ultimately arrested for OWI.  She provided a breath sample which registered a .098g/210L.

The defendant was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff and she was told that she had a defendable case as there wasn't a reason not to fight the case if she was up for it.  She was and we began working to fight the case.

On the morning the case was set for trial, Attorney Corey Chirafisi showed up ready to go.  It was at that point that the prosecutor made an offer to resolve the case:  If the client plead to a Reckless Driving ticket, all alcohol related violations would be dismissed.  The client got what she wanted--no drunk driving on her record.  She had to pay a small fine and was thrilled with the outcome.

OWI 1st / Refusal - Iowa County - Amended to Reckless Driving

Refusals can be difficult.  Some people believe that if they refuse to submit to a test that there case will be better because the prosecution may not have a test result to work with. That is what happened in this case.
Our client was stopped for speeding after a night out with her husband.  The officer noticed an open bottle of champagne in the vehicle and described the client as having slurred speech and bloodshot eyes.
The client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and, according to the officer, she failed all three tests,  refused to submit to a preliminary breath test and when taken to the department, she also refused an intoximeter. 
The client looked around for a lawyer and ultimately made contact with Chirafisi & Verhoff.  Upon reviewing the paperwork in the case, we found a problem with the Informing the Accused form which could have  impacted a refusal hearing.
Attorney Corey Chirafisi waited with this information until the morning of the refusal hearing.  As the hearing was starting, the prosecutor was made aware that the form he was going to use was outdated and was going to be a problem in proving the refusal.  Before the refusal hearing began, the prosecutor agreed to amend the OWI to a reckless driving and to dismiss the refusal as well.
The client was given a small fine, no drivers license revocation and she was thrilled with the result.

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. 

Two OWIs and one Operating with Restricted Controlled Substance-All Amended 12/16/13

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.