Refusal Hearing (Dodge County) Refusal Dismissed

Each county handles their cases differently. In Dodge County, they hold refusal hearings before the first appearance and sometimes before the person's test result has been returned. That makes zero sense if a case might resolve, however, that's Dodge County.

So, in this case we informed the prosecution that the test result was not known yet and the initial appearance was scheduled for another 5 months. That didn't matter, the State wanted to move forward with the hearing.

The case wasn't particularly strong on the refusal. The allegation is the client used THC and was driving. Odor of THC in the vehicle and the client admitted to using THC approximately 1 hour before the stop.

The case looked like the client was going to lose, except the State, as they often do, stepped in it. They forgot what they needed to establish at a refusal hearing and neglected to put in the location of the stop or "venue". That is a requirement at any hearing. Corey Chirafisi raised that issue to the court and the Court agreed, dismissing the refusal.

The case is not over, however, it is a good start.

OWI 1st / Refusal - Not Guilty (Monroe County)

This client was a Florida resident who was in Wisconsin working for her company. She is a heavy equipment operator and could not have a OWI conviction on her record. She had initially hired another lawyer to assist her, but when things weren't going the way she hoped, she contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff who took over the case.

The stop was for failing to have her headlights on and making an illegal U-Turn. She told the police she was "the least drunk" in the vehicle and ultimately refused to submit to a chemical test of her breath.

The case proceeded to trial with Attorney Corey Chirafisi representing the client. Because there was a refusal attached to the case, the Court decided the refusal with the jury deciding the OWI charge. The officer testified and had some difficulty on cross examination regarding field sobriety tests. He also mentioned that he was incorrect in his suspicions of impaired drivers more than he was correct. That didn't help them either. The client testified wonderfully explaining her thought process on the refusal and why she did what she did.

The jury was out around 50 minutes before finding the client not guilty of the OWI charge. In reference to the refusal, the government elected not to proceed on the refusal after the verdict.

Client was able to keep her job. We are very happy for her.

3 More Outstanding Results- 2 OWI charges amended to finish the year

Case #1- OWI/Refusal-Amended to Reckless Driving (Dane County) 

When people call us and tell us that their case is "hopeless", most of the time the facts of the case are not as bad as they say.  Except here.  In this case, most of the facts were against the client.  Poor driving, excessive speed, failed field sobriety tests and a refusal to submit to a breath test.  Worst of all, our client had a license from a state (IL) where he would be facing a lengthy revocation if he was convicted of the OWI.  The great news for the client was, Chirafisi & Verhoff has been extremely successful against this particular prosecutor in multiple cases in the past and there has been a hesitation to litigate issues against us.

We believe that most of the time, the refusal drives the OWI charge, meaning if there is a way around the refusal, the OWI will fall as well.

So, we went after the refusal first.  It wasn't that difficult when we started.  We questioned whether the information provided to the client on the Informing the Accused form was correct.  The prosecutor agreed that a problem existed and quickly agreed to amend the OWI to reckless driving and to dismiss the refusal.  The client's license was saved.  

Stay tuned for our two other awesome end of 2018 results on Monday!

OWI Dismissed in Dane County

This case is an example of the huge difference a lawyer can make.  Our client, who is an Illinois resident, was stopped and arrested for an OWI-1st Offense.  He refused to take field sobriety tests and refused to take the chemical test of his breath.  He was also given a citation for improper refusal.  Unfortunately, the client did not realize he had to file a request for a hearing on the refusal within ten days, and he defaulted on that charge before our office got involved.  

The client did appear without a lawyer for a court date on the OWI charge.   By happenstance, Attorney Verhoff was present at this hearing and overheard the conversation the client was having with a representative from the District Attorney's Office.  The person from the DA's Office told the client there was nothing they could do about the OWI and he could either plead to it or have a trial.  The client was on the verge of pleading to the OWI when Attorney Verhoff intervened.  Our attorney informed the (now) client that entering a plea to the OWI would have catastrophic consequences on his Illinois license.  Our attorney advised him to fight the OWI.  Taking our advice, the client decided to hire our firm to help.  Attorney Verhoff immediately had the case set for  trial.  In speaking with the prosecutor assigned to the case prior to trial, Attorney Verhoff explained to him the significant consequences for an OWI conviction in Illinois.  He argued this was unduly punitive and unnecessary given the conviction that previously occurred in the refusal.  He also pointed out some of the proof problems the prosecutor might have in the OWI case.  On the day of trial, the prosecutor finally gave up on the OWI case and agreed to dismiss it.  Although the client must still deal with the impact of the refusal conviction, he was spared years worth licensing headaches in Illinois due to the OWI dismissal. 

All Around Victory: OWI Reduced to Reckless, DC and Refusal Dismissed

Law enforcement stopped our client for what is termed a "rolling domestic."  He and his girlfriend were having an argument in the car, and she called police.  Upon arrival, law enforcement pulled him over and asked him to step out of the car.  The police began questioning the client about what happened.  Officers also smelled an odor of intoxicants, and the client admitted to consuming alcohol at dinner.  Authorities then asked him to submit to field sobriety tests, but he refused.  He also refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath.

The client was arrested on a criminal charge of disorderly conduct, an OWI-first and the refusal to agree to a chemical analysis of his breath.  Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors at the time of charging, and they agreed not to charge a criminal offense. Instead, the District Attorney issue an ordinance violation on the disorderly conduct.  As the case unfolded, our attorney was able to convince the prosecution to amend the OWI charge to a citation for reckless driving, dismiss the refusal, and dismiss the disorderly conduct citation.  In the end, the client paid a modest fine on the reckless driving, but avoid a conviction for an OWI and the refusal, as well as a criminal charge, and the accompanying license implications and associated fines.  

4 More Outstanding Results Include No Prosecution on Negligent Homicide Charge

In the past 10 days or so, Chirafisi & Verhoff has had four more outstanding outcomes for our clients!

Case #1- Pre-charge Negligent Homicide

This case involved a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of the client’s passenger.  Initially when the client’s family called us, there was an allegation that the client had failed to stop at a stop sign, resulting in the vehicle striking a semi which ultimately led to the death of the passenger.  We were informed that there were multiple witnesses who observed the accident.

At that point the client had not been charged, so it gave us an opportunity to get to work on some areas of the defense.  The first thing we did was hire an accident reconstructionist.  The expert was able to get out to the scene shortly after the accident and get measurements before the government was able to complete their reconstruction.  

We notified the State that we had been retained and that an expert was on board.  Ultimately after more than 8 months of investigation in the case, the State had the detective assigned to the case inform us that no criminal charges were being brought against the client.  While the case involved a tragedy when the passenger lost his life, we were able to help avoid the client from having to face serious felony charges stemming from the accident.

Case #2-  OWI 1st/Refusal- Complete Dismissal of all Charges

Client was on vacation at a campground when he was arrested for OWI 1st.  What made matters much more difficult was he was an Illinois licensed driver.  The penalties for Illinois drivers arrested for OWI in Wisconsin is very severe in Illinois.  Clients can lose their driving privileges in Illinois for years, even on 1st offenses.

The client was also alleged to have refused to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his blood when requested by the police.  Believe it or not, the case involved the client driving a gas powered golf cart on a public roadway.  He was involved in an accident which severely injured him and he had no memory of what occurred.  The prosecutor wasn’t moving on the case, initially recommending the OWI charge along with the IID requirement.  

We began by watching a video from a bar parking lot where the accident occurred.  We slowed down the video literally second by second.  What we discovered was for a split second on the video, headlights from a vehicle were on the golf cart and we could see that another person was actually the driver of the golf cart.  Once the accident occurred, that person fled the scene and because our client suffered a head injury, he had no recollection as to who was driving.

We then showed the prosecutor the video from the bar and he dismissed all charges against the client.

Case #3- OWI/PAC 1st- Dane County- amended to inattentive driving

This client, like many we have, needed a valid license to continue working a brand new dream job he had just landed.  A conviction would have resulted in immediate termination from his company.  

A gas station worker witnessed our client pull into the parking lot with a flat tire and riding on his rims.  The client was alleged to have parked his car, opened the door and threw up, then tried to go to sleep in the parking lot.  The police arrived shortly after our client got there, and our client was put through field sobriety tests after the police noticed his blood shot eyes, slurred speech and his clothes having vomit on them.

The client tested a .088 on the breath test after being arrested.  Further, the client informed the police that he had not consumed alcohol for 6 plus hours as it was approximately 5:30 a.m. when the police made contact with him.

Ultimately after back and forth negotiations with the prosecutor, the government offered to resolve the case for an inattentive driving ticket.  It saved the client's career.

Case #4- Two Counts of Second Degree Sexual Assault turned into One count of Child Abuse to Deferred Prosecution with Alford Plea

This case took two years to resolve.  It started as 2 counts of sexual assault.  Client had used our services in the past and when these charges were filed he came to us again for assistance.

The turning point in the case was when we were able to convince the judge that the time alleged in the complaint (approximately 3 weeks) was too long.  The prosecution was required to go back to the mother of the complainant and she had to narrow down the time frame.  That changed the entire case.  She narrowed it down to 3 days.  When we were provided with that information, we were able to get the client's work records which showed it was likely that he was working at the time of the allegation.  

Once we provided that information to the DA, the case basically fell apart.  If the client does not get in any trouble for the next 12 months, the entire case will be dismissed.  Outcome totally changed our client's life. 

OWI 1st / Refusal- Amended to Reckless Driving During Trial

Our client came to us with two problems: he was arrested for OWI and a refusal, but he also had a CDL that he needed for his occupation.

He knew he needed to fight the charges in order to save his career, so he hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to help him do just that.  The prosecutor would not dismiss the case outright, as he had a refusal to work with and knew that if the defendant lost on the refusal, his driver’s license would be revoked and he would lose his CDL.

The matter proceeded to trial.  After the prosecution called the arresting officer and rested his case, it was Chirafisi & Verhoff’s turn.  The arresting officer was questioned about her observations and tests she performed on the client during the incident.  By the end of the cross examination, the officer admitted that she did not perform the field sobriety tests correctly and the Court found that there was a problem with probable cause based on that testimony. 

Before the Court made any specific findings on the Operating While Intoxicated charge, the prosecution offered to amend the OWI to Reckless Driving and to dismiss the refusal charge.  The client was thrilled, as he was able to keep his CDL and his job.

No Charges in Drug Case

The Wisconsin State Patrol stopped our client for speeding.  During the course of the stop, the trooper located containers with a variety of prescription medications, marijuana and other drug paraphernalia in the vehicle.  At the conclusion of the investigation, our client was arrested on criminal charges for possession of an illegally obtained prescription, possession of THC, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  The trooper also cited the client for OWI, speeding, open intoxicants, and refusing to submit to a blood test.  The case was forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for review.  Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors before charges were formally filed.  They agreed to only file the traffic citations, and to not pursue the criminal drug charges.  Chirafisi & Verhoff continued representing the client in the traffic matters and later brokered a deal in which the client agreed to be convicted of OWI, but the remaining citations were dismissed.  As part of the deal, the prosecution agreed not to require an ignition interlock device as part of any sentence, an unusual outcome when a refusal is involved.   

Lifetime, 12th-Offense OWI Avoids Prison in Dane County

At Chirafisi & Verhoff, we want the best outcome in every case.  In some cases, our clients still get convicted of an offense.  But limiting the damage from the conviction is often a success for our client.  This case is an excellent example of when that happens.  Our client is a middle-aged man.  Married with children, he has maintained a good job in the construction industry and supported his family throughout his entire life.  He also has struggled with alcohol since he was a teen. 

Our client’s work has taken him around the country.  During that time, he has been arrested, charged and convicted of OWI in many states, including Wisconsin.  In this case, the Sun Prairie Police Department stopped him for speeding and quickly realized he was impaired.  He refused field sobriety tests, as well as a blood test.  Police obtained a warrant, and drew his blood.  The reported results were a 0.17 percent.  During his contact with police, who thought it was a third-offense, the client was less-than cooperative.  He was also arrested for resisting. 

The client contacted our firm.  Attorney Tim Verhoff quickly recognized this was not a third offense and was more likely one that carried mandatory prison if convicted.  He advised the client to get into alcohol treatment.  The client’s only desire was to avoid a prison sentence – no small hurdle given the likely charges.  We waited for the blood results to be returned and arrived at the initial court appearance.  Sure enough,  the District Attorney’s Office had located the prior offenses.  The was charged with OWI-7th, PAC-7th and resisting. 

The first problem was that OWI-7th carries a mandatory prison sentence.  If the client wanted to avoid prison, we needed to get at least one of the prior offenses kicked out.  Attorney Verhoff went to work, ordering records from out of state to determine if any of the prior convictions could be attacked.  Luckily, he found one that could and he successfully attacked it.  The prosecution then filed an amended charging document, reducing the case to an OWI-6th. This was helpful because a prison sentence was no longer mandatory.  But as Attorney Verhoff knew, the judge could still order it. 

The case took approximately one-year to complete.  During that time, our client continued working at his job.  He engaged in significant treatment, and he was subjected to a monitoring that required him to submit three alcohol tests per day and engage in random urinalysis.  Between the time the case was charged and the time the case concluded, the client took more than 990 tests with no reported positives for alcohol.  Attorney Verhoff pressed the prosecution to resolve this matter for an agreement by which the parties both recommended the judge impose probation.  But the prosecution wouldn’t budge.  The District Attorney’s Office took the position that this was only a sixth offense because of the successful attack on the prior.  Moreover, the prosecution was aware of 12 OWI cases from around the country involving our client.  Only five of those cases could be used legally for purposes of counting priors, but the prosecution planned to use that as ammunition to seek prison.  The offer on the case was simple, plead to the OWI-6th and argue sentence.

Of course, our client had an option.  He could try the case, but the facts were bad and a conviction was highly likely.  Attorney Verhoff believed an argued sentence was in his best interest, and Attorney Verhoff made a very unusual strategic decision.  He knew that to avoid prison, he would have to recommend a significant jail sentence.  The jail sentence would be preferable because it would enable the client to receive work-release – a significant goal for the client.  Attorney Verhoff knew he had to structure his proposed sentence in a way that made sense to the judge.  The prosecution had not demanded the client plead to the resisting charge.  Doing so would increase the possible amount of incarceration the client faced.  But Attorney Verhoff had a carefully weighed the sentence he wanted to recommend, giving the client the best shot at probation.  He told the client to plead to more charges than the prosecution was seeking.

Prior to the plea and sentencing hearing, Attorney Verhoff submitted a lengthy memorandum to the judge.  He outlined his arguments, provided background on his client, character letters, and treatment documents.  The parties appeared before the judge.  The client entered pleas to both the OWI and the resisting.  The prosecution then began a lengthy argument, focusing on the 12 prior offenses. 

When the prosecutor finished her argument, the judge was clearly unhappy with our client.  She turned to Attorney Verhoff, stating “I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.”  Attorney Verhoff then meticulously and passionately went through his arguments.  He addressed all the sentencing factors, and explained why his proposal – vastly different from the one made by the prosecution -- satisfied the factors.  He concluded by explaining why society was actually better off and the community was actually safer with his recommendation.  By the time Attorney Verhoff finished the argument, the judge was on board.  The judge informed the prosecutor that there was nothing “wrong” with her recommendation for prison, but she flatly rejected it and adopted Attorney Verhoff’s recommendation in its entirety.  As he walked out of the courtroom, several stunned lawyers approached telling Attorney Verhoff they couldn’t believe he had been able to achieve this outcome.  Even the prosecutor contacted him the next day to tell him how good she thought the argument was.  Most importantly, the client was utterly delighted.

Criminal OWI with Minor Passenger Dismissed

Our client, an Illinois resident, traveled to Wisconsin with family to visit some waterparks.  On the trip home, she was stopped for weaving on the highway.  The trooper asked the client she had consumed any alcohol, and our client admitted to having one drink earlier at the water park.  The trooper also reported that she looked “tired.”  The trooper asked our client to get out of the car to perform field sobriety tests.  She performed poorly and submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT) with a reported result of 0.13.  Based on this information, the trooper arrested our client and asked her to submit to a blood test, which she refused to do.  Although it was her first time being arrested for OWI, usually a non-criminal citation in Wisconsin, our client was charged with a criminal offense because she had two children in the vehicle.  She also received a citation for refusing to submit to the blood test and for deviating from her lane.  Attorney Verhoff filed a suppression motion, arguing that the trooper did not have sufficient grounds to ask the client to submit to field sobriety tests.  Although the client admitted to drinking, she did not have other, typical signs of impairment such as slurred speech, a thick tongue, red and glassy eyes, a flushed face or problems responding to questions.  But a hearing on the motion was never held.  After discussing the facts and the motion with Attorney Verhoff, the prosecutor agreed to a unique settlement.  The prosecutor agreed that if Attorney Verhoff withdrew his motion, he would dismiss the criminal charge of OWI with a minor passenger and lane deviation.  In exchange, the prosecutor wanted the client to plead to the refusal, which carries no jail or fines as a penalty.  The client accepted this offer.  While she was found to have refused the test, she avoided a criminal conviction, significant fines and lengthy jail sentence.

OWI 1st/ Refusal- Walworth County

Many people complain that refusals are virtually impossible to beat, and they can be difficult.  At Chirafisi & Verhoff, before you make a decision on how to attempt to attack the refusal, we believe you need to make sure you review all the evidence.  It can make a huge difference.
In this case, the defendant was caught on radar by law enforcement for speeding on his motorcycle at approximately 3:00 a.m.  The defendant was close to his residence and did not initially see the officer behind him, so he pulled his motorcycle into the garage and got off.  The officer made the fatal mistake of getting out of his vehicle (which is fine) then walking up to the client and into the client’s garage to have a conversation with him (which is not fine). The officer did not receive the client’s consent to enter the garage.
None of that information about entering the garage was contained in the police reports.  It is something that Corey Chirafisi was aware of after spending time reviewing the documents with the client.  Then, during the refusal hearing, the officer acknowledged that he did in fact enter the garage without permission.
Attorney Chirafisi was prepared with case law supporting his position and once the parties briefed the issue, the Court ruled that the officer violated the client's constitutional rights by entering the garage.  All evidence was suppressed - including the defendant’s refusal to take the test.  Tough county (Walworth) but a great win and a happy client.

From an OWI to an inattentive

OWI charges can devastating to those charged, that certainly is the case for Illinois drivers charged here in Wisconsin.  Our client was enjoying a weekend of snowmobiling with friends when he was returning home on a Sunday morning and was stopped by a State Trooper for speeding.

The Trooper noticed the odor of intoxicants coming from within the vehicle and our client told the Trooper that he had consumed alcohol the previous evening but had nothing to drink for more than 12 hours.  The trooper ultimately got our client out of the vehicle, put him through standardized field sobriety tests and placed him under arrest for Operating While Intoxicated.

While at the police station, our client refused to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his breath and was charged with a refusal.  Being an Illinois driver, our client faced a possible indefinite drivers license revocation if he was convicted of the OWI charge.

The lawyers at Chirafisi & Verhoff began working on the case by filing a motion challenging the detention of our client without reasonable suspicion.  The motion was heard and denied by the Court; however, after the hearing, the Assistant District Attorney called and wanted to discuss the case further.  The government acknowledged the case would be difficult to defend on appeal and offered to resolve the case for an inattentive driving ticket and a dismissal of the refusal as well.  Our client left with no OWI conviction, no refusal, and a small fine.