Our client had been working with a different lawyer when he came to Chirafisi & Verhoff. The lawyer suggested the client hire our firm given the severity of the situation. The client was charged with felony OWI-causing Injury as a third offense in Dane County. He had been in a t-bone accident and had a reported alcohol concentration of 0.21 percent at the time of the crash. The stakes were high, as a felony conviction would cost our client the job he held for more than 30 years. Our firm went to work, reviewing the reports and medical records. Our attorneys immediately saw the records showed the other driver was a 0.16 at the time of driving. In addition, the attorneys could not locate evidence of an injury that would satisfy the "causing injury" portion of the case. Once Attorney Verhoff pointed this out to the district attorney, he was forced to amend the case from a felony charge to a misdemeanor. But things became even more complicated. Out on bail in the case, our client was stopped by a DNR warden while driving through a park in a different county. The client panicked drove away, allegedly at a high rate of speed. Law enforcement also suspected he had been drinking. Prosecutors in that county charged our client with a felony eluding charge one week before the client was set to resolve his case in Dane County. Attorney Verhoff had his work cut out for him. To best serve our client's legal interest, he needed to get the Sauk County case resolved before finishing the Dane County case. Not an easy task, as cases typically take months to resolve. And because the client would lose his job if convicted of a felony, Attorney Verhoff not only had to resolve the Sauk County case quickly, he had to get it resolved as a non-felony. Fortunately for the client, Attorney Verhoff was able to negotiate a resolution of the Sauk County case on misdemeanor grounds the day before the case in Dane County settled. When the parties showed up for court in Dane County, the prosecutor, who had learned about the Sauk County case, was grinning. He informed Attorney Verhoff, "Your client has a new felony case." Attorney Verhoff told him to "check again." He did and saw the case had been resolved the day before for misdemeanors. In disbelief, the prosecutor simply said, "How do you always get those kinds of result for your clients? Unbelievable!"
OWI with 0.26 BAC Amended to Reckless Driving
Our firm secured a recent victory in Madison Municipal Court. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual. The client, who had been drinking, called a family member from an apartment complex and sounded in distress. The family member believed the client had been unknowingly drugged and contacted police to investigate. When police arrived on the scene, they interviewed witnesses, including our client. She was clearly impaired and admitted to driving to the apartment complex earlier in the evening. However police were unable to determine exactly when she drove there. Authorities took her to the hospital for an evaluation. Medical personnel drew her blood, which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.26 percent. Several hours later, after placing her under arrest for OWI, law enforcement performed a legal blood draw, which had a reported value of 0.169 percent. Throughout negotiations, the prosecutor insisted on a conviction for OWI, reasoning the client was clearly drunk when police arrived at the scene and was in an elimination phase. Attorney Verhoff filed several motions in the case and sought to have the test result deemed inadmissible for trial. Although Attorney Verhoff did not dispute the client was intoxicated when police arrived, he told the prosecutor he did not believe the government could establish that she was impaired when she drove to the complex. Attorney Verhoff knew he was on solid legal ground to have the test result stripped of its presumption of admissibility. Moreover, he knew an expert would have difficulty estimating the client's alcohol concentration at some vague point earlier in the evening. After six months of litigation and just days before the motions were to be heard by the judge, the prosecutor threw in the towel, offering to amend the case to a reckless driving for a small fine. The client agreed to accept the amendment, saving her an OWI conviction, large fines, a significant license revocation, and an ignition interlock device order.
OWI 3rd amended to 1st offense- Green County
Our client was stopped for not having functional tail lamps one evening. That stop led to her arrest for Operating While Intoxicated as a 3rd offense. Our client was very concerned considering the substantial penalties associated with a 3rd offense. Our client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff for our expert knowledge in this type of case, our experience in handling these types of matters, and our success rate.
Corey Chirafisi reviewed the file and was able to determine that a prior conviction from over 20 years ago may be invalid as the client did not have a lawyer on that case. After much digging, it was firmly established that the client did not have a lawyer and Corey and the client were able to attack that prior conviction.
The government put up more fight than usual on the issue of whether the client had made a prima facie showing. The parties filed motions, affidavits and briefs on the issue. After much debate, the Court found that in fact the client had made the necessary prima facie showing and at that point Attorney Chirafisi knew the hearing was likely won. He was right, at the actual motion hearing, the prosecution conceded that they would not be able to meet their burden and agreed that the client would not be charged with an OWI 3rd, but rather an OWI 1st. Our client was thrilled, no criminal conviction and no jail with the charge.
OWI 1st- Dane County – Case dismissed
While we like to tell people of the great results we are able to obtain in these types of cases, this case is a little different. This case proves that having a lawyer sometimes is what you really need to get the results that you want.
Client was charged with 1st offense OWI when he was stopped for being in a parking lot after the business had closed late one weekend night. The officer then turned that stop into a full fledged OWI arrest. When the client went to the police station to provide a chemical test of his breath, he was actually under the legal limit.
Because he was under the legal limit he thought he could handle the case on his own. He made the court appearance and attempted to speak to the prosecutor about the case. When the prosecutor explained that the offer in the case would require that he enter a plea to the charge, the client decided it was time to get some help.
The client reached out to Chirafisi & Verhoff for assistance. After hearing the facts of the case it was clear that the government would never be able to prove the case if it went to trial. The client was charged a very nominal fee for filing paperwork and demanding a jury trial. Shortly after the pretrial was held with us representing him at the hearing, all charges were dismissed. Sometimes all it takes is having a lawyer present.
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.
OWI/PAC 1st- .12 with an Accident– Charges Dismissed
Our client somehow found his vehicle on the wrong side of the concrete barrier under an 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 was 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 a lack of information as to the test being 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 their entire case up. All charges were dismissed.
Case Dismissed! Operating a Motor Vehicle above a .00- CDL driver while on duty time
At Chirafisi & Verhoff, many of our clients are CDL drivers. Their ability to be able to drive is their livelihood. They trust us to be able to help them avoid losing not only their license, but their jobs.
Our client is an over-the-road truck driver. He was at a weigh station speaking to a State Trooper when the trooper noticed an odor of intoxicants coming from the client’s breath. The client stated that he had consumed alcohol the night before driving. The problem for the client was that because he was in his semi truck at the time, his legal limit was 0.00. The client provided a preliminary breath test which registered a 0.02. He was then ticketed for driving above a 0.00 in a commercial motor vehicle.
The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff as he knew if was convicted, he would lose his job. Almost immediately, Corey Chirafisi was able to see that there was no possible way that the government would be able to prove the case. First, while the officer was allowed to ask the client to submit to a preliminary breath test, that test would not be admissible in court against the client. The trooper never took the client in for a breath test, which would have been admissible in court. Further, the trooper, believing that the client had consumed alcohol but wasn’t impaired, never put the client through any field sobriety tests.
Once all of these facts were pointed out by Chirafisi & Verhoff, the Assistant District Attorney agreed and moved to dismiss the charges outright. Our client was relieved knowing that he would be able to continue with his employment.
OWI 1st- PAC .150- Charges Amended to Reckless Driving
Our client had an all-or-nothing proposition in front of him: he was arrested for Operating While Intoxicated and he had a CDL which he used daily for his job. A conviction would have resulted in him be fired from a job that he had for many years.
The case was a little odd in that the client wasn’t stopped by law enforcement. The police were called because a person who knew the defendant said that he was likely impaired and had driven to a local gym. When the police showed up they made contact with the client and ultimately arrested him for OWI. When the client agreed to perform a breath test, that result came back at 0.15.
The client knew that his career was on the line and made a decision to hire Chirafisi & Verhoff in an effort to deal with the case. Interestingly enough, after much discussion with the prosecutor discussing various motions, the prosecutor agreed that his case may be in trouble and he agreed to amend the charge to reckless driving. That deal went away when shortly before the agreement was given to the Court, as the client was stopped on a different incident date and had open intoxicants in his vehicle. The prosecutor was not very happy and pulled the deal. The matter was set for trial.
On the morning of trial, Attorney Corey Chirafisi did something he rarely ever does: he told the prosecutor about a problem with the Intoximeter which the prosecutor would otherwise not have been aware of. Attorney Chirafisi had obtained the data of all the tests performed by the machine which tested the client’s breath and found a problem with the maintenance of the machine. After much review and conversation with the police, the prosecutor put the offer for a reckless driving back on the table. That meant no suspension or revocation and no conviction of an alcohol related offense for the client. He was able to keep his job and only received a fine.
Another High-End OWI Avoids Prison
For the vast majority of people convicted of a sixth-offense OWI in Dane County, prison is the result. In this case, the client did not originally hire Chirafisi & Verhoff. He chose a different firm. And it looked like prison was where he was headed. The client was arrested after police observed him speeding and driving the wrong way down a major road in the Madison area. He agreed to take a blood test, which returned a reported value in excess of 0.20 percent. The client also told police he was impaired and should not have been driving. As his case moved toward trial, the prosecutor was insisting on a lengthy prison sentence. Frustrated, the client decided to go in a different direction for legal represented and turned to our firm for help. From the outset, he indicated he really did not want to have a jury trial in the case. But he also did not want to go to prison. Attorney Tim Verhoff began by reviewing the client’s prior convictions to see if they were valid. This was something the first lawyer did not do. Attorney Verhoff realized that while all of the priors appeared valid at first blush, the only documentation he could find for one of them was on the client’s driving record. Attorney Verhoff could not locate an actual court record associated with the conviction. Attorney Verhoff brought this to the attention of the prosecutor. In addition, Attorney Verhoff began a series of meetings with the prosecution to explain why probation, not prison, was appropriate for his client.
The prosecutor, who had been adamant that a prison sentence was necessary, began to change her mind. Ultimately, she agreed if Attorney Verhoff did not challenge the questionable prior conviction, she would recommend the judge place the client on probation with some conditional jail time. The parties appeared before the judge for the plea hearing and recommended a probationary sentence. At first the judge was skeptical. But after hearing Attorney Verhoff explain why the parties thought probation was appropriate, the judge agreed and sentenced him to probation. Although the client was ordered to serve a jail sentence as a condition of probation, the jail sentence meant the client would not lose his job and could continue to care for his ailing mother. A few days after the sentence was imposed, Attorney Verhoff received a call from a grateful client. Not only did the client avoid prison, but he called our office to let us know the Sheriff’s Department had authorized him to serve his sentence on a home-detention monitoring system. Needless to say, the client was happy that he decided to switch attorneys and hire our firm.
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/PAC (.10) Dismissed--Prosecutor gives up in the middle of trial
Our client was working up north traveling from job site to job site. In November he had come back to the hotel he was staying at for the week and decided to have a drink after work. As the night was passing, and before he was ready to go to bed, he decided to move his work truck to a better location in the hotel parking lot. That is where the problems started.
The equipment on the back of his truck severely damaged the awning at the hotel, nearly knocking it down. The workers at the hotel called the police and they came to the hotel to question the client.
The client initially denied driving but ultimately told the officer that he was driving and acknowledged drinking alcohol in his room. He provided a breath test after arrest and he blew a 0.10.
The prosecutor would not speak to us about the case. She would not return phone calls, and wouldn’t discuss the facts which is quite unusual.
The case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called the arresting officer to testify and everything fell apart for them. Attorney Corey Chirafisi knows the law and objected to everything improperly done by the Prosecutor. The officer could not establish a time of operation, and because the prosecution could not establish a time of operation, the test result was in serious jeopardy of not being admitted.
The prosecutor tried several times, in multiple different ways, to get the test result in but the judge would not let it in without proper foundation. Attorney Chirafisi continued to make it difficult for the prosecutor to do her job. Then something happened that we have never seen before: in the middle of the arresting officer’s testimony, the prosecutor stood up, literally threw her arms in the air and said that she gave up. She then proceeded to dismiss all the charges against the client. It was a new way to get a great result for the client.
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.
OWI 1st- Sauk County (.132 blood test result)- Case dismissed
This is a case which proves that a small crack in a case can turn into a huge problem for the prosecution. Our client was charged with OWI/PAC 1st offense. The allegation involved him striking a tree at approximately 4:00 a.m. There was no question that he was the driver since he had to be extracted from the vehicle with the help of law enforcement.
The defendant met with Attorney Corey Chirafisi and they mapped out the issues in the case. The biggest issue was whether or not the government could establish a time of operation in the case. They needed to establish what time the client was involved in the accident in order to get the test result into evidence.
First, Attorney Corey Chirafisi filed a Motion to Strip the Test of its Reliability. That Motion was conceded by the Government. Once that happened, Attorney Chirafisi then filed a Motion to Exclude the Test Result unless the Government could establish a time of operation. About a week before the motion hearing was to be held, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss the entire case, as they realized they could not establish time of driving.
One small little crack in that case led to an amazing result. Our client was thrilled with the results.
OWI 2nd Dane County (.12 breath test result) DISMISSED
A former client of ours had been stopped for an OWI 2nd and called our firm for assistance right away. The client tested at a 0.12 so when he came to meet with us, he was pretty concerned about the consequences he might be facing. Like many people in his situation, he believed that because he was over the legal limit, there was very little that could be done for him.
Once Attorney Corey Chirafisi reviewed the police reports, he found the soft spot to attack. The client had been stopped for a valid reason (rolling through a stop sign), had admitted to drinking and there was an odor of intoxicants coming from the vehicle. The defense focused on whether or not there was a basis to believe the defendant was, in fact, intoxicated and whether the officer had a basis to have him step out of the vehicle to perform Field Sobriety Tests.
Attorney Chirafisi filed a Motion to Suppress evidence, challenging the unlawful detention. A hearing was held and at the conclusion, the Court found that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe the client was intoxicated. The Court suppressed all evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful detention, which included the client’s breath test results. At the conclusion of the hearing the prosecution dismissed the case. Our client was thrilled, as he ended up with no jail time, no fines and no revocation of his license.
Unlawful Driving Case Dismissed
Our client was stopped in Madison while driving one morning and was arrested because his license was revoked. He faced a conviction, fines, and up to a year in jail. The client had been convicted of a third-offense OWI almost approximately 18 months earlier. As a result of that conviction, the Department of Transportation revoked his driving privileges. Unfortunately the client, who was not originally represented by Chirafisi & Verhoff in the OWI case, did not know he could obtain an occupational permit that would allow him to drive lawfully on a limited basis. When the client met with our attorneys, we immediately recognized that he was eligible for an occupational permit and advised him to obtain one as soon as possible. As for the criminal charge of operating after revocation, prosecutors initially sought a conviction in the case. But when our attorneys explained that the client was stopped on his way to work at 8:30 in the morning, was eligible for an occupational permit at the time but didn't know, and presented the prosecution with the client’s newly-obtained occupational permit, the District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the charge against him, much to our client’s delight.
Green County OWI/PAC at 0.12 Dismissed
What was supposed to be a fun day of tubing down the river in Green County turned into a legal quagmire for our client. A 20-year-old college student, our client was driving his friend home in the afternoon when law enforcement stopped him for having a broken tail lamp. What started out as a stop for an equipment violation quickly turned into an OWI investigation after the client informed the police officer he had been drinking earlier in the day. The client was arrested and taken for a breath test, which showed a reported alcohol concentration of 0.12 percent. Concerned about what a conviction meant for his future, the client and his parents hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to deal with the situation. After Attorney Corey Chirafisi reviewed the reports and the video, he filed two motions to suppress the evidence based on two different legally theories attacking and challenging the manner in which law enforcement gathered the evidence against our client. The case was scheduled for an evidentiary hearing. On the day of the hearing, however, the prosecutor saw the problems with the case. He did not even bother offering an amendment to the OWI charge. He simply dismissed both the OWI and PAC charges. The client then pled to a much less significant citation for a violation of the absolute sobriety law and was extremely happy with the results.
OWI 1st with a 0.098 test result amended to 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 / PAC .14 – Amended to Reckless Driving
Getting a first offense OWI in Wisconsin, especially if the case begins in municipal court, can provide the client great opportunities to fight the case.
Our client was charged in the Town of Beloit with OWI 1st and PAC after a police officer witnessed his vehicle travel almost completely into the wrong lane of traffic at about bar time.
The officer was able to capture the driving behavior on videotape and based on the field sobriety tests and the breath test, the client was charged with OWI and PAC. The client didn't believe that he was impaired at the time he was driving and he hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to attempt to deal with the situation.
Because the case was in municipal court, Attorney Chirafisi was able to conduct a trial in an effort to lay the groundwork for a trial at the circuit court level. At the municipal trial the officer testified in a way that Attorney Chirafisi knew would make it very difficult for the government if they choose to move forward with the case. The officer did the field sobriety tests completely incorrect, scored them incorrectly and did not know what clues he was looking for.
Further, the officer did not run the intoximeter machine properly and acknowledged that he did make mistakes in doing that test. After the client was convicted in municipal court he appealed the matter to circuit court.
Once the case was brought into circuit court, the prosecutor called Attorney Chirafisi and was told that the officer was concerned about having to testify again at the trial based on all of his previous errors in municipal court. Even though the test result was over the legal limit (by almost double) the prosecutor offered to amend the charge to Reckless Driving. The client saved his license, had no record of an OWI conviction, and was able to continue on with this job.