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.
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.
Theft Charges Dismissed
Sometimes people find themselves in difficult points in life and make bad choices that lead to legal woes. Our client was facing significant stresses her life and had stopped taking prescribed medication. Things became much worse. Madison Police arrested her after she was caught stealing merchandise at a local store. Our client, who had no prior involvement with the criminal justice system hired the lawyers at Chirafisi & Verhoff. Our lawyers discussed the situation with the prosecution and explained our client’s situation and why we believed she ended up in trouble. The District Attorney’s Office agreed not to charge our client with a criminal offense, but instead agreed to issue a non-criminal ordinance violation. At first, the prosecutor insisted the client enter a plea to the reduced charge. Undeterred, our lawyers continued negotiations with the prosecution until we were able to secure an agreement by which the charge would be dismissed. Months later, with the client’s life back on track, the case is now dismissed.
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 - Causing Injury - Charges Dismissed
There are times our clients come to us and believe based on the serious of an accident or injuries involved, there is very little an attorney can do for them. In this particular case, our client and a passenger on the scene were involved in an accident that resulted in the vehicle burning up and both people being rushed to the hospital (our client by med flight). When EMS arrived on scene and spoke with our client, she told EMS workers that another person was in the vehicle and that he was the driver. EMS checked the area and could not locate anyone. Law enforcement even brought out thermal imagining devices in an attempt to locate any change in temperature in the area. They found nothing.
Shortly thereafter police located the man that our client stated was the driver, he had no visible injuries and stated that he was not driving or even in the vehicle at the time of the crash. Law enforcement believed him since he had no marks on him and both other people involved in the crash were seriously injured. They ultimately charged our client with OWI-Causing Injury.
The client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to help her with the situation and once the police reports were obtained, we went to work. We were able to file specific motions in order to get into background of the alleged driver and the fact he was on probation at the time. Once that motion was granted, everything started to fall apart for the government.
In reviewing the lengthy videos we were able to point out inconsistencies in one of the witness's stories that would have seriously damaged that person’s credibility. A review of the medical records and the photos also seemed to indicate that the client was not the driver of the vehicle.
About a week before trial the government moved to dismiss the entire case against the client.
OWI 1st / Refusal - Amended to Reckless Driving During Trial
Our client came to us with two problems: he was arrested for OWI and 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, 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.
Disorderly Conduct Case Dismissed - Domestic Injunction Dismissed
Our client struck up a relationship with a woman and moved to Madison to live with her. Unfortunately, after several months, things were not working out. On a recent weekend, our client, his girlfriend and some friends attended a festival. He and his girlfriend got into a verbal argument at the festival. When they got home, she told him the relationship was finished and he needed to move out. Several days passed as our client searched for a new place to live. Fed up, the girlfriend called the police and reported that the client had threatened to harm her at the festival several days before. Police arrested our client for disorderly conduct and prosecutors filed charges against him. That same day, his girlfriend petitioned for a domestic abuse injunction. He moved out and immediately contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff. Our lawyers met with the girlfriend prior to the injunction hearing. After our lawyers discussed the situation with her, she agreed to voluntarily dismiss the injunction. Our lawyers then discussed the disorderly conduct charges with the prosecution. Our lawyers told the prosecutor that if the case went to trial, we would argue that the girlfriend’s decision to seek an injunction and call the police was not because she was disturbed by the client’s behavior at the festival. Rather, she was simply using the system as a mechanism to get him out of the residence. After meeting with our lawyers, the prosecutor agreed he could not go forward and dismissed the disorderly conduct charge.
Battery and Disorderly Conduct Charges Declined
The Dane County District Attorney’s Office agreed not to file any charges against a Chirafisi & Verhoff client who was recently arrested by the Dane County Sheriff’s Office. The client, who was visiting Madison from Illinois, attended a party at a relative’s home. After the party ended, a person not affiliated with the party entered the home without permission. Our client asked her to leave. The person refused and things turned physical as our client escorted the interloper out of the house. Our client then went to bed thinking the incident was finished. But she was wrong. The interloper, who was intoxicated, called law enforcement and reported that she had been assaulted. The Sheriff’s Department arrived and took her statement but did not question our client who had gone to bed. The Sheriff’s Department returned the next morning, took a statement from our client, and then arrested the her. She then hired the lawyers at Chirafisi & Verhoff. Our lawyers met with prosecutors from the District Attorney’s Office. We provided prosecutors with information about our client, who is a professional with no prior criminal history. Our lawyers provided our client’s version of the events, the criminal history of the reporting parties, as well as information from witnesses our client would call if the case was charged. After discussing the matter, the prosecutor agreed that no charges would be filed.
Dane County Client Avoids Criminal Charges
A Dane County client recently avoided criminal charges after hiring Chirafisi & Verhoff. The client, an Illinois resident with no record, was arrested in June 2014. While driving in the Madison area, the Wisconsin State Patrol attempted to stop our client for speeding. He did not immediately pull over. After the trooper finally stopped the vehicle, he arrested the client on criminal charges for eluding an officer. He also cited the client for speeding. The charges were referred to the District Attorney’s Office. Before charges were formally filed, however, our lawyers spoke with the prosecution and explained our client’s version of the events and provided some background information about the client. The prosecution agreed not to file criminal charges against the client. Instead the prosecution agreed only to issue traffic tickets to the client.
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.
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.
From Felony Charges to Dismissal in Dane County
The Fitchburg Police Department recently arrested our client on a felony charge of strangulation, as well as misdemeanor charges of battery, disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property after he got into a physical fight with his cousin during a night of drinking with friends. Our client had no criminal record and was fearful about how the situation would turn out. He contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff while he was still in jail but before the Dane County District Attorney’s Office made a charging decision. Attorney Tim Verhoff spoke to prosecutors and provided background information about the client and the situation. He was able to secure a resolution to the case before our client even appeared in a courtroom. Given the circumstances, the District Attorney’s Office agreed to charge our client only with the lowest level misdemeanor offense – disorderly conduct. The prosecution agreed to have our client participate in a deferred prosecution program, meaning the remaining charge will be dismissed after he successfully completes the program in a few months.
Client found NOT GUILTY in gun case
The new law in Wisconsin which allows our citizens to carry a firearm has caused the lines on what citizens can and can't do with a firearm to become blurry.
Police were dispatched to a 911 call of a man with a gun. The complaining witness informed dispatch that the vehicle they had just passed had a driver in it who threatened them with a gun.
The police stopped the client at his home and he acknowledged that there was an incident on the road and that he did display a firearm. The officer testified that the client told him that he showed the gun to the couple in the other vehicle "so they knew not to [mess] with him."
The client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff, and after some research, the attorneys believed the client's actions were not only justified, but not in violation of the law on carrying firearms. The matter went to trial on June 9th and after 4 hours of deliberation, the jury found the client not guilty and the case was dismissed.
Felony Charge Thrown Out
Our client was convicted of a felony battery in Dane County nearly 15 years ago. He contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff because the conviction was interfering with job opportunities. Attorney Verhoff reviewed the information from our client’s conviction and realized that the plea agreement and sentence originally imposed was unlawful. Attorney Verhoff challenged the conviction, and the prosecution conceded error. The client’s felony conviction was vacated.
OWI/PAC 0.188 Amended to Reckless Driving and DC with a Motor Vehicle
Sometimes good people get in bad situations. That is what happened with our client in February of 2013. The client was out with co-workers and was stopped by officers who stated they observed her traveling partially in the wrong lane of travel.
Officers stated that upon contact with the client they could smell an odor of intoxicants coming from the vehicle and the client’s speech was slurred and her eyes were glassy and red.
Officers requested that the client perform standardized field sobriety tests based on their observations and according to officers, the client failed all three tests offered to her.
The client’s blood draw came back at 0.188 which is well over 2 times the legal limit. The client was very concerned how the charge may impact her life and profession so she made a decision to hire a lawyer to fight the case for her. After looking around, a lawyer in Chicago told her that Chirafisi & Verhoff could help her.
After many months and motions being filed in her case, the prosecutor became concerned that he was going to lose the case based on an issue with the chain of custody. He offered the client an amendment from OWI to Reckless Driving and DC with a motor vehicle (both are ordinance violations). The client avoided any alcohol related conviction as well as any driver’s license revocation. Needless to say she was thrilled with the outcome.