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.

Shooting Case Dismissal in Dane County

Sometimes good people find themselves in bad situations.  A college student and member of the United States military, our client received word that he had been selected for officer training.  To celebrate, he went out to the bars.  He returned home intoxicated and got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend.  In a drunken state, he grabbed his service rifle during the argument and threatened to harm himself.  Worried, his girlfriend tried to take the rifle away from him.  Unfortunately, it discharged, and she received a complex gunshot wound to the hand.  When police arrived, he made statement to law enforcement, essentially a confession.  Police arrested the client, and prosecutors charged him with a felony for endangering safety and a misdemeanor for possessing a firearm while intoxicated.  Attorney Tim Verhoff knew the case would not be easy, given the serious nature of the allegations.  He knew the prosecution would be skeptical.  And the facts were certainly not in our client’s favor.  The client followed our advice, enrolled in alcohol treatment, saw a psychiatrist, and saw a therapist for domestic violence counseling.  The client did well with his treatment providers, and our lawyers were able to use the opinions of those experts to convince the prosecution this was an isolated event and the client did not present an ongoing threat.  Ultimately, our lawyers struck a deal with the prosecution by which the client would complete a deferred prosecution program and the case would be dismissed upon his successful completion.  This outcome was a huge success for the client because it avoided a conviction for any charge, which would have resulted in losing his right to possess a firearm and ended his military career.

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.

Dane County Felony Drug Case to be Dismissed

A felony charge of possession with intent to deliver approximately five pounds of marijuana will be dismissed against one of Chirafisi and Verhoff’s clients.  The client was arrested after the United States Postal Service became suspicious that the client was having marijuana shipped through the mail from a different state.  Law enforcement set up a sting operation and recovered approximately five pounds of marijuana that had been mailed to our client.  In an agreement with the prosecution, our Attorneys worked out a deal by which our client will participate in a deferred prosecution program.  At the conclusion of that program, the charge against our client will be dismissed.

Burglary Charge in Dane County Declined

When our client received a summons to appear in circuit court for a felony burglary charge in Dane County, he was stricken with panic.  On supervision for charges at the time, the burglary charge did not just mean he could face prison time in the new case.  It mean that his supervision could be revoked and he could face additional prison time on some older offenses for which he already had been convicted.  The client did not wait to appear in court on the new burglary charge before contacting a lawyer.  He contacted our office right away.  In the new burglary case, police had obtained a surveillance video of the perpetrator who looked a lot like our client.  Our client denied committing the crime, and he had no connections to Dane County. Attorney Verhoff went to work right away.  He learned that the client had a partial alibi.  A friend said she was with the client in the Milwaukee area on night in question.  It was not a perfect alibi because the friend said our client left her home at approximately 1 a.m.  This would have given our client enough time to drive to Dane County to commit the offense, but it made the scenario of our client driving from Milwaukee to the Madison area to committee a burglary and then return to the Milwaukee area with enough time to report to work the next day less plausible.  Attorney Verhoff also obtained information that bolstered the claim of our client’s friend that they were together that night.  In addition, Attorney Verhoff obtained a photograph of a different individual, who did have ties to the Dane County area, who looked almost exactly like our client.  Armed with this information, Attorney Verhoff contacted the client’s probation agent who agreed not to initiate revocation proceedings, provided no charges were filed in Dane County.  Attorney Verhoff then met with the prosecution and in a move that some defense attorneys would consider risky, laid out the entire defense to the prosecutor so she could compare the evidence in favor of the government to the evidence in favor of the client.  She got a good idea of how the case would look in trial.  After considering this information, the prosecutor agreed she could not prove the case in court and decided not to issue a charge against our client.

Vandalism Case Dismissed in Dane County

Our client was charged for damaging a window and given a citation for underage alcohol consumption after he allegedly  punched through a window at a local residence hall.  In settlement negotiation with the District Attorney’s Office, our lawyers were able to obtain a resolution which required our client to pay for the damaged window and submit to alcohol counseling.  The prosecution then agreed to dismiss both the damage charge and the underage alcohol citation against our client.

Hit and Run Case Dismissed Dane County

Often times, law enforcement will simply assume the worst.  On a recent wintery night, our client was in a traffic accident.  He was driving in a rural area in the fog.  Due to weather conditions, he lost control of his truck and went into the ditch, striking a tree and the fence on the adjacent property.  The homeowner came out contacted with our client.  Our client asked if the homeowner had a tractor to pull the truck out of the ditch, but he did not.  So our client called his wife from his cell phone with the intent to return the next day remove the truck with the help of a friend.  After our client left, the homeowner called local law enforcement to report the crash.  Law enforcement responded and had his truck towed.  Our client returned to the scene the next day, he found his truck was already gone.  He immediately contacted law enforcement, and was informed the truck had been towed.  The deputy, who noted in his report that there were no signs of intoxicating beverages, bottles or cans in or around the truck when it was towed, began questioning our client about how much alcohol he consumed before the crash.  Our client denied consuming any alcohol.  The deputy provided information about how to get the truck back, but also charged our client with hit and run, failure to notify police of an accident, and failure to control a vehicle.  Our client, a middle-aged man with no criminal record and a clean driving record contacted our attorneys.  When our attorneys first spoke with the District Attorney’s Office, the prosecution immediately accused our client of having consumed alcohol before the crash.  Our attorney’s meticulously pointed out why there was ample evidence to the contrary.  Ultimately, our lawyers picked apart the charges, arguing why the prosecution could not sustain a hit and run charge.  Based on our attorney’s presentation, the prosecution dismissed the charges of hit and run and failure to notify police of an accident before trial.  The prosecution also agreed to amend the charge of failure to maintain control of a vehicle to a non-moving, equipment violation.

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 Dismissed in Dane County

In most OWI cases, an amendment to a “reckless driving” citation is considered a win for the defense.  But in one recent case, our client listened to the advice of counsel and rejected such an offer – only to have the biggest payoff of all, an outright dismissal.  Our client was stopped for speeding in the early morning hours.  The client admitted to the officer that he had been drinking, but said he did not feel like he was in excess of the legal limit.  The officer continued with the investigation and demanded our client perform field sobriety tests, which the officer concluded he failed.  The client was arrested and agreed to submit to the chemical analysis of his breath, resulting in a reported result of 0.07 percent.  Although under the legal limit, the police and prosecution decided to move forward with the OWI case based upon the client’s speeding, admission of drinking and performance on the field sobriety tests.  The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff to try to help him out.  With our lawyers on board at the next hearing, the prosecutor gave ground on the OWI and offered to amend the case to a reckless driving citation.  But after reviewing the evidence, our lawyers didn’t believe a jury would convict the client and advised him to reject the offer – much to the prosecutor’s surprise.  The case moved forward toward trial until the prosecutor conceded about the only thing she could prove was a speeding violation.  This case provides yet another example of how an unrepresented individual is at a significant disadvantage when dealing with a prosecutor.  It also shows that you don’t have to accept ever offer that comes from the government.  Sticking to the plan in this case resulted in the best possible result for our client -  a dismissal without trial.

Boating OWI with a 0.18 PBT and Refusal Dismissed

Most often our firm deals with people accused of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  But it also is possible to be accused of operating a boat while impaired.  That’s what happened to our client after he and friends spent the day boating on an area lake last summer.  There was, in fact, little doubt our client had consumed a significant amount of alcohol on the day of his arrest.  The problem for the prosecutor, however, was proving our client ever actually operated the boat while he was impaired.

The group got into trouble after a citizen witness called 911 to report a possible intoxicated boater. When police arrived at the boat launch area an hour later, they found an individual struggling to load boat matching the caller’s description on a trailer.  Our client was found sleeping in a passenger seat of the boat.  The individual who was attempting to load the boat was one of our client’s friends, and police believed he was intoxicated.  The friend admitted to having driven the boat to the launch site and informed police our client also had driven.  Police took a statement from our client during which he said he and his friend drove the boat.  Police arrested both men.  Our client was charged with boating while intoxicated and refusing to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath.  Attorney Chirafisi reviewed the police reports and saw the description of the boat driver, which had been provided by the citizen witness, matched our client’s friend, but not our client.  Attorney Chirafisi also recognized that while our client admitted to driving the boat that day, he did not specify when. He raised these issues with the prosecutor.  One week before the scheduled trial, the prosecutor agreed he could not prove our client was impaired when he drove the boat and dismissed both charges.

Injunction Denied in Dane County

Some relationships end badly.  For our client, it was a worst-case scenario.  After our client broke up with his long-time girlfriend, she petitioned the court for harassment injunction against him.  Our client, an avid hunter, was particularly concerned because his former girlfriend sought to have him barred from possessing firearms during the four-year injunction period.  She alleged a variety of poor behavior on the part of our client, including a physical assault and stalking.  Our client denied this and was prepared to testify. 

At the injunction hearing, the former girlfriend and another witness for her testified.  Attorney Verhoff meticulously picked apart the testimony about the alleged assault and “stalking” behavior.  He confronted the girlfriend about her allegations and used text records and social media records against her.  At the conclusion of cross examination, the judge stated he did not need to hear from Attorney Verhoff’s witnesses.  Based on the cross examination alone, the judge denied the injunction and said, from the record before him, it could be suggested that the girlfriend had harassed our client, not the other way around. 

OWI and PAC of 0.09 Amended to Reckless Driving Before Trial

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

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

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

OWI 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.

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.