Our client spent an evening camping with friends at a state park in Iowa County. While there, a DNR warden contacted our client and his friends. During the interaction, the DNR warden suspected that individuals in the group were in possession of illegal drugs. The warden investigated, and our client ultimately was arrested and charged with a criminal offense for possessing marijuana. Worried about the implications a criminal conviction would have on his future ability to obtain jobs, as well as his eligibility for student loans, he contacted an attorney who referred the client to Chirafisi & Verhoff.
Attorney Tim Verhoff met with the prosecutor assigned to handle the case and reached a resolution by which the assistant district attorney agreed to amend the charge from a criminal drug offense to a non-criminal violation for excessive noise at a state campsite. For penalty, the client had to pay a small fine. Needless to say, the client was thrilled with the outcome.
Felony Child Abuse Charge Dropped
Prosecutors in Dane County charged our client with child abuse after the client got into physical altercation with his teenage son. A neighbor witnessed the event and called police. When law enforcement arrived on scene, our client admitted to punching his child, but said he did so only after the teen charged at him. Our attorneys recognized the client had a self-defense claim and discussed the potential defense with the client and the prosecution. Before trial, Attorney Verhoff engaged in settlement discussions with the assistant district attorney and reached an agreement to resolve the case short of a trial. The client had two options: he could go to trial on the felony charge and raise self-defense, but risk a conviction. Or he could avoid a trial and agree to be convicted of the lowest-level crime in Wisconsin, a disorderly conduct charge. Under terms of the agreement, the client would not be required to go on probation, serve any jail time, or pay any fines. He would only be required to pay statutory court costs. Our client decided to settle his case and avoid the risk of a felony conviction at trial, which would have had a significant impact on his career. Although the client was convicted of disorderly conduct, this case is an an example a situation that we, and our client, consider to be a victory.
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.
Domestic Disorderly Conduct and Intimidation of Victim Charges Dismissed
The Madison Police Department arrested our client for a domestic disorderly conduct and intimidation of a victim after he was in a dispute with his landlord. Before our firm became involved, the Dane County District Attorney's Office filed criminal charges against our client. The landlord also filed a domestic abuse injunction against our client. After a hearing on the injunction, the judge denied the injunction petition. Attorney Verhoff then used the dismissal of the injunction to our client's advantage in the criminal case. Before trial, Attorney Verhoff met with the prosecutor to discuss the criminal case. He outlined the proof problems anticipated with the government's case. He also shared the judge's decision regarding the injunction with the prosecutor, suggesting that if a judge refused to issue an injunction on the same facts (and a lower standard of proof), the prosecutor may have a hard time convincing twelve jurors our client was guilty of the crimes alleged. The prosecutor agreed and dismissed the case, much to the delight of our client and his family.
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.
Injunction Petition Dismissed
The burden of proof at an injunction hearing is incredibly low. A judge only needs to find "reason to believe" a respondent engaged in certain conduct or will engage in certain conduct. But at Chirafisi & Verhoff, our lawyers have an unbelievable track record in having injunction petitions filed against our clients dismissed. In the most recent case, our client's former girlfriend filed a harassment injunction against him. Prior to the injunction hearing, our attorney met with the petitioner and worked out an agreement by which she voluntarily agreed to dismiss the petition, and our client agreed to have no contact with her for a period of four years. If our client violates the agreement, the judge is free to simply issue the injunction at a later time. In reaching this resolution, it ensured our client is not subject to an injunction, possible arrest, and possible prosecution unless there is a violation of the agreement.
Assault Case Dismissed in Dane County
What started out as a fun night with friends ended with our client arrested and in jail. But that is not the end of the story. Our client went out to celebrate a friend's birthday. Included in the group was the client's former roommate. By all accounts, everyone in the group had consumed a fair amount of alcohol that evening. After taking a taxi cab home, our client and the former roommate got into a physical confrontation. Police arrested our client and booked her into jail on charges of domestic battery and domestic disorderly conduct. The case was considered "domestic" because the altercation involved a person with whom the client previously lived, even though they were not romantically involved. The client posted bail and was released from custody. Before charges were actually issued, however, she hired our firm. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the District Attorney's Office. His goal was to convince the prosecutor assigned to make the charging decision that the case lacked merit and should not be charged. His efforts were partially successful. The prosecutor met with Attorney Verhoff and understood there were proof problems. Rather than filing criminal charges, the prosecutor filed a non-criminal citation for violating the county code of ordinances. This was a partial win for the client because she knew she would not be convicted of a crime under any circumstance. After making the initial appearance in court, Attorney Verhoff again met with a representative with the District Attorney's Office and brokered a deal. If our client did an alcohol assessment, the prosecution would agree to dismiss the case. But Attorney Verhoff did not stop there. He waited a few weeks and met with the prosecutor assigned to the case for trial. He informed the prosecutor that our client would be willing to undergo an alcohol assessment to achieve a dismissal. But he again explained why he thought the case lacked merit. This time, the assigned prosecutor listened and dismissed the case. The client was not required to incur the additional expense of an alcohol assessment and was thrilled that this case resulted in an outright dismissal.
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.
Drug Charges Avoided Dane County
While investigating an unrelated incident, police approached our client and questioned him. Authorities determined he was not involved in their investigation, but they asked to search his backpack. He agreed, and law enforcement located "whippits" (cartridges filed with nitrous oxide, often used as a recreational drug). Police arrested our client and sent the case to the District Attorney's Office, asking that he be charged criminally with possessing a hazardous substance. Our lawyers became involved in the matter before the prosecutors reached a charging decisions. Attorney Verhoff worked out an agreement for an uncharged deferral. Essentially, our client will be required to comply with an AODA, perform some community service, and stay out of trouble for several months. Assuming the client meets these goals, the District Attorney's Office will not file charges against him.
Harassment Injunction Dismissed
After a lengthy relationship, our client broke up with his live-in girlfriend. He had virtually no contact with her for almost six-months. But one night, he went to her apartment to retrieve some property. While there, the client made some comments about his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. He then took the property and left. She responded by filing for a harassment injunction against him. Prior to the injunction hearing, Attorney Verhoff met with the ex-girlfriend to talk about the situation. After speaking with Attorney Verhoff, the client's ex-girlfriend agreed to enter into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the petition.
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.
Manufacturing THC- All Evidence Suppressed- Case Dismissed- Dane County
Drug cases many times involve the execution of a search warrant for defendant's homes. In this particular case, the client’s residence was searched with a signed warrant for an alleged marijuana grow operation. That warrant was based on a confidential informant’s statement to law enforcement that the defendant was growing pot. Law enforcement then went and reviewed electric bills for the defendant’s residence which showed electric usage rates which were almost double of other homes in the area. Based on that information, law enforcement sought, and were granted by judge, a warrant to search the premises.
Once on the premises, law enforcement seized over 3,000 grams of marijuana, multiple marijuana plants and digital scales. The defendant was charged with a felony that could have resulted in a felony conviction and possible prison sentence.
The defendant was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff in an effort to try and find a way to beat the case. Once the attorneys reviewed the search warrants (there were 2 in this case) they found the weakness in the State's case. The warrant contained information that was stale (the information was old and there was no way that it could be relied upon) and it also had information from a confidential informant which was useless and could not be considered reliable.
Chirafisi & Verhoff then filed a motion to suppress all the evidence obtained from the faulty search warrant. After multiple briefs, and argument to the Court, the Judge agreed with our arguments and suppressed all the evidence. The Government shortly thereafter dismissed the entire case.
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.
Injunction Petition Dismissed in Dane County
Our client found himself in the middle of a messy family court situation involving child custody issues. Also wrapped up in the situation was a piece of property that the petitioner’s parents owned and had allowed the couple to occupy for several years on a “rent-to-own” agreement. As the relationship deteriorated, the parents sought to remove our client from the property. Our client filed an action in family court regarding placement of the child he shared in common with the petitioner, and the petitioner, in turn, filed a harassment injunction against the client. Concerned about how an injunction would impact him, the client turned to our lawyers for assistance. Attorney Verhoff sat down with the client to review all of the relevant documents and evidence. He discussed the case with the client, came up with a strategy, and prepared the client for court. Attorney Verhoff liked our client’s chances in court on the merits, but explained to the client that the ultimate decision on whether or not to issue an injunction would be up to the judge. Attorney Verhoff recognized if an injunction was issued against the client, it would definitely hurt the client in his quest for child custody. On the morning of the injunction hearing, Attorney Verhoff met with the petitioner’s lawyer and worked out an agreement by which the petitioner agreed to dismiss the injunction without having the judge hear the case. In doing so, our firm secured an agreement by which no injunction was ever issued against our client, helping to preserve his case for custody in family court.
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.