Underage OWI of 0.10 amended to a Reckless

Our client was stopped in the City of Madison for not having her headlights on at night.  She had one other problem: she was underage.

The stop for headlights quickly turned into a stop and investigation for driving while impaired.  The client admitted to consuming alcohol (which is a problem based on her age) and she was ultimately arrested for Operating While Intoxicated.

The client and her parents were referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff and after looking at the video and other related evidence, we felt we would be able to use a defense that frankly, we don’t use that much anymore: alcohol curve defense.

Based on the clients drinking history and weight along with the test result, prior to trial we were able to convince the prosecution that in this particular case there was a real chance that the curve defense could work.  The prosecutor agreed and offered the client a reckless driving.  Almost every client is excited about getting an OWI dismissed or amended, it seems that younger clients and their parents in particular are the most excited.  She gets to continue her studies in college and will have a fresh start upon graduation.

Client Avoids Criminal Charge, IID at a 0.17 Alcohol Concentration

Police arrested a Chirafisi & Verhoff client on criminal charges of hit-and-run and OWI after a traffic accident just outside the Madison area.  Police did not locate our client at the scene, but found him later at an area business.  He was arrested and submitted to a breath test with a reported value of 0.17 percent.  Attorney Verhoff contacted both the District Attorney's Office and the municipal prosecutor before charges were filed.  Our client was an older gentleman with no criminal record.  Attorney Verhoff was able to strike a bargain with the prosecution in which the District Attorney's Office agreed not to file criminal charges if the client agreed to be convicted of the OWI and compensate for damage to the other vehicle.  Our client agreed to do so.  Although the client was convicted of an OWI in municipal court, Attorney Verhoff also was able to convince the municipal prosecutor that the ignition interlock device (IID) requirement was not necessary.  While the client's test result was in excess of 0.15 percent, it was taken outside the three-hour time frame required for the prosecution to secure a legal presumption of admissibility and applicability.  When Attorney Verhoff raised this evidentiary problem with the municipal prosecutor, he simply conceded the IID issue.

Sexual Assault Charge Declined

Law enforcement in South Central Wisconsin contacted a Chirafisi and Verhoff client regarding a report of a sexual assault that was alleged to have occurred more than a year earlier.  The client wisely, but politely declined to meet with the detective and immediately contacted our office.  Our lawyers then contacted the detective on our clients behalf.  Our lawyers did not allow the client, who denied wrongdoing, to speak with law enforcement.  However, our lawyers were able to obtain significant information about the case from the detective.  Our lawyers then contacted the prosecution to discuss the case before a charge was issued to discuss the case.  No charges were filed, and the case was declined.

Evidence Thrown Out, OWI with Minor Passenger Dismissed

Prosecutors were forced to dismiss a criminal charge filed against a Chirafisi & Verhoff client after the judge ruled much of the evidence in the case was obtained unlawfully. The client had been charged in Dane County Circuit Court with operating a motor vehicle with a minor passenger.  Law enforcement found the client in a parking lot, sleeping in his vehicle.  His child also was sleeping in the back seat.  At the conclusion of the investigation, the client submitted to a blood test, which showed a 0.03 percent alcohol concentration and the presence of a prescription medication. Prosecutors then filed criminal charges against the client. 

Attorney Chirafisi filed two legal motions challenging the admissibility of the evidence.  The first motion asserted that law enforcement did not have a sufficient basis to request the client submit to field sobriety tests.  The second motion asserted that  the client's "consent" to the test was not voluntary.  Attorney Verhoff then appeared at an evidentiary hearing on the motion.  He examined the witnesses and argued the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge granted the motion in favor of our client. With no evidence left to prove the case, the prosecution had little choice but to dismiss the case against him. 

Stalking charges dismissed prior to trial (Dane County)

When people think about stalking charges many times they picture a person hiding in the bushes ready to cause harm to someone else.  This case our client, who was a former client was charged with Stalking a friend of his.

The prosecution thought they had a good case, offering “no prison” if the client entered a plea.  That was not going to happen.  The case began to unravel for the government at the preliminary hearing.  By the end of that hearing the trial court was unsure whether to even find probable cause to bind the matter over for trial.  Once the prosecution saw that the judge was struggling to find probable cause, the flood gates opened.

Chirafisi and Verhoff were able to file motions not only challenging bindover of the preliminary hearing but made an “as applied” challenge to the constitutionality of the stalking statute.

There was no need for a hearing in this case.  After the motions were filed, the government realized that the matter should never have been brought in the first place and dismissed the case just prior to the motions being heard.  The client, who has very good job, would have certainly lost that job if he had been convicted.  Our client could not have been happier with the results.

OWI/PAC 1st- .13- Criminal Resisting Arrest- Amended to obstructing ticket

Client was called in by a passerby who was concerned he was sleeping in his vehicle and would not wake up.  The ambulance ultimately contacted the police when the client was awoken and smelled like alcohol and was in their opinion intoxicated.

The client was not very happy to see law enforcement.  Because he wasn’t driving, he wasn’t complying with the requests to step from the vehicle or listen to the officer’s commands.  This made the case start out challenging because the client was charged with not only Operating While Intoxicated with a test result of .13, but he was also charged criminally for resisting arrest.

Client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff and we got started.  First thing was the administrative review hearing.  At that hearing we were able to confirm that the officer had no idea how long the client had been sitting in his vehicle.  That fact made the test result irrelevant. 

We were able to convince the district attorney to dismiss the criminal resisting and then were left with the OWI charge.  The first offer was reckless driving, the client rejected that offer as well as an inattentive driving ticket. 

The client decided to resolve the case for an ordinance violation for obstructing for not obeying police commands when he refused to exit his vehicle.  He didn’t lose his license for a single day, did not have to do any alcohol classes.  Overall, he was very happy with the result.

APR 2 OWI/PAC 1st, 0.22, no IID

The DeForest Police Department arrested our client on criminal charges of hit and run, as well as a first-offense OWI/PAC with an alcohol concentration of 0.22 percent.  Police said our client pulled into traffic at an intersection, and two vehicles approaching the intersection collided because of it.  Witnesses obtained his license plate information and informed authorities that our client drove away from the scene without stopping.  Law enforcement then contacted our client at his home and arrested him.  Before criminal charges were filed, our lawyers obtained the police reports and reviewed them. Our lawyers then met with prosecutors from the District Attorney's Office to discuss the case and explained that we believed the government may have difficulties proving our client, whose vehicle never made contact with the other vehicles, was aware a collision occurred.  This was important because knowledge of the crash would be a crucial element the prosecution must prove in order to convict on a criminal hit and run charge.  Our lawyers also believed the police unlawfully entered our client's garage when making contact with him, and filed a motion to suppress evidence in municipal court. Ultimately, our lawyers brokered a deal with both the District Attorney's Office and the municipal prosecutor.  The DA's Office  agreed to decline the criminal charge if the client resolved the OWI case short of a trial.  And the prosecutor in the OWI case agreed to amend the charge to reflect a lower alcohol concentration (resulting in no ignition interlock device requirement), rather than litigating the suppression motion.  Our client accepted the offer and avoid the potential of a criminal conviction and possible jail time.

Domestic Battery and Disorderly Conduct Declined

A recent case is yet another example of why you should not wait until you are charged with a criminal offense to call our office.  In this case, police in Dane County arrested our client for domestic battery and disorderly conduct after a physical argument with his adult daughter.  The client contacted our office several days before his first court hearing.  He provided Attorney Verhoff with significant details about what transpired, the history of problems with his daughter, and other details about himself and his family.  Attorney Verhoff then met with the assistant district attorney who was tasked with making a charging decision.  Fortunately, he was able to meet with her before a decision had been made.  He provided the prosecutor with background detail and indicated, based on his knowledge of the case, a self-defense claim could be mounted on behalf of our client.  After meeting with our lawyer, the prosecutor reviewed the case.  She decided not to file any charges in the matter and contacted our lawyer to let him know.  She even thanked him for providing her with important background information, not contained in the reports, that played part of her decision to decline the charges.  

OWI/PAC 2nd Case Dismissed In Dane County

Our client was charged with criminal offenses for operating while intoxicated and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration in Dane County.  Attorney Tim Verhoff attended what he expected to be a routine initial appearance in the case.  But the court appearance turned out to be far from routine.  Attorney Verhoff received a copy of the criminal complaint minutes before the hearing and reviewed it.  The complaint indicated law enforcement had been called out in the early morning hours regarding a report of a vehicle in the ditch. Police made contact with out client, who appeared to be intoxicated.  Authorities put him through field sobriety tests, and arrested him.  He submitted to a breath test, which resulted in a reported value of 0.17 percent. In court at the initial appearance, Attorney Verhoff made an oral motion to dismiss both charges.  He argued the complaint failed to show probable cause supporting the charges.  He argued there was no indication the vehicle was running when authorities arrived.  There was no information showing our client was the driver.  And there was no indication of the time at which the vehicle went into the ditch (an important piece of information in determining if a person is intoxicated at the time of driving).  The unsuspecting prosecutor objected to the motion and made several arguments why the case should proceed.  Over the prosecutor's objection, the court commissioner granted Attorney Verhoff's motion and dismissed the case against our client.

Negligent Homicide and Operating After Revocation Causing Death--Charges Dismissed After Jury Selection (Kenosha County)

A huge victory for our client in this case: he was charged with Negligent Homicide and OAR Causing Death for an accident at a traffic intersection.  The bad news for the client was that he had a valid occupational license but was 12 minutes outside of his hours when the accident occurred.  He initially had a different lawyer and was not satisfied with the direction the case was headed and he looked around and got a referral to Attorney Corey Chirafisi. Attorney Chirafisi was very familiar with Kenosha County, having been a prosecutor there about 15 years ago.  He thought it would be helpful to bring another lawyer on board who had a presence in Kenosha and he called his colleague Attorney Mark Richards.  Together they went to work. First, they were able to get a qualified accident reconstruction expert to review not only the statements of the witnesses (which initially were not helpful at all to the client) but also the data from the airbag modules (which was very helpful to the client).  Once the expert wrote his report, which indicated the client was not the cause of the accident, the case started to go the client’s way.  But Kenosha County is known for not resolving cases in a favorable way.  Even after the accident report was provided to the prosecutor, she would not dismiss the charges.

One of the biggest things we were able to do in this case was to have the Court modify the jury instruction on who caused the accident.  It was the game changer.  We were able to convince the Judge that the jury instruction used in all cases that have charges like this was not appropriate.  We convinced the Judge that our instruction on causation was correct and once the Court agreed, the case started to unravel. First, the Government moved to dismiss the Negligent Homicide charge.  Good start.  But it was Kenosha County, and they were still going to go to trial on the OAR causing death charge.  That was, until the jury was selected.  Once the jury was seated the prosecution came back and finally said that they were dismissing the OAR Causing Death, provided the defendant plead to the OAR charge.  We agreed, since he was, in fact driving outside of his hours. So the client avoided a prison sentence, a felony conviction and ended up with no jail on a driving ticket for operating after revocation.  Very happy to get such a wonderful result for our client!

OWI 3rd- PAC .18 amended to Reckless Driving

Our client was pretty concerned, as he was charged with a 3rd offense OWI when he was called in for sleeping in his vehicle in a gas station parking lot.  Client had looked around for lawyers and ultimately called Chirafisi & Verhoff for representation.

Prior to the administrative hearing, Corey Chirafisi reviewed the police reports and video and found what was ultimately the issue that got the case amended.  The reports were unclear as to what time the client had arrived at the gas station, which put admission of his test result in jeopardy for the prosecution.  The prosecutor initially was unwilling to move off of the OWI and wanted significant jail time and a lengthy driver’s license revocation. 

Finally, about 2 days before trial, the prosecutor realized that his case was starting to fall apart.  He was very hesitant to amend the OWI charge because it was the client's 3rd offense.  However, he did agree at the final conference to amend the charge to a reckless driving where the client paid a $200.00 fine and walked away with no revocation, jail or criminal conviction.

OWI 1st/ PAC .10- Charge amended to Reckless Driving

Our client worked at the circuit courthouse in this county and was very concerned about how a conviction could impact not only her job, but her reputation at work.  She called around and was told that she should call Corey Chirafisi to see if he could help her out of this very stressful situation.

The client was stopped for speeding early one morning.  After she was stopped, the usual happened: she was questioned about drinking and ultimately was put through field sobriety tests and arrested for OWI.  At the police station, she was asked to submit to a breath test and her result was .10.

Because this case was in municipal court, Attorney Chirafisi had the advantage of doing the trial in the municipal court and then appealing to circuit court if the client was unsuccessful.  It wasn’t necessary.  On the evening of the trial the prosecutor, who has been unwilling to amend OWI cases in every other situation this firm has had in that court, agreed to amend the OWI charge to a reckless driving for a small fine.  The client was thrilled, she did not have concerns about losing her job or having to explain the conviction to the other people in the courthouse.

OWI 1st/ PAC .13, Reckless Driving

Our client called Chirafisi & Verhoff after being accused of drunk driving while smashing his vehicle into his garage damaging the actual structure of the building. Our client was worried because if he had his driving privileges suspended for even a single day, it would cost him his job.  He called Attorney Corey Chirafisi to see what could be done.

The groundwork was laid at the administrative suspension review hearing for our Motion.  The police had a time of operation, since someone witnessed the client strike the building, but the question was did the police have a basis to go into the house without a warrant?  In this firm's opinion, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has broadened the community caretaker role of the police in this state to the point of ridiculousness. This was a big concern for Attorney Chirafisi, so at the administrative hearing, Attorney Chirafisi was able to get the necessary information from the officer to file the Motion challenging entry into the home.

On the morning of the motion hearing, the prosecutor called (and even though the law is as bad as it is for the defendant’s on this issue) they indicated that they believed it was possible that based on Attorney Chirafisi's Motion, they may lose the case entirely.  The prosecutor then offered to dismiss the OWI and PAC charge for a plea to the reckless driving ticket.  Our client was able to save his career as his license was never suspended.

OWI & PAC 1st, THC charges all dismissed

Our client had been stopped by police for allegedly swerving in an unsafe manner around two squad cars that were involved in the stop of a different vehicle.  The police began following our client and also believed that she had deviated outside of her lane onto the shoulder of the roadway.  During the contact with the client, marijuana was located on her person and she was charged with possession of THC as well.

The client didn’t really believe that she could beat the case.  Her friend had used Attorney Corey Chirafisi previously and told the client to give him a call to see what he could do to help.

Attorney Chirafisi started out through the administrative review hearing by locking the officer into certain statements that proved to be the tipping point in the case.  After that administrative hearing, Attorney Chirafisi watched the video and noted that the information provided by the officer at the administrative hearing did not match what was clearly on the video.

The prosecutor realized that there could be some problems; and without ever filing a motion, Attorney Chirafisi convinced the State to dismiss the OWI/PAC and THC charges.  In exchange for the dismissal, the client agreed to pay a $187.00 ticket.  She was more than happy, especially since when the case began, she had no real hopes of being successful.  It's cases like these which should serve as a reminder to all that talking to an experienced lawyer who knows OWI defense is always a good idea.

Felony Drug Arrest but No Criminal Conviction in Dane County

As a 19-year old, soon-to-be college student, our client's arrest on felony charges for possession with intent to deliver marijuana cast her future in doubt.  Law enforcement contacted our client in the early morning hours after a resident reported a suspicious vehicle in their neighborhood.  Our client and a passenger admitted to smoking marijuana in the vehicle minutes before police arrived on scene.  Upon searching the car, police found marijuana, smoking devices, paraphernalia, and various packaging materials.  They also found one ecstasy pill. The client was arrested and taken to jail on felony charges of possession with intent to deliver THC.  She immediately hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to help.  Our lawyers contacted the District Attorney's Office.  Attorney Verhoff was able present information to the lawyer tasked with making a charging decision.  He explained why what was located in the vehicle was consistent with someone who used marijuana, but did not sell it.  Convinced, the prosecutor agreed not to charge a felony for dealing.  Instead, the prosecutor filed a misdemeanor charges of possession of THC, possession of a controlled substance for the ecstasy, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  But Attorney Verhoff was not done.  The case was then assigned to a different prosecutor to handle in court.  After several meetings between the lawyers, the assigned prosecutor conceded he could not prove it was our client's ecstasy versus the passenger's ecstasy.  Still, the prosecutor wanted the client to plead to the marijuana and paraphernalia charges.  Attorney Verhoff pressed on and argued the case was worth no more than a non-criminal citation for casual possession of marijuana.  Finally, the prosecutor gave up and agreed to amend the charges to a non-criminal violation with a penalty of only court costs, not even a fine.

Dane County Client Avoids Felony OWI Charge at a 0.31 Test and Crash

Our client was involved in a traffic crash, striking a vehicle from behind, which resulted in a chain reaction.  Authorities responded to the scene and smelled an odor of intoxicants coming from our client, who admitted to consuming alcohol before the crash.  Due to injuries, the client could not fully perform field sobriety tests.  He agreed to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which registered 0.13 percent.  Authorities transported him to a local hospital, and he agreed to a blood test with a reported value of 0.31 percent.  One of the other drivers also was transported to a local hospital, reporting a headache and general pain.  He was later diagnosed with a concussion.  The client immediately hired Chirafisi & Verhoff.  He made it clear that he needed to avoid a felony charge and conviction at all costs, as a felony would have catastrophic consequences on his family.  Even before the test results came back from the laboratory, Attorney Verhoff began negotiating the case with prosecutors.  The other driver had suffered an injury that could form the basis to file a felony charge, but Attorney Verhoff argued that the delay in diagnosis meant he could attack it. In addition, Attorney Verhoff obtained maintenance records for the laboratory equipment used to test the client's blood.  He learned that the laboratory was having two different mechanical problems with equipment in the days leading up to the client's test, and the equipment had to be taken off-line for repair days after the client's test.  Attorney Verhoff argued, given the difference between the PBT and blood test results, the 0.31 blood test may have been faulty due to mechanical problems in the laboratory.  In addition, given the timing of the client's last drink and his body weight, it was possible he was under a 0.08 percent at the time of operation.  In the end, the prosecution agreed not to charge the client with a felony crime, but simply a misdemeanor OWI-2nd.  The client ultimately entered a plea and was convicted of the charge, but considered it a huge victory under the circumstances.

Felony Drug Manufacturing/Maintaining Charges Dismissed in Rock County

What started as a seemingly benign "unlawful fishing" case rapidly turned into a multi-count, felony drug case for one recent Chirafisi & Verhoff client.  DNR wardens contacted the client on suspicion that he was illegally trapping and transporting minnows.  After contacting him, the wardens asked if they could go to his property to "have a look around."  The client felt pressure and consented.  Once on the property, authorities smelled the strong odor of marijuana coming from a shed.  They then obtained search warrants and located a marijuana grow operation.  After authorities took the client to jail, prosecutors charged him with two felony crimes, manufacturing THC and maintaining a drug trafficking dwelling.  The client was particularly concerned because a felony conviction would jeopardize his long-time job.  Through the course of negotiations, Attorney Verhoff was able to point out evidence to prosecutors to support his argument that while the client grew marijuana, he did so only for personal use to manage pain symptoms. Ultimately, Attorney Verhoff was able to convince the prosecution to dismiss the felony charges and allow the client to be convicted of low-level, misdemeanor possession of marijuana charges.

Client Pulls False Fire Alarm, No Criminal Conviction

Authorities contacted our client after he was alleged to have pulled a fire alarm at the UW-Madison Memorial Union.  Police reviewed a surveillance video and spoke with witnesses who identified our client.  Before making a statement to law enforcement, the client contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff.  Our lawyers worked with the police to make sure they did not physically arrest our client.  The client, a recent college graduate, was concerned about how the case would impact his future if convicted of a crime.  Although prosecutors initially filed a misdemeanor criminal charge Attorney Verhoff brokered a deal with prosecutors by which the charge was amended to a non-criminal violation with the legal equivalency of a parking ticket.  Yet another example of a Chirafisi & Verhoff client who avoided a criminal conviction after being charged. 

Child Abuse Case Declined

In this case, the client contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff after receiving a referral to our office from a different criminal defense lawyer in the Madison area.  Detectives wanted to speak with the client about a potential child abuse case after authorities became aware of bruising on a toddler.  Rather than speaking with law enforcement and representatives from human services, the client took our advice and invoked his constitutional right to remain silent.  Having obtained statements from other family members, who reported that if anything happened to the child it was accidental, law enforcement still referred the case to the District Attorney's office for prosecution.  Our lawyers then met with the prosecutor tasked with reviewing the case.  Our lawyers pointed out what we believed were problems with the case for the prosecution.  After listening to our lawyers, the District Attorney agreed and declined to file criminal charges in the matter. 

Drug-Related Charge Re-Opened and Dismissed After Original Conviction

This case is an example of why it is never too late to contact a lawyer.  Our client was charged with an ordinance violation for possessing drug paraphernalia.  The client, a young college student without a record, failed to appear at the initial court appearance in the case.  As such, she was convicted by default and ordered to pay a fine.  She and her family were concerned about how the conviction, even though not a criminal violation, would impact her future.  A few months after the conviction, she contacted our lawyers to see if anything could be done.  Attorney Verhoff spoke with the client and learned that she had voluntarily engaged in an AODA and participated in treatment after the conviction.  He then contacted the District Attorney's Office and explained the situation. After discussing the case with Attorney Verhoff, prosecutors then agreed to sign off on a motion to reopen and dismiss the charge against our client.  Once again, the client is able to honestly report, if ever asked, that she has no prior convictions.