Click on the various links below to see some of the results our clients
have obtained through our representation…
DUI Cases
DUI Cook County
People v. T.F.
When our client came to see us, he was employed as a Chicago police officer and had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol by another police department. One of the other police officers responded to a location regarding a 911 emergency call of our client’s car that was stopped and obstructing traffic in the northbound lane of Harlem Avenue at Lawrence. When the officers arrived on the scene, they allege that they saw our client’s car with its brake lights illuminated. The arresting officer alleged that northbound Harlem traffic was driving around both sides of the stopped vehicle, which was causing traffic to back up for approximately four blocks. The arresting officer alleges that upon approaching our client’s vehicle, he saw our client behind the driver’s window being non-responsive. It is alleged that he was sitting in the driver’s seat behind the steering wheel with the engine running, the gear selector was in drive and our client had his right foot on the brake pedal. They further noted and allege that all other doors and windows in the car were locked. They believed, according to the arresting officers, that our client only fell asleep and alleged that they began to bang loudly on the windows and roof of the vehicle in an attempt to wake up our client. They further requested that an ambulance be sent to the location while the other officers proceeded to bang on the vehicle in an attempt to wake up our client. It is then alleged that our client suddenly picked up his head, looked through the closed windows at the officers who were banging on his car, began to bob his head up and down and began to slowly began to move his vehicle forward, causing the other officers around the vehicle to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. The arresting officers then called for further assistance, as our client’s vehicle is alleged to have driven over the white striped median line between other vehicles that were stopped for a red light and continued in this direction, driving over other lanes of traffic. It is alleged that our client’s vehicle came to a stop, with the front end of the auto sticking out into the eastbound lanes of Lawrence. Officers, according to the report, attempted to block the vehicle in, but it is alleged that our client continued to drive the vehicle and unsuccessfully tried to maneuver between the squad cars. Other officers arrived on the scene, and our client was approached while he was behind the wheel of his car. The officers say, at this time, the driver rolled down his window, at which time they say they saw an empty holster for a hand gun sitting on the rear seat and told the driver to exit the car. The police allege that our client did not turn his car off and exit the car, so the arresting officer alleges that he reached within the vehicle and turned the key to the off position. At that time, they allege that they smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle and noticed that our client’s eyes were bloodshot, red and glassy. The further observed that our client’s speech was mumbled as he spoke and that he was unable to exit the car. They alleged that they had to assist our client out of the car, and while outside of the vehicle, it is alleged that our client needed assistance to stand. The arresting officer alleges that at that time, our client stated he was sorry and had too much to drink, was at a party and was on his way home. At this time, the officers indicate that they smelled a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on the breath of the driver. They subsequently arrested our client and charged him with driving under the influence of alcohol. We took a very aggressive approach to defending our client and were very successful in his defense. Despite the allegations contained in the police report, we obtained a complete dismissal of all charges placed against our client for driving under the influence of alcohol. Instead, our client plead guilty to a minor traffic violation of disobeying a traffic control device and was fined $100.00. Our client was able to avoid a conviction on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and was even able to avoid a court sentence of supervision. He did not have to attend and complete a victim impact panel, nor did he have to attend and complete any alcohol classes or pay any outrageous fines as the result of being convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or being placed on supervision for this charge.
People of the State of Illinois v. M.F.
Our client was arrested for driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street, and when arrested, had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, bloodshot, glassy eyes and became involved in an argument and fight with the police officer. The officer said our client refused all tests. Our client indicated to the contrary. He was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving the wrong direction on a one-way street, disobeying a traffic signal, reckless driving, failing to produce a driver’s license and operating an uninsured vehicle. Additionally, the Secretary of State decided to suspend his driving privileges for one year because this was his second DUI. We proceeded to a contested hearing on the issue of whether or not Springfield could suspend his driver’s license and won. The court issued an order directing the Secretary of State to rescind, or cancel, the suspension of his driving privileges and to remove that from his driving record. We then proceeded to a trial on all of the other charges stated, and our client was found not guilty on all charges and discharged. He never had to obtain an alcohol evaluation, attend driving classes, he never had his driving privileges suspended or revoked and never received a conviction on anything.
People of the State of Illinois v. R.P.
Our client was stopped on the highway and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and improper lane usage for an accident occurring at I-294. Upon arrival, the officer noted very heavy front-end damage on our client’s car, and when asked what happened, our client talked to the police officer telling him that he lost control of the car and crashed into a guard rail. He spoke in a slurred, mumbled voice and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. He had bloodshot, glassy eyes and his balance was swaying at times and even stumbling into the officer while caught trying to explain to the officer what happened. When asked if he had been drinking, our client stated he had multiple glasses of alcoholic beverages and refused any field sobriety tests. Our client was arrested and charged, and the Secretary of State sent him a notice that his driving privileges would be suspended. Because this was our clients second DUI, he is not eligible for court supervision, and the state offered a conviction on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and he would additionally have to suffer the three-year statutory summary suspension that would be imposed by the Secretary of State’s office. We contested both the summary suspension issue and contested, at trial, the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result of our efforts, the statutory summary suspension was dismissed and the Secretary of State’s Office was instructed and ordered by the court to reinstate our client’s driving privileges. At trial, our client was found not-guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and was discharged from all other offenses. Even tough it was a second DUI, our client was found not guilty of everything and suffered no interruption in his driving privileges.
People of the State of Illinois v. J.S.
Our client was stopped for speeding 63 in a 35 m.p.h. and for weaving over various lanes. When stopped, the officer found that our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot, glassy eyes, told the officer he had been through this before and stated he had been drinking at least four drinks before being stopped. According to the officer, our client also told him “I am so drunk, so what do you expect from me?” According to the officer, when asked to produce his driver’s license, he dropped all of the papers from his wallet and could not produce a driver’s license because, as the officer found out later, our client’s license was taken for two other DUI’s that he had been arrested for. The Secretary of State sought to suspend his driving privileges for three years, and the state sought incarceration because this was his third charge of driving under the influence of alcohol when he already had two pending. With respect to this client, we tried this particular case, and as a result of our efforts, the statutory summary suspension asking that our client’s license be suspended for three years was removed, and all charges were dismissed against him. As to the other DUI charges, we proceeded to trial on those also, and our client was found not-guilty after a contested hearing in Rolling Meadows on the other DUI.
People of the State of Illinois v. M.R.
This was our client’s second charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and he was not eligible for court supervision. The state wanted a conviction on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, which would have revoked his driving privileges for at least one year. The officer alleges that he saw our client traveling 71 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone. After pulling behind the vehicle, our client’s car stopped at a green light, and as the light turned red, went through the intersection. After the officer activated his emergency lights and tried to bring the car to a stop, the vehicle struck the median several times and was unable to stay in its line of traffic. While speaking with the driver, the officer says he could detect a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot, glassy eyes and slurred speech. When asked to exit his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests, according to the officer, our client failed all of the tests and was subsequently given two tickets for driving under the influence of alcohol, one of which was for driving with a blood alcohol content over .08. Our client received that ticket because back at the police station, he took a breath test, which registered a .196. We proceeded to file motions to contest the results of the breath test, and we were successful in suppressing the .196 blow. As a result of our efforts, all charges against our client were dismissed, including the two driving under the influence of alcohol charges, as well as the charges of no proof of insurance, speeding, disobeying a traffic control device, improper lane usage, failure to signal and failure to wear a seatbelt. Additionally, the summary suspension that would have suspended my client’s driving privileges for a minimum of one year was rescinded as a result of our efforts.
People of the State of Illinois v. D.S.
The police officer said that he observed our clients vehicle cross over the center lane marker three different times while it was weaving over the road. The officer attempted to stop the car, and our client allegedly continued to drive for another thirty seconds. When the officer spoke to our client, the officer says our client eyes were bloodshot and glassy, he had an odor of alcohol on his breath, he admitted to drinking that night, alcohol was found in the car, and when asked to perform six separate field sobriety tests, according to the officer, all of the tests were failed. When asked to take a breath test, our client refused to do so and his driving privileges were to be suspended for six months as a result of his refusal. We proceeded to a plea of not guilty in this case and to reject the states offer to issue our client a work permit on the condition that he obtain an alcohol evaluation and attend alcohol classes, and the states offer for supervision. As a result of taking this case to trial, the suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded after our efforts so that no suspension ever took effect. Our client was found not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result of our efforts, once again, our client was acquitted of driving under the influence of alcohol charges and suffered no suspension of his driving privileges.
People of the State of Illinois v. J.F.
Our client was arrested with his second DUI charge after he had run off the roadway, struck a decorative boulder that was on one side of a street, continued to cross the street, struck a tree on the other side of the street, ran over a mailbox and ran onto the lawn of a residence. When the police officers arrived on the scene, he had, according to the police, a very strong odor of alcohol on his breath, when he exited his car, he could not stand up, he fell into his car twice, and the officer had to hold our client up so he would not fall over. When speaking with our client, the officer said that he could not understand any of the answers that our client gave, and our client admitted to drinking at a bar prior to this incident. He subsequently took a breath alcohol test and blew over the statutory limit. He was then charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content over .08, as well as other charges. Because it was our client’s second DUI, he was not eligible for supervision and would’ve had his license revoked for a year in addition to having his license suspended because of a statutory summary suspension, also filed in this case, for an additional one-year period of time. We proceeded to a trial in this matter, and we were able to obtain the rescission of his driving privileges based on work that we had done on his behalf, and the Secretary of State was ordered to reinstate his driving privileges and to dismiss the summary suspension. We subsequently proceeded to trial, even though he had a blood alcohol content over .8 and were successful in obtaining a not guilty on his behalf on all charges. As a result of our representation of him and his second DUI, and even though he blew over the statutory limit, he was found not guilty and all charges were dismissed. He suffered no summary suspension, no revocation by being convicted, nor did he have to attend any alcohol classes or obtain an evaluation.
People of the State of Illinois v. R.D.
Our client was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol after a traffic accident in which our client allegedly lost control of his vehicle, crossed over numerous lanes of traffic and wound up in a ditch. After ending up in a ditch, our client exited the vehicle and began running away. He was staggering up a hill when he was caught by the police and arrested. According to the police officers, our client had a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech and admitted to drinking. This was our client’s first arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, and we turned down any request that our client receive court supervision for this offense. We proceeded to trial in this incident, and our client was found not guilty. He did not have to attend and complete any alcohol classes.
People of the State of Illinois v. K.S.
Our client had been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol after she was involved in a high-speed automobile accident on the Eden’s Expressway. She struck another car, and both cars struck the guardrail and came to rest. The Illinois State Police were called to investigate, and upon coming on the scene, they alleged that our client had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath, her speech was slurred and she was unable to balance and stand. Although the police officers found a case of Miller Lite beer on the side of the road near the accident, our client denied that it was hers. The police obviously didn’t believe her. Because an accident was involved, our client was taken to the hospital where blood was taken from her. Her blood showed a blood alcohol content significantly greater than .08. In defending our client, we took an aggressive approach to this, and because of this, we were able to obtain a dismissal of any statutory summary suspension that might have accrued against her. We were able to obtain a ruling from the Court directing the Secretary of State to rescind or cancel the suspension of her driving privileges and to reinstate her license during the pendency of this case. While the case continued on, we filed additional pre-trial motions to quash her arrest and have the matter set for trial numerous times. In the end, despite the blood alcohol content being taken, we were able to obtain the dismissal of all charges. Our client was extremely happy to be able to walk out of this with no supervision, alcohol classes or conviction. We are also in the process of expunging her arrest record.
People of the State of Illinois v. V.R.
Our client was stopped for speeding, 71 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone. Prior to stopping his vehicle, the officer noted that his car struck the median several times and was unable to stay in its own lane of traffic. He was also noted to have a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot and glassy eyes, failing all field sobriety tests and finally, taking a breath test showing .196.
It was his second DUI, and at the time of his arrest on this charge, he had not even been to court on his first charge. The state sought a conviction, jail time and the revocation of his driver’s license for one year.
We litigated the validity of the breath machine and won. The breath test results were not admitted against him, the summary suspension was rescinded and all charges were dismissed.
People of the State of Illinois v. P.P.
Our defendant in this case was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, with talking on a cell phone, with an improper turn and no insurance. The officer testified that he saw the defendant’s face was red with bloodshot eyes, that there was a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and that he had slurred speech. After the officer pulled our client out of the car, he administered standardized field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gait and the nystagmus test, the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand test. The officer testified at trial that the defendant failed the walk and turn test and that he stopped walking to steady himself as he lost balance while walking and that he stepped off the line and that he used his arms for balance more than six inches while doing the walk and turn test. The officer also testified that during the one-leg stand test that our client swayed while balancing, used his arms to balance and put his foot down two times during that test. The officer also indicated that our client failed the finger-to-nose test and that two times he did not even touch his nose. Despite failing our client on all of the tests that he gave him, we were able to get enough evidence out through cross-examination that after that our client did not even need to testify. He was found not guilty of the DUI, which was the only serious criminal charge that he faced. He was also acquitted of two of the minor traffic tickets and found guilty of turning without a signal. His total fine, after facing all of these charges, was $110.00 and he received a three-month period of court supervision. On the DUI charge, our client was completely acquitted and has the potential to have his arrest record expunged on this matter.
People of the State of Illinois v. R.K.
When our client came to us, she had been charged with her second DUI within a five-year period of time. She was not eligible for supervision, and the state was seeking to have, at the minimum, a conviction entered against her. This would have caused the revocation of her driving privileges for at least a minimum of one year, and in all practicality, about two or three years total. Our client had been stopped by the police officer, who according to his reports and testimony in this case, detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car she was driving, and found her to have slurred speech. Her eyes, according to the officer, were bloodshot and glassy, and when asked if she consumed any alcohol that evening, according to the police officer, she told him, yes, that she had two mixed drinks, which were Jack Daniels and Coke. The officer asked her to exit the car and administered a series of field sobriety tests. The officer’s opinion was that our client had failed every one of the tests that he gave her. He found her balance to be off and that she failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test on all six points. When administering the one leg stand test, the officer testified that our client swayed while balancing, had to use her arms to balance, raising them significantly more than six inches, was hopping, put her foot down at least three times and basically could not do the test. He then administered the walk and turn test and found that our client could not keep her balance while he was giving her instructions on how to do the tests. He found that she couldn’t touch her heel to toe on any of the steps; she lost her balance by stepping off the line and turning and took the incorrect number of steps. The officer arrested her for driving under the influence of alcohol, and when he asked her to take a portable breath test, she refused, and later on at the station when he asked her to blow into the breath machine, she also refused. We proceeded to a trial in this case. Because it was our client’s second DUI and she wasn’t eligible for supervision, our client was put in the position of having to litigate this, despite the officer’s attempts to portray her as an extremely drunk individual, who could not walk and chew gum at the same time. We proceeded to a trial in this case, and through a very aggressive cross-examination of this arresting officer found that the officer made significant mistakes, or to put it kindly, did not testify truthfully in this matter. Additionally, through the presence of a video of the tests and the audio portion of the video that was introduced into evidence, the state sought to corroborate the officer’s testimony. However, we were able to turn around the video and the officer’s recollection of what happened to our advantage. At the close of the case, the judge found our client not guilty of the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. She was acquitted of this charge.
People of the State of Illinois v. A.G.
When our client came to us, he had been charged with speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol and had his driving privileges suspended unilaterally by the Secretary of State’s Office. We represented our client very aggressively and filed a petition to rescind the suspension of our client’s driving privileges. At court, our client was observed by the police officer allegedly traveling at 68 m.p.h. in a 45 m.p.h. zone and was stopped on Lake Shore Drive. Upon approaching the car, the officer stated that he could smell a strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from our client’s breath, that our client had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and when asked to recite the alphabet, our client allegedly forget the letter “W”. Our client was asked if he had been drinking, and supposedly he answered yes, he had two glasses of wine and was asked to get out of his vehicle. The officer said our client was slow getting out of his vehicle, swayed while walking, swayed while balancing, at which time he failed all points on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. He was given a one-leg stand test, during which time the officer said our client failed that one, indicating to the officer that our client was under the influence of alcohol. The officer administered a walk and turn test and indicated that our client also failed that test as well as failing the finger to nose test. The officer found our client to speak with a slurred speech, and as a result, our client was placed under arrest, charged with the above and retained us to represent him. We were able to obtain a rescission of the suspension that the Secretary of State had entered against him based upon our aggressive representation of him so that his driving privileges were ordered to be reinstated. We also proceeded to obtain a complete dismissal of the charges placed against our client for driving under the influence of alcohol, even based upon the supposed testimony of the police officer. Our client was given a $50.00 fine and supervision on the charge of speeding. In short, because of our representation of him, our client was convicted of nothing and suffered no consequences, other than a $50.00 and supervision on a speeding ticket.
People of the State of Illinois v. M.P.
When our client came to us, he had two prior DUI convictions. This was his third DUI arrest, and obviously, the prosecution was not only interested in our client obtaining a conviction for the new charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, but also demanding that he spend a significant period of time in custody, offering him a period of one year in the Cook County Department of Corrections in exchange for his plea of guilty. Our client was not interested in pleading guilty to this for any kind of a jail sentence and did not want to have a conviction on his record for a third DUI. It was obvious to us that he would never get his driving license back in Illinois, and he was a relatively young person. Consequently, we proceeded with an aggressive defense of our client, and we actually proceeded to a trial. The officer at the trial testified that while he was on routine patrol at about 1:15 a.m. on westbound Dundee Road, he observed our client’s vehicle strike a curb and swerve back onto the roadway. He also observed our client’s vehicle make a right hand turn in violation of a posted ‘No Right on Red’ sign. The officer turned around and caught up to our client’s vehicle, testifying that our client was weaving and had made an illegal left hand turn without even turning his turn signal on. The car continued, according to the officer, and did not stop for approximately 75 to 100 yards after the officer activated his lights and attempted to stop him. Upon initial contact with the driver, the officer testified that he detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on our client’s breath, and when asked, our client admitted that he had been drinking immediately prior to being stopped, but stated he only had two alcoholic drinks. The officer testified that he had our client perform three field sobriety tests and that he failed two out of the three tests. When the officer asked our client to take a portable breath test, our client refused to do so, according to the officer, stating that he did not trust portable breath tests because he had two prior DUI convictions and would therefore not take the test. The officer arrested our client and placed him in the rear of the squad car. While searching our client’s vehicle, the officer opened the center console and located a metal cannabis pipe and detected an odor of cannabis on that pipe. After being read his Miranda rights, our client related that he had been drinking at a bar, drank two Coors light beers and related that he does smoke cannabis but the pipe did not belong to him. A lengthy and aggressive cross-examination of the arresting officer as to all of his conclusions, statements and observations lead the judge to find our client no guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and being in possession of drug paraphernalia. He was found guilty of making an illegal turn on a red light where it was posted ‘No Right Turn on Red’. The judge granted our client supervision on that offense and fined him $75.00. Despite the fact that this would have been our client’s third DUI conviction, he was found not guilty of all charges placed against him. Had he been convicted, he most likely would not have been able to obtain an Illinois driver’s license ever again, he would have had to install a breath device in his car, he would have had to do jail time, complete alcohol classes and pay fines and court costs.
DUI Lake County, 19th Judicial Circuit, Waukegan,
Illinois
People of the State of Illinois v. A.N.
Our client was stopped by a Lombard police officer allegedly for
traveling at a high rate of speed. When stopped, the officer found
out that our client’s driver’s license was expired and that his
insurance was also expired. In speaking to the police officer,
our client told him he was coming from a baseball game and that
he had been drinking on his way to an at the game. When asked to
exit the van, according to the police officer, our client walked
into the middle of the street, stopped and swayed. Our client had
a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, red, bloodshot, glassy
eyes and failed all field sobriety tests given, according to the
officer, who also stated our client could not recite the alphabet
and could not count backwards from 67 to 43. According to the officer,
our client told him that he only had 4 beers on the bus on the
way home from the game and normally does not drive drunk. He asked
the officer if he could park his car and walk home. He was told
no and was placed under arrest for driving under the influence
of alcohol. Our client refused to take the breath test, and the
state argued that this was a consciousness of his guilt by refusing
to take that test. The state offered our client supervision, and
we turned down that offer and proceeded to trial. At a trial, due
to the very cross-examination of the arresting officer, our client
was found not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence
of alcohol, did not have to complete any alcohol classes, nor did
he have to obtain an evaluation. He was found not guilty on that
charge.
People of the State of Illinois v. M.S.
Our client was arrested by the Highland Park Police Department
for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because it was our
client’s fourth DUI arrest, he was not eligible for a period of
court supervision and the prosecutor’s office sought a period of
incarceration. According to the Highland Park police officers,
our client was weaving from side to side as the officer followed
behind his vehicle, weaving over and straddling the dashed center
lines, speeding and continuing to weave side to side prior to the
officer stopping him. When the officer activated his overhead lights,
according to the officer, the vehicle kept driving for about one-half
of a block before coming to a stop while blocking a left turn lane
at an intersection. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noted
the subject had extremely red, bloodshot, glassy eyes, and an inability
to balance when exiting the car. The officer’s indicated that our
client had to place his right hand on top of the vehicle in order
to maintain his balance, and was swaying back and forth while standing.
His speech was so slurred that at times he was not understandable.
The officer said our client indicated that he was “buzzed” and
could not even count from one to four. According to the officer,
our client failed all of the field sobriety tests, which according
to the officer, was all verified by a video tape of the occurrence.
Because the prosecutor’s position was as stated above, we proceeded
to a contested trial in this matter, and as a result of this trial,
our client was found not guilty of the charges of driving under
the influence of alcohol, in spite of the fact that the officer
indicated he had a video and this tape was admitted into evidence
by the prosecutor in an effort to convict our client. Our client
never had to obtain an alcohol evaluation, do any classes or jail
time, nor did he have his license revoked as a result of these
charges. He was discharged from all offenses and found not guilty.
DUI DuPage County, 18th Judicial Circuit, Wheaton,
Illinois
People of the State of Illinois v. F.K.
Our client was arrested by the Illinois State Police in Wheaton for weaving from lane one onto the shoulder several times, going through an IPASS lane, continuing to weave from lane one onto the shoulder, weaving again across lanes of traffic without signaling and onto the right shoulder where a traffic stop was instituted. According to the officer, our client had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath and person, bloodshot, glassy eyes, speech mumbled and slurred, admitting to drinking earlier in the day and having to use the door of his vehicle for support when he exited the car. According to the officer, our client failed all field sobriety tests that were given to him and refused to take a breath test. Our client refused an offer of supervision in this matter, and we proceeded to try the case in Wheaton. Our client was found not guilty and discharged from all further involvement with the court, not having to plead guilty and not having to obtain court supervision.
DUI McHenry County, 20 th Judicial Circuit, Woodstock, Illinois
People v. T.D.
Our client was pulled over by a Lake in the Hills Police Officer
for not having a proper light affixed to his rear license plate.
The officer noted that there was a strong odor of alcohol coming
from our client’s breath and vehicle. The officer also testified
that our client failed all field sobriety tests and our client
was charged with DUI.
At a hearing, we were able to extract from the officer that he
was trained using the standards promulgated by the National Highway
and Safety Administration DUI Enforcement Manual. Using this manual,
we were able to force the officer to admit that all of the field
sobriety tests that our client performed for the officer were invalid
based on the manner in which our client was tested. The judge ruled
that there was no probable cause to arrest our client for DUI and
the DUI charges was dismissed by the prosecutor. The statutory
summary suspension was also dismissed in this case.
We have represented clients in criminal cases in state court as
follows:
1. Las Vegas, NV
2. Phoenix, AZ
3. Scottsdale, AZ
4. Tulsa, OK
5. Atlanta, GA
6. West Lafayette, IN
7. Kenosha, WI
8. Racine, WI
9. Janesville, WI
10. St. Paul, MN
We have represented clients in criminal cases in federal court
as follows:
1. St. Louis, MO
2. Cape Girardeau, MO
3. Columbus, OH
4. Washington, D.C.
5. Minneapolis, MN
6. Milwaukee, WI
7. Chicago, IL
8. Champaign, IL
Website Optimized by: Elliottsweb.com
Call TOLL FREE 1-877-FELONY-9