DUI Appeal

Published on: September 12, 2021

Montana Court Rules Testimony Via Two-Way Video Violates a DUI Defendant’s Right to Confront Witnesses

People accused of committing DUI offenses, like all criminal defendants, are afforded numerous rights under the United States Constitution. For example, under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, they have the right to examine their accusers at trial. If the State violates a criminal defendant’s Constitutional rights, the violation may constitute grounds for an appeal. The question of whether the use of two-way video conferencing violated the rights granted under the Confrontation Clause was the topic of a recent ruling issued in Montana. While the opinion does not impact the prosecution of DUI cases in Illinois, it provides insight into how courts may rule on similar issues. If you are accused of a DUI crime, it is smart to meet with an Illinois DUI defense lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your rights.

The Montana Case

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by the police for suspicion of a DUI. He was subsequently arrested and charged with DUI. The case proceeded to trial before a jury. The arresting officer was not present in the courtroom during the trial but appeared via two-way video. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed, arguing, in part, that the court violated his right to confrontation by permitting the officer to testify through two-way video conferencing instead of appearing in court in person.

The court agreed, noting that in criminal prosecutions, defendants have the right to meet the State’s witnesses face to face and to fully examine them. The court elaborated that confrontation ensures that the evidence offered against a defendant is reliable. Thus, pursuant to Montana’s confrontation clause, witnesses may only testify via two-way video when securing the witness’ presence is impossible or impractical. The court ultimately found that the State failed to prove that the use of two-way video was warranted. As such, it reversed the defendant’s conviction. Continue reading →

Published on: August 28, 2021

Illinois Court Explains a Confession is Not Sufficient Evidence to Sustain a DUI Conviction

By Theodore Harvatin

In any criminal matter, the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the underlying offense. Thus, if the government cannot establish the corpus delecti or body of the crime, it should not be able to obtain a conviction. An Illinois appellate court recently discussed the concept of corpus delecti in a case in which it reversed the defendant’s DUI conviction. If you are faced with charges, you committed a DUI crime, it is important to speak to a Illinois DUI defense lawyer to evaluate what evidence the state must produce to prove your guilt.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the police were dispatched to a courtyard in response to a report of a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, they found the defendant and two men standing near a car. The defendant indicated she had an argument with her boyfriend and was trying to locate him. She advised the police that she drove the white car to its current location in hopes of finding her boyfriend and then called the police.

Allegedly, when the police spoke with the defendant, they noticed she smelled of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot, and her speech was slurred. Thus, they administered field sobriety tests. Based on the defendant’s performance on the tests, they arrested her and charged her with DUI. The trial court found her guilty, and she appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to offer proof of corpus delecti. Continue reading →

Published on: July 30, 2021

Phoenix DUI Police Officer’s Tactics Called into Question

By Theodore Harvatin

It is the obligation of the police to uphold and enforce the law. Unfortunately, some officers go beyond the scope of their duties in a manner that violates the rights of the suspects they are investigating. For example, it was recently revealed that a police officer in Phoenix was altering police reports to make it more difficult for criminal defendants to prepare their defenses. While the revelation does not impact cases pending in Illinois, it highlights issues in the criminal justice system that can make it difficult for defendants to obtain a fair trial. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to engage a skilled Illinois DUI defense lawyer to help you fight to protect your rights.

Phoenix DUI Police Officer’s Tactics Called into Question

It is reported that the most senior DUI motorcycle officer on the Phoenix police force engaged in tactics designed to make it more difficult for defense attorneys to defend their clients. Specifically, the officer was caught on camera explaining that in every report issued in a DUI case, he lists any passengers in the suspect’s vehicle as a victim rather than a witness. While Arizona law allows defense attorneys to interview witnesses, it precludes them from interviewing victims.

In many instances, witnesses will be able to offer information indicating that the defendant was not driving erratically or otherwise lacked indications of impairment or reckless driving that would warrant a traffic stop. Thus, the officer manipulated the reports for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for defense attorneys to obtain information in support of their client’s defenses. Continue reading →

Published on: May 28, 2021

Court Weighs Hot Pursuit Exception to Warrant Requirement in DUI Case

By Theodore Harvatin

The police generally cannot stop a person absent a suspicion the individual is committing a crime or enter a person’s home without a warrant. There are exceptions to the general rule, however, such as cases in which the police are actively pursuing a criminal suspect who is attempting to evade them. In such instances, a search conducted without a warrant may be deemed proper. A California court recently heard arguments as to whether the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement applied in matters involving the investigation of a misdemeanor crime, in a case in which the defendant argued that the search that led to his DUI arrest was unlawful. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is smart to speak with a dedicated Illinois DUI lawyer to evaluate your options.

The California Arrest

Reportedly, the defendant was playing music loudly and repeatedly honking while driving his car, both of which are misdemeanor offenses. An officer began to follow the defendant but did not activate his lights or sirens. When the defendant arrived at his home, he began to pull into his garage. The officer activated his lights before the defendant’s garage door closed, but the defendant ran into his garage. The officer then activated the door’s sensor with his foot, forcing the door to stay open.

Allegedly, the officer entered the garage and began questioning the defendant. He noticed the defendant smelled like alcohol and subsequently arrested him for DUI. Before the defendant’s trial, he filed a motion to suppress the State’s evidence, arguing the officer’s search violated his Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The court denied his motion on the grounds the officer was in hot pursuit when he conducted the search. The defendant was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing the hot pursuit exception does not apply to misdemeanor crimes. The appeals court upheld his conviction, and he then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the matter but has not yet issued a ruling. Continue reading →

Published on: May 14, 2021

Colorado DUI Charges Dismissed Due to Officer’s Refusal to Provide Breath Tests

By Theodore Harvatin

Many states have implied consent laws that provide that licensed drivers must agree to submit to breath tests. As such, if people suspected of DUI refuse to provide breath samples, they often face additional charges and civil penalties. While typically, the failure to conduct a breath test is due to the lack of a driver’s consent, in Colorado, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the unusual situation of police officers refusing to conduct breath tests, which has resulted in the dismissal of many DUI charges. If you are charged with a DUI crime in Illinois, it is wise to speak to a skillful Illinois DUI lawyer about your rights.

COVID-19 Related DUI Complications in Colorado

Allegedly, multiple people charged with DUI crimes in Colorado have had their cases dismissed due to the fact that the police investigating the offenses refused to provide suspects with breath tests. The basis for the refusal was the belief that conducting the tests posed health risks due to the potential of the spread of the coronavirus. While the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has advised that officers can safely conduct such tests during the pandemic, many police agencies in the state are ignoring the Department’s advice and declining to conduct such tests.

It is reported that defense attorneys in Colorado have used the police’s refusal to provide breath tests against the state, arguing that it violates defendants’ rights and should result in the dismissal of charges. Specifically, under Colorado law, drivers suspected of operating a vehicle while intoxicated must be provided the choice of a breath or blood test unless a test is not available because of extraordinary circumstances. Subsequently, there are multiple instances where the court ultimately dismissed DUI charges against drivers who requested breath tests but were denied. Continue reading →

Published on: March 15, 2021

Could Breath Test Inaccuracies Result in New DUI Trials in Illinois?

By Theodore Harvatin

The majority of DUI charges and convictions arise out of the results of a blood or breath test that is administered by the police during traffic stops. In many cases, the court and prosecution take for granted that the results of such tests are accurate, but that is not always the case, as improperly calibrated machines can lead to false readings. Convictions based on inaccurate breath test results may be overturned, though, as demonstrated in Massachusetts, where thousands of people recently received notices they may be eligible for new trials. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is prudent to engage a skillful Illinois DUI defense attorney to assess the sufficiency of the State’s evidence in your case.

Notices Issued in Massachusetts

Reportedly, close to thirty-thousand people in Massachusetts were recently advised that they may be eligible for new trials in their DUI cases due to problems with the evidence used against them. Notably, the notices were sent out almost a year after the underlying issue came to light. Specifically, in 2019, the State became aware that officials working in the State Police lab permitted improperly calibrated machines to be used to administer breath tests to people suspected of DUI crimes. Further, the officials then attempted to hide the full extent of the issue.

As a result, anyone who admitted to the sufficiency of facts or pleaded guilty in a DUI case between June 2011 and April 2019 may be eligible for a new trial. The notices advise the people impacted by the recent discovery that their cases may have been tainted by the devices, and they have grounds to challenge the rulings against them. Continue reading →

Published on: December 10, 2020

Illinois Traffic Citation Quota for Police Officers Deemed Unlawful

By Theodore Harvatin

In theory, police officers should only investigate crimes or make traffic stops due to a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. Unfortunately, though, in some cases, the police may have incentives to charge people with criminal offenses other than the desire to uphold the law—for example, some cities reward officers for issuing citations or have rules establishing ticket quotas. As demonstrated in a recent Illinois ruling, such rules are likely to lead to unjust DUI arrests and other citations and are unlawful. If you were charged with a DUI offense, it is prudent to meet with a seasoned Illinois DUI defense attorney to assess your options.

The Ticket Quota

It is alleged that the City of Sparta had a policy in place that assigned points to certain activities and used the points to evaluate the performance of its officers. Under the policy, all full-time police officers were required to meet a monthly points minimum. Officers who worked the night shift were obligated to obtain 65 points, while those working the day shift needed 82 points. Different activities garnered different points, and issuing citations had a two-point value. Officers that failed to meet the minimum monthly points would be disciplined in a progressive manner. Further, points were used to determine the officer of the month and of the year.

Reportedly, the Policeman’s Benevolent Labor Committee (Union) filed a declaratory judgment action seeking an opinion that the activity-points policy established an unlawful ticket quota that violated Section 11-1-12 of the Illinois Municipal Code. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Sparta, and the Union appealed. The appellate court reversed, finding in favor of the Union. The City then appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 24, 2020

Could a DUI Charge be Dismissed After an Officer’s Firing in Illinois?

By Theodore Harvatin

Generally, in DUI cases, the State’s main witness will be the officer that arrested the defendant. Thus, if the officer is unavailable, the State’s case may fall apart, resulting in the dismissal of the defendant’s charges. This scenario unfolded in Albuquerque recently, when over a dozen DUI cases were dismissed after the officer-involved was fired when it was revealed that he made false statements and arrested people for DUI without cause. If you are charged with an Illinois crime, and you believe your rights may have been violated during your arrest, it is advisable to consult an experienced Illinois DUI attorney about your case.

The Albuquerque Arrests and Dismissals

It is reported that approximately nineteen DUI cases were dismissed after the officer that made the arrests in the cases was terminated for cause. Several other cases are currently under investigation to determine whether they should be dismissed as well. The officer’s termination arose after he arrested a woman for DUI without probable cause. The impetus for his false arrests was not disclosed, and he is currently appealing his termination. It was disclosed, though, that the officer violated procedure and made false statements in the course of the arrest that initially called his integrity into question. Thus, all of the pending charges in which he made the initial arrest are under scrutiny, as the evidence in those cases may be tainted as well.

DUI Arrests in Illinois

Under Illinois law, a person who operates a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or who drives with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher can be charged with a DUI offense. In Illinois, as in other states, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or a traffic violation has occurred prior to stopping a driver. If an officer stops a person without just cause, the stop may be unconstitutional, and any subsequent detainment may be considered a false arrest. Further, charges that arise out of an improper arrest may constitute malicious prosecution.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 29, 2020

Would an Illinois Court Strike Marijuana-Related Probation Conditions?

By Theodore Harvatin

Typically, when a person who has been convicted of a crime is sentenced to probation, the sentencing court will impose certain conditions on the probation, in part to prevent the defendant from engaging in criminal activity. The court does not have boundless discretion with regards to what conditions it may impose, however. Rather, the conditions generally must bear some relationship to the underlying offense as well as to future criminality. If a condition does not fall within these parameters, it may be invalid, as demonstrated in a recent California case in which a court overturned a marijuana-related probation condition following the defendant’s conviction for car theft. If you are charged with an Illinois DUI offense, it is important to understand your rights, and you should confer with a trusted Illinois DUI defense attorney regarding your charges.

The California Case

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested for taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent and receiving a stolen vehicle. He pled guilty to the first count, and the second count was dismissed. Prior to sentencing, he admitted that he smoked marijuana occasionally and had smoked it on the day of his arrest. He was sentenced to probation, and one of his probation conditions prohibited him from smoking marijuana and required him to submit to chemical testing. He appealed, arguing that the marijuana-related conditions were invalid. The appellate court agreed, noting that a condition is invalid if it has no relationship to the underlying crime, relates to conduct that is not criminal, and forbids or requires conduct that is not related to future criminality. As the defendant’s crime was not related to drug use, and it was not illegal to consume marijuana in California, the court found that he had proved each prong of the test. As such, the conditions related to marijuana were found to be improper and were stricken.

Illinois Law Regarding Probation Conditions

Similar to California, Illinois law requires that for a probation condition to be valid, it must reasonably relate to the state’s interest in rehabilitation and reformation. In other words, a condition that burdens the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right must be narrowly tailored to focus on the goal of rehabilitation. As such, a condition will be deemed overly broad if it restricts a defendant’s rights more than is necessary. Generally, this means that the condition must relate to the criminal nature of the underlying offense. While earlier cases ruled on in Illinois included marijuana-related probation conditions, they were issued for crimes committed prior to the legalization of recreational marijuana use. As such, going forward, a defendant would likely have strong arguments that a marijuana-related probation condition is invalid.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 23, 2020

How Might an Illinois Court Rule in a Felony DUI Case Arising Out of an Illegal Arrest?

By Theodore Harvatin

The United States Constitution affords people in every state numerous rights, including the right against unreasonable search and seizure. What constitutes a violation of that right varies, but in many states, a person cannot be arrested for a misdemeanor crime absent a warrant or an observation by a police officer of the person committing the crime, and any evidence produced after the arrest may be dismissed. This was demonstrated recently in Idaho, in a case in which felony DUI charges were dismissed due to the unlawful nature of the misdemeanor DUI arrest that led to the felony charge. If you were recently charged with DUI in Illinois following an arrest, it is prudent to speak to an experienced Illinois DUI defense attorney to determine whether your arrest was improper and whether you may be able to avoid a conviction.

The Idaho Case

Reportedly, the police received a call regarding an erratic driver that was allegedly intoxicated. Subsequently, the police observed the defendant’s vehicle, which was parked in the defendant’s driveway. The defendant was not in his vehicle at the time. The defendant was arrested for misdemeanor DUI and transported to the police station, where he underwent a breath test. Following the breath test, it was revealed that the defendant had prior DUI convictions, and therefore, his charge was increased to a felony.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of his breath test, arguing it constituted an illegal search and seizure as, under Idaho law, an officer cannot arrest a person for a misdemeanor absent an observation of a crime or a warrant. The court granted the motion and ultimately dismissed the felony DUI charge, due to the fact that the misdemeanor arrest was illegal, as the officer did not have a warrant or observe any illegal activity.

Continue reading →