Articles Posted in DUI Appeal

Published on:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

When most people contemplate what constitutes grounds to charge a person with DUI, they think of driving while intoxicated due to the consumption of alcohol. In many states, however, a person can be convicted of DUI for driving while under the influence of other substances, such as illicit or prescription drugs. In some cases, misinterpretation of DUI laws allowing for charges to arise out of driving while under the influence of drugs leads to absurd results, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania case in which a man was convicted of DUI for having metabolites of a prescribed narcotic in his system, despite the fact that it was not illegal to drive under the influence of the narcotic. If you live in Illinois and were charged with a DUI due to evidence of metabolites in your blood, you should consult a seasoned Illinois DUI defense attorney regarding what actions you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Pennsylvania Case

Allegedly, the police responded to a call from the defendant’s father, who observed the defendant’s car in his driveway but could not find the defendant. The police ultimately found the defendant by a ravine in his parent’s backyard. He appeared intoxicated and admitted to consuming several beers after he arrived at his parents’ house, to build up the courage to tell his parents his father had terminal cancer. He was arrested for DUI and transported to a police station, where he underwent a blood test that revealed, in part, metabolites of fentanyl in his blood.

It is reported that the defendant was subsequently charged with multiple DUI offenses, including DUI-metabolite. Following a trial, he was convicted of DUI-metabolite, after which he appealed. Upon consideration of the evidence on appeal, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the defendant could not be found guilty of DUI for driving with the metabolite of a prescribed substance in his blood when driving while under the influence of the controlled substance was not illegal.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It is not uncommon for a person that observes someone driving erratically to call 911 to report reckless driving. If a police officer stops a driver based on an anonymous tip, however, and the driver is subsequently charged with DUI, an issue often arises regarding whether a 911 call in and of itself is grounds for reasonable suspicion that a crime or traffic violation was committed. Despite a United States Supreme Court ruling addressing the issue of whether an anonymous tip is sufficient to warrant a traffic stop, the law largely remains unsettled throughout the country as shown by a recent Ohio case in which the court stated it would hear oral arguments regarding whether a bystander’s warning is adequate cause for effectuating a traffic stop. If you were charged with DUI in Illinois after being stopped due to a 911 call, it is prudent to speak with an assertive Illinois DUI defense attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Ohio Case

Allegedly, the defendant was stopped by a police officer and charged with DUI after a passerby yelled to the officer that the defendant was drunk. In response to the assertion, the officer stopped the defendant and noticed she had signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and an odor of alcohol. The passerby was never identified. The defendant argued that the stop was not justified, as the officer was only acting on an anonymous tip of uncertain reliability and, therefore, did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing a crime. The lower courts found in favor of the defendant, noting that the tip lacked any details regarding why the passerby believed the defendant was intoxicated.

Rulings Regarding DUI Arrests Arising Out of Anonymous Tips

In Navarette v. California, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a tip provided by an anonymous source in a 911 call was sufficiently reliable to justify a traffic stop, as it provided details regarding the make and model of the car and details regarding the fact that the car was being driven erratically. The Court further stated that because the call made through the 911 system it was reliable because the calls are recorded, and people may be prosecuted for making false reports.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the tenets of DUI law throughout the country is that the police must have reasonable suspicion that a person operating a vehicle committed a crime or violated a traffic law prior to effectuating a traffic stop. Thus, if an officer lacks sufficient grounds to stop a motorist, any evidence obtained during the stop may be precluded at a subsequent DUI trial. What constitutes sufficient grounds to effectuate a stop varies from State to State, but generally, more than mere suspicion is required, as demonstrated in a recent Pennsylvania case. If you live in Illinois and were stopped without just cause and subsequently charged with a DUI crime, it is in your best interest to speak with a trusted Illinois DUI attorney regarding your potential defenses.

Details of the Pennsylvania Case

Allegedly, an officer stopped the defendant due to a “hunch” that she was doing something illegal. Specifically, the officer, who was dispatched on another call, stopped the defendant because he believed she was trying to evade him because she turned several times. The officer admitted, however, that the defendant did not exhibit any signs of intoxication while driving, did not violate any traffic laws, and there were no defects on her car that would cause suspicion. Following the stop, the defendant was charged with and convicted of DUI. After her conviction, she appealed, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her. The appellate court overturned her conviction and remanded the case to the lower court, ordering suppression of the evidence obtained during the stop.

Reasonable Suspicion Under Illinois Law

Under Illinois law, stopping a vehicle is considered a search and seizure. For a stop to be lawful, an Illinois police officer must possess a rational belief that the person stopped has committed or intends to commit a crime. The suspicion must be both articulable and reasonable. In other words, a totality of the facts present at the time of the stop must be sufficient to inspire the belief in a person of ordinary caution that the stop was appropriate, which requires more than a hunch or vague suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. While Illinois does not have a bright-line rule for whether a stop is reasonable, and each case is evaluated on its particular facts, it is likely that in Illinois a stop based on a hunch, with no evidence of illegal activity or a violation of a traffic law, would be deemed improper.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many people are unaware of the fact that in most states, you can be charged with a DUI offense for sleeping in your car while intoxicated. Specifically, the law in many states dictates that a person can be charged with DUI if they are in actual physical control of a car while intoxicated, regardless of whether they are driving or intend to drive. Recently, the New Hampshire legislature weighed the benefits and detriments of modifying the DUI statute to permit drivers to sleep in their cars without being charged with DUI. While laws modifying the DUI statute have yet to pass, it is interesting to consider how the proposed modification could affect the laws in other states, such as Illinois, where drivers can be convicted of DUI for sleeping in cars while intoxicated. If you are faced with an Illinois DUI charge after you were arrested while sleeping in your car, you should speak with a knowledgeable DUI defense attorney regarding your case.

Proposed Changes to New Hampshire DUI Laws

It is reported that the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill that would create exceptions to the current DUI law. Specifically, the bill would modify the current law to include certain exclusions for the definition of driving and actual physical control, including people who are sleeping in the car. Advocates of the bill argue that it is necessary to prevent people who are trying to sleep off intoxication before driving home from being harassed by police officers. Those in opposition are less convinced that the modifications are wise, stating that the burden is then placed on the police to determine if a person intends to drive. Opponents argue that a person sleeping in a car can advise the police that he or she does not intend to drive and then drive a short time later, causing a devastating accident. Currently, it appears that the bill will need to be modified before it will be approved by the House.

DUI Charge for Sleeping in a Car

Under Illinois law, a person can be charged with and convicted of DUI for being in actual physical control of the vehicle while impaired due to the ingestion of alcohol. The courts have interpreted physical control to mean that the defendant was in the vehicle and in a position to start the engine and move the vehicle, thereby exercising control over the vehicle. Thus, the courts have held that people sleeping in vehicles in Illinois are guilty of DUI, regardless of whether they intended to drive. The courts generally assess whether a defendant had the keys to the vehicle in his or her possession, whether there was anyone else in the vehicle, and whether the defendant had the ability to drive the vehicle to determine if the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

North Carolina recently called attention to a rare but notable condition that can affect DUI cases:  auto-brewery syndrome. Although not many people suffer from the condition, it can cause unwarranted DUI arrests and convictions. While some courts throughout the country have been faced with the auto-brewery defense, it has not been widely established as a justification for a BAC above the legal limit. If you are charged with an Illinois DUI offense, it is prudent to meet with a proficient DUI defense attorney to discuss which defenses you may be able to assert.

Auto-Brewery Syndrome Explained

Reportedly, a North Carolina man was arrested in 2011 for driving while intoxicated. The man argued that he had not been drinking, but to no avail. In 2015, however, the man was diagnosed with auto-brewery syndrome, which is often known as gut fermentation syndrome. In essence, the syndrome causes certain people’s digestive systems to convert carbohydrates into alcohol. Thus, if a person with auto-brewery syndrome eats pasta or bread, the food is fermented in their guts and subsequently turns into alcohol. Accordingly, a person suffering from auto-brewery syndrome may have an elevated BAC level despite not consuming any alcohol.

Doctors who have analyzed auto-brewery syndrome have noted that people with the syndrome suffer the medical and legal effects of alcoholism, including drunk driving arrests and public intoxication. It is believed that the North Carolina man developed the syndrome after he took an antibiotic for an injury. Following his diagnosis, he was treated with anti-fungal medication and probiotics, and he has been symptom-free for about 18 months.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the many rights afforded to criminal defendants is the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Thus, prior to trial defense counsel and the prosecution will question potential jurors to assess whether they may be biased, and will challenge the selection of any impartial jurors. A recent case arising out of Indiana highlighted the importance of vetting jurors and protecting a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial, as the trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing regarding a juror’s potential bias resulted in the appellate court granting a new trial. If you face DUI charges, it is important to retain a zealous Illinois DUI attorney who will fight on your behalf to protect your right to a fair trial.

Facts of the Indiana Case

Reportedly, the defendant was found unconscious behind the wheel of her vehicle by emergency personnel. She was charged with two counts of DUI, and the case proceeded to trial. The trial court gathered the potential jurors and explained the process of voir dire. After the first six jurors were questioned and selected, one of the jurors submitted a note to the bailiff that disclosed that one of her family members was killed by a drunk driver.

Allegedly, defense counsel requested that the juror be brought back for additional questioning regarding her impartiality, to which the court stated there was nothing they could do. The remaining jurors were selected, and all the jurors were sworn in. Defense counsel moved to have the juror removed. The court denied the motion, and the defendant was found guilty on both charges. The defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It is axiomatic that the police are not lawfully permitted to institute a traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated. While it is undisputed that reasonable suspicion is the burden of proof that must be met for a traffic stop to be legal, it is not always clear what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari in a case arising out of Kansas, to address the issue of whether an officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient to effectuate a traffic stop, based on evidence that the owner of the vehicle had a revoked driver’s license. If you are charged with an Illinois DUI arising out of traffic stop that may not have been lawful it is vital to engage a seasoned Illinois DUI attorney to discuss your viable defenses.

Facts Regarding the Kansas Case

Reportedly, in the Kansas case, a police officer who was patrolling ran a registration check on a truck. After running the check, the officer learned that the truck was owned by the defendant and that the defendant’s license was revoked. The officer then effectuated a traffic stop based upon the suspicion that the defendant was driving the truck despite not having a valid license. The defendant, who was driving the truck, was subsequently charged with habitually violating Kansas traffic laws.

It is alleged that the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to pull him over and that an officer cannot infer that the owner of a vehicle is the person driving the vehicle. The court granted the defendant’s motion, after which the State appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court ruling, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review. Upon review, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling. The case is now before the United States Supreme Court, to address the issue of whether it is reasonable for an officer to infer that a vehicle is being driven by its registered owner for purposes of an investigative stop. Continue reading →

Contact Information

We have provided effective advice and assistance to thousands of clients facing driver's license suspensions and revocations, both in Illinois and out-of-state, including students from area colleges and universities.

1100 S 5th St
Springfield, IL 62703
Phone: 217.525.0520 Fax: 217.525.0901

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2022, Harvatin Law Offices P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design