Chicago DUI Law Blog

Chicago DUI Attorney Reminds You That Roadblocks Continue in 2012

2012-01-20T18:35:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney hopes you are safely off the roads this evening. The roads are difficult to maneuver and while the snow plows are running full force, they seem to be running behind the snow. If you are out, you should know that a roadblock is scheduled to begin shortly at 53rd and Ashland. That means with the significantly decreased road traffic tonight, you should be particularly heightened to safe driving measures.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on a Chicago Police Officer's Guilty DUI Verdict

2012-01-18T15:24:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney posted here and here about the veteran Chicago Police Officer who was accused of leaving the scene involving a boy and a bicycle. The boy died.

The jury rendered their decision in this matter and found Officer Richard Bolling guilty of Reckless Homicide and DUI.

From suntimes.com:

A Cook County jury Wednesday found a Chicago cop who ran over a 13-year-old cyclist guilty of reckless homicide and drunken driving.

After deliberating for nine hours, a jury found Richard Bolling, 42, guilty of reckless homicide, aggravated DUI and leaving the scene of an accident.

Anyone else wondering what the jury was deliberating about?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Police Being Wrong

2012-01-16T16:54:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about video recording DUI's, still she was surprised when the prosecutor said she was wrong.

"It's okay. I f*#ked up."

No I didn't say that. That's what the cop said in the courtroom. It was right after the judge did the right thing. The cop wasn't mad. The prosecutor was livid. My client was free to go.

So what happened?

The judge agreed with me. Believing that if the cops have a videotape purportedly saying my client was drunk, then my client better be on that video. If not, then no, respectfully no, officer you are not going to sit here under oath and testify that my client failed all of the Field Sobriety Tests when the video doesn't ever show my client.

Don't you think it would be an awful lot easier for the police and the accused if there was video? Then the he said, she said goes away. After all a picture is worth a thousand words.

Chicago DUI Attorney Questions the Effectiveness of Anonymous Tip Programs

2011-12-21T18:34:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about anonymous tips for "successful arrests" of DUI drivers. Now it appears the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists wants to remind folks that this program exists.

December 21, Chicago, Il:

An anti-drunk driving group is hoping to pad the wallets of people who report drunk drivers on the roads this holiday season.

The Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists is expanding its “Drunkbusters” program throughout Illinois for the next two weekends.

The program, in which callers can be paid $100 for reporting an impaired driver who’s eventually arrested for DUI, runs year round in Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Will and Kane counties.

Since it started in 1990, Drunkbusters has paid out more than $445,000 and led to the arrests of more than 4,450 impaired motorists, the alliance said. The program is funded by fines collected from convicted drunk drivers.

Anyone else wondering how the fines are collected?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Being Between a Rock and a Hard Place

2011-10-28T04:11:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about Driving While License Suspended/Revoked when the basis of that Suspension or Revocation is a DUI.

Things can go from bad to worse whenever one is charged with a DUI. It is especially important, even if your DUI charges are dismissed to make sure you pay any reinstatement fees or else you could find yourself facing jail time, or even worse prison time with a felony charge. No. I don’t mean jail time or a felony charge for the DUI; I mean jail time or a felony charge, as my clients frequently say, “just for driving.”

This week I’ve already represented three people facing time in prison, not for the offense of driving drunk, or for causing an accident where someone died or was seriously injured, but “just for driving.” The best way to avoid this charge is to stay away from cars, even as a passenger, without a valid driver behind the wheel.

This particular offense is especially difficult, considerably more difficult than many DUI’s, drug charges, battery charges, or gun charges to try and win. All that is required to be charged with the offense is driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle. That means you could be sitting in the car listening to music or even sleeping in the car can get you charged with the offense. That legal definition put an awful lot of folks between a rock and a hard place.

Still this week, none of the folks I represented are going to jail or prison. Now they all know just how serious this offense is. It is far better to avoid being charged than it is to have to defend a charge of Driving While License Suspended/Revoked when the penalty could be years in prison.

Chicago DUI Attorney Still Thinks It Isn't A Good Idea to Take the Field Sobriety Tests

2011-10-10T17:09:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about Field Sobriety Tests and why it’s probably not a good idea to take them.

Still, she sees grounds for a strong defense where the accused apparently danced and sang, going above and beyond what she needed to do to prove her sobriety, the ABC test.***

From the TandD.com:

Bamberg police stopped a 21-year-old Main Highway woman who was driving erratically on U.S. 78 and Middle Street on Oct. 1.

The driver had allegedly made several radical driving corrections, causing an officer on foot in the area to have to run to the curb to avoid her oncoming vehicle.

When officers approached the vehicle, they could smell alcohol, and the driver's eyes were red, watery and glossy, the report said. When asked if she had been drinking, the woman said she had had two beers.

Several field sobriety tests were conducted on her, including the alphabet test. According to the report, she told officers she sang the "ABC song" to her baby every day, and she then proceeded to recite the alphabet while singing and dancing.

She was arrested for driving under the influence.

In all of the DUI cases I’ve had, I’ve seen exactly one, where my client was charged with a DUI and the officer said in the arrest reports that my client passed the Field Sobriety Tests. I know you are scratching your head wondering how he got charged with a DUI if he passed the Field Sobriety Tests. That’s why I don’t see how they help you, only hurt you because face it, most of us, right now, stone cold sober couldn’t stand on one leg and count to thirty out loud without putting our leg down.

*** In Illinois, the ABC test is not a standardized Field Sobriety Test

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on a State Representative's DUI Plea

2011-09-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

This DUI attorney has posted here and here about VIP treatment/professional courtesies. Today, State Representative Randy Ramey pled guilty to a DUI.

September 26, Chicago, IL:

State Rep. Randy Ramey, the DuPage County Republican Party chairman, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor driving under the influence charge Monday court and was fined $1,750 and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.

Ramey, who became county party chairman this summer, also was placed on one year of supervision and was ordered to attend a victim impact panel.

“I pled guilty, and I’ll go forward,” he said following his appearance in a DuPage County courtroom. He declined to comment further.

Ramey has served in the General Assembly since 2005, and had previously served on the House Drivers Education and Safety Committee and Transportation and Motor vehicles committee.

Here’s more irony, he used to work for the Illinois Secretary of State, the department that suspends driving privileges for people charged with a DUI.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on What Happens When They Get It Wrong?

2011-09-19T10:18:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about errors. Still it’s hard for many citizens to accept that the police can be wrong. It doesn’t make them evil, but the aftermath is devastating for the accused.

From the Picayune Item:

The Mississippi Highway Patrol has kicked off its annual campaign against drinking and driving with the motto, “Stay Sober or Get Pulled Over.”

In 2010, there were 231 Mississippi alcohol related fatalities, a disturbing number. We don’tknow if alcohol caused these accidents or not, but we do know one of the drivers was drinking. For the one-third of Americans who don’t drink, the legality of drinking and driving must seem like an abomination. Indeed, alcohol consumption even without a two-ton vehicle causes untold wreckage of lives and human misery.

Two-thirds of Americans find moderate alcohol consumption a pleasant aspect of life. It enhances conviviality, allows one to relax after a hard week’s work and is good for your health. Moderate alcohol consumption can reduce the risk of heart disease and senility. It was no less than Benjamin Franklin who wrote: “Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.” And of course, Jesus turned the water into wine.

The American Medical Association, at the request of the Department of Transportation, originally deemed impaired driving to occur at a 0.15 blood alcohol level. Today, half that level — 0.08 — is considered impaired and illegal. The human body hasn’t changed during that time, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving has become a political force that no politician dares question. Driving While Intoxicated has become Driving Under the Influence. The range of acceptable drinking and driving is much more narrow.

There were 33,153 Mississippi DUI arrests last year, an astounding number. If DUIs were randomly distributed, every driver in the state would get at least one during his lifetime. A Colorado study showed that 20 percent of those arrested for DUIs had legal blood alcohol levels. The problem is that residual alcohol in your mouth can distort the results of the unreliable portable breathalyzers police often use to make an arrest.

Applying the Colorado study to Mississippi, 6,500 innocent Mississippians are arrested for DUI each year. Many lack the knowledge or money to fight the charge and just plead guilty. For the innocent, the personal cost of an undeserved DUI is immense: Lost reputations, job opportunities and the 90-day license suspensions. Car insurance rates skyrocket. A DUI often ends up costing $15,000. If police followed the rules, they would never give a breath test without waiting for at least 20 minutes. But Mississippi police are not that patient, especially when quotas need to be met and $30 million in fines is on the line.

Studies show perfectly sober people fail this test half the time. In its eagerness to battle drunk driving, the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out a special place for DUI enforcement, suspending many of the typical civil rights protections afforded by the Constitution.

Who says mistakes aren’t made?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Social Media Warnings of Road Side Safety Checks

2011-08-26T13:17:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney continues to see the usefulness of Social Media. She’s posted about road side safety checks here and here. Still she admits to being a tad surprised by this Facebook Status Update:

Good afternoon fb be careful on the streets this weekend road side safety checks throughout Chicago!!!! If u live on the west side they're having a check on the 4500 block of Madison tonite so where your seat belts and be careful!!!!!

Here’s the funny thing about the update, it’s not from law enforcement or a defense attorney, and it’s a concerned citizen. Oh, and yes here’s a link to confirm what this individual wrote.

Let’s be safe out there!

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Courts Protecting the Driving Privileges of the DUI Accused

2011-08-15T19:28:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about Statutory Summary Suspensions. That’s the suspension that is triggered simply for being charged with a DUI. It doesn’t matter if you are guilty of a DUI or not.

Now the 2^nd District has clarified when the accused has a right to file the Petition to Rescind Summary Suspension

From People v. Moreland, 2011 IL App (2d) 100669 (August 8, 2011):

At issue in this appeal is whether the 30 days in which a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges begins to run before the Secretary of State has confirmed the suspension. The trial court found that it does. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Section 2—118.1(b) of the Code is unambiguous. Id. at 388. It provides that a defendant

“shall” be given a hearing on his petition to rescind within 30 days after the petition is received. The word “shall” conveys that the legislature intended to impose a mandatory obligation. Id. at 382. That obligation is fulfilled when the defendant has a hearing on his petition to rescind within 30 days after it is filed in the circuit court, with service on the State. See Bywater, 223 Ill. 2d at 486. Here, defendant was not given a hearing by June 3, 2010, which was 30 days after he filed his petition. Thus, the statutory summary suspension of defendant’s driving privileges must be rescinded. See People v. Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d 250, 262 (1993).

If you’ve been charged with a DUI you need to get to a knowledgeable lawyer immediately, so that all of your rights can be protected.

Chicago DUI Attorney Answers the Question: Can you help me get this off my record?

2011-08-08T16:27:00.000-07:00

Yes. But only if you win at trial or the Government is willing to dismiss the charges against you. I frequently get a bewildered look from folks charged with a DUI or Driving with Suspended/Revoked License when I answer their question.

Yes. I understand that you knew a guy who got caught with ______________ (Fill in the Blank)

and the charges were thrown out or dismissed but in Illinois, a DUI charge or Driving with a Suspended/Revoked License is different.

These offenses, even if you have never been charged with anything before in your entire life, are not expugnable or sealable. They remain a part of your criminal background. They don’t fall off after you have successfully completed treatment, paid your court fees and fines, or done your volunteer work or SWAP.

Given that reality, the most important thing you can do is avoid being charged with these offenses in the first place. I know, you don’t live your life thinking about avoiding criminal charges for driving but perhaps you should. If you’ve already been charged then you need to quickly get to a knowledgeable defense attorney who can provide you with the information you need to make the best decision.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Suspended License of a Congressman

2011-07-29T06:45:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney knows that anyone could end up with a suspended or revoked license. She’s posted here, here, and here about the myriad of ways one could have their license suspended. Still, a congressman, from the Land of Lincoln, driving on a suspended license is a surprise.

July 28, Chicago, Il:

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

In court documents, after his ex-wife, Laura Walsh, asked a judge to suspend his driver’s license until he paid his child support, Joe Walsh asks his ex-wife’s lawyer: “Have you no decency?”

Staffers learned during the campaign that Walsh was driving on a suspended license. His license was suspended twice in 2008 for his failure to appear in court, and he was cited in 2009 for driving on a suspended license, according to the Illinois Secretary of State.

Anyone can have their license suspended.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on an Increase in Deportations

2011-07-25T10:31:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here on DUI and immigration issues. Surprisingly, it appears ICE is using minor crimes, like DUI, to aid in the deportation of individuals accused.

From usatoday.com:

The U.S. deported nearly 393,000 people in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, half of whom were considered criminals. Of those, 27,635 had been arrested for drunken driving, more than double the 10,851 deported after drunken driving arrests in 2008, the last full year of the Bush administration, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data provided to The Associated Press.

An additional 13,028 were deported last year after being arrested on less serious traffic law violations, nearly three times the 4,527 traffic offenders deported two years earlier, according to the data.

Darrel Stephens, executive director of Major Cities Chiefs Association, an organization of sheriffs and police chiefs, said the data show ICE is deporting criminals. He noted that even though traffic offenses have more than doubled, they are just 7 percent of the total criminal deportations. Meanwhile, dangerous drugs and drunken driving deportations comprised 23 percent and 14 percent of the criminal deportations, respectively.

The drunken driving deportations are particularly important, he said. Fatal drunken driving accidents involving illegal immigrants often cause outrage in communities where they occur.

"That's a crime that people look at in a very serious way right now," Stephens said.

There are an estimated 11 million people in the country illegally, 7 million to 8 million of whom are believed to be adults.

Kibble said the numbers show his agency's system of giving priority for deportation to people who pose a public threat is working. Last year, 36,178 criminals were deported as a result of the Secure Communities program, now in place in more than 1,400 jurisdictions, up from 14 in 2008. It's expected to be in more than 3,000 jurisdictions nationally by 2013.

It’s just one more reason to avoid driving at all if you are undocumented, wait unfortunately most of us live and reality and recognize that the undocumented are going to drive whether we provide a valid way for them to do so or not.

Chicago DUI Attorney Saw the Police Out Tonight in Full Force!

2011-07-15T21:24:00.000-07:00

Tonight I was coming back into the City from the Women’s Bar Association Board Retreat in Highland Park. I thought I was smart and took Metra out to the ‘burbs. I caught a ride back.

As we drove back into the city dropping off one person in Lakeview, then another in Logan Square I thought it would be easy, “just take Kedzie south to North and then head over east I said.

All was clear until we turned onto North Avenue and I could see a squad car with lights on just ahead of us and another a quarter of a block away from it.

Tarnation! I thought. I bet this is a road block or a saturation patrol. I look over into the park and immediately see the mobile BAC Unit. Yep it is. Ugh! I was not in the mood for this. It’s past my bed time and I need to walk my dog. You already know I’ve blogged about these check points here, here, and here.

Immediately, I start asking the driver if her lights work and whether she has valid registration, insurance, and license. She’s a lawyer, so her answer was yes. She wondered if we should turn off and I said no, realizing that sometimes they expect that and you turn right into the check point.

As we continued travelling east on North Avenue, just east of Western another marked unit made a U-turn and got behind us. Then all of a sudden I realized its lights were on.

Another car was directly behind us and that car pulled over to the curb and the marked squad car pulled up behind that vehicle.

Hmmm, no I didn’t miss a press release for that area at all. But have no doubt, they are out in full force around Humboldt Park and North Avenue tonight.

Chicago DUI Attorney Wonders if You Know What Amount of Drugs Makes You Impaired?

2011-07-11T13:49:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about DUI’s involving drugs. One of the biggest problems with a DUI when it involves drugs is that drugs tend to stay in the body an awful lot longer, via blood, hair, or urine testing, than alcohol. So how far back does the state require your drug usage in order to find you guilty of Driving Under the Influence of drugs?

That’s the question that the Illinois Supreme Court answered in People v Martin, No. 109102, 2011 WL 1499909 (Ill Sup Ct).

From People v. Martin:

On December 25, 2004, at 10 p.m., the defendant left a bar in Peoria. As he was driving home on a two-lane state highway, his car crossed the center line at a curve and struck an oncoming car. The driver and the passenger of that car were killed in the accident. The defendant was injured, and he was taken to a nearby hospital where he was given a narcotic painkiller, but not methamphetamine. At the hospital he received two traffic citations, one for improper lane usage and one for driving on the wrong side of the road. After he was placed under arrest by a Peoria County sheriff’s deputy, he consented to requests for two blood and urine samples. Subsequent tests revealed that the defendant’s blood contained no alcohol or controlled substances, but his urine contained methamphetamine and amphetamine. The defendant was then indicted on one count of aggravated DUI.

Cathy Anderson, a forensic scientist for the Illinois State Police, testified that she tested the defendant’s blood samples for alcohol and drugs. She found none. She also tested the defendant’s urine samples for drugs. A preliminary screening test indicated that a small amount-of “some sort of drug of the amphetamine class” could be present in the samples. Anderson then performed a gas chromatography mass spectrometry test, looking for a wide range of drugs. She found nothing significant. She then performed a more specific spectrometry test, looking for drugs in the amphetamine class. That test revealed the

presence of methamphetamine, though it did not indicate how much. According to Anderson, controlled substances enter the bloodstream first and are eventually eliminated through the urinary tract. She was not surprised to find methamphetamine in the urine samples, but not the blood samples. She also testified that none of the other substances in the defendant’s urine would have triggered a false indication for methamphetamine.

That’s right, the drug has cleared his bloodstream but it was still in his urinary tract and the Illinois Supreme Court deemed that was enough to be found guilty of an aggravated DUI. It is no longer necessary for the government to prove impaired driving (the “Under the Influence” language of the statute) the mere existence of any illicit drug is enough to convict.

Don’t think this same standard won’t be applied in the future to prescription drugs as well.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Injuries from Accidents

2011-06-30T10:24:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney understands that being hurt by someone accused of a DUI would make any injured party want to have the “book thrown” at the offending party. The maximum sentence won’t ever suffice.

June 29, Norfolk, VA:

After an emotional weeklong trial, a jury acquitted a driver in a single-car wreck of three drunken-driving offenses that left two passengers dead, a third maimed and a fourth injured.

Richard Freeman, an enlisted Navy sailor, was found not guilty Tuesday on two counts of aggravated involuntary manslaughter and a single count of maiming in the fiery 2009 wreck on Granby Street. The jury took two days to reach a verdict.

Freeman testified that his back-seat passengers distracted him and caused him to slam his BMW into a tree in the median across from Bon Secours DePaul Medical Center.

A prosecution witness testified that Freeman's blood alcohol content was at least 0.10 after the crash, exceeding the state's legal limit for driving.

Outside the courthouse after Tuesday's verdict, family members of the victims cursed and confronted defense attorney Andrew Sacks.

"We came out of this with no children and no justice," said Trent Richardson, father of victim Cameron Richardson.

From the suntimes.com:

15-year-old girl has been ticketed for improper lane usage in the June 21 crash that killed a Gurnee teen and her cancer-stricken dog, Lake County authorities said Wednesday.

Taylor Mae Stinchcomb, 15, and her pet Doberman, Romulus, died when the van in which they were riding veered off Almond Road, then hit a tree and utility pole in rural Lake County near Wildwood.

Taylor had taken the dog and her family’s 2003 Dodge minivan after learning that her family was considering putting down Romulus because he had cancer, investigators said.

Taylor later picked up a friend, whom authorities said was at the wheel when the van crashed about 12:45 a.m.

Citing her age, Lake County sheriff’s police declined to identify the teen ticketed

Do you feel the same way if the accident occurs and there’s no alcohol involved?

Chicago DUI Attorney Wants to Know if You Think The Government Should Keep Tabs on Your Dismissed Charges?

2011-06-29T19:47:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI Attorney has posted here and here about the inability to legislate for good behavior, now a tragedy has struck and the government wants to extend its use of information, namely charges that are dismissed.

June 29, Chicago, IL:

The Illinois Secretary of State oversees drivers licenses for Illinois motorists, but is not notified of all tickets issued in the state.

On Monday, a cab struck and killed a pedestrian in Chicago's Streeterville neighborhood. The cab, Yao Ofori, driver had more than 30 traffic citations in Cook County, but only two of those showed up in Ofori's driving record at the Illinois Secretary of State due to various laws.

"It's based on the offense table that is set for by the state of Illinois through the administrative office of Illinois courts. They give us a table and we correspond what is reportable and not reportable to the state," said Enza Raineri, Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

Some of Ofori's traffic citations were dismissed or not pursued. For instance, in 2007, Ofori was driving when his cab hit a pedestrian. That ticket -- failure to yield -- was dismissed and not reported to the secretary of state.

The two moving violations in the secretary of state records were improper turn (2007) and improper lane usage (2010).

Yes, a tragedy occurred, but are we going to take driving privileges away from people who were charged, but the charges were dismissed?

Chicago DUI Attorney Says, "Ka-Ching" for the Government

2011-06-28T19:19:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney posted here and here about the increase in fines. You guessed it, fines have been raised again. This time it’s for the minor traffic tickets, the type that won’t land you in jail or give you criminal background.

The other day I heard it. $0 fine in exchange for a plea of guilty, but with the fees the total would be $300! Yes you read that right.

Here’s a Run Down:

Guilty finding/verdict $130 fees, in addition to the fine

Court Supervision $159-165 in fees, in addition to the fine

Quasi- Criminal Fee $30
Supervision Fee $29
Court Security Services Fee $25
State Police Operations Fee $15
Court Automation Fee $15
Court Document Storage Fee $15
Mental Health Fee $10
Supervision Fee $6 (unless waived)
Court System Fee $5
Electronic Citation Fee $5
Drug Court Fee $5
Youth Diversion Fee $5

Do you think those are enough reasons to avoid being charged with a traffic offense, even a minor one?

Chicago DUI Attorney Wants to Hear Your Thoughts on the New Seat Belt Law, for Adults in the Back Seat

2011-06-27T11:40:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney thinks more nominal probable cause for a traffic stop has just been signed into law by Governor Quinn.

From now on, you must monitor your passengers in the back seat, even if they are adults, in order to avoid being stopped by the police.

June 27, Chicago, Il:

Back seat passengers will now be required to wear seat belts in Illinois under a measure signed into law today.

The move strengthens the state's current seat belt laws, which require passengers in the front seat and anyone under the age of 19 to wear safety belts. Police will be able to stop vehicles if they notice a passenger isn’t strapped in.

Exemptions include those riding in taxis or emergency vehicles such as police cars and ambulances.

Seriously, how many of you think this is the work you sent your legislators down to Springfield to do?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Boating Under the Influence and Your Driver's License

2011-06-26T10:25:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney knows today is perfect in the city. The sun is shining. It is neither too hot nor too cold. You could spend today along the lakefront and use the waterways to get to the big party on the north side for Pride or downtown for the Taste. Still, you need to be careful if you are partying on the waterways, especially in a boat.

June 26, Chicago, Il:

As the summer boating season enters full swing, states are moving to curtail a peril on the water — boating while intoxicated.

Alcohol is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents involving the nation’s 12.4 million registered boats, the U.S. Coast Guard said. There were 126 fatalities and 293 injuries in 330 alcohol-related boating accidents across the country in 2010.

In Illinois, the Department of Natural Resources Conservation Police arrested 12 boaters for operating under the influence over the Memorial Day holiday.

For a first offense, punishment can include up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine; second offenses can carry one to three years in jail and a $25,000 fine, department spokeswoman Stacey Solano said.

It also subjects you to a suspension of your driver’s license. That’s right a charge of boating under the influence can get your privileges to drive your car taken away while the case is pending. Just like on land, a designated “Captain” is important when boating on a glorious day like today.

Chicago DUI Attorney Wants You to Know Your Background Is Important

2011-06-24T04:37:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has represented people who think the past just stays in the past and has no impact on a current matter. That's wrong. If you have prior traffic or criminal background it impacts you throughout the case from the very beginning when a prosecutor decides whether the case will proceed or be dismissed to whether the charge will be enhanced or downgraded or even right out of the gate when a bond is suggested by the prosecutor that determines whether you get to be outside of jail or inside of jail while the charges against you are pending.

June 17, St. Charles, IL:

As WBBM Newsradio 780’s Nancy Harty reports, Paul Woodard and the assistant public defender representing him were hoping to get his $20,000 bond cut in half so he could get out of the Kane County Jail.

Instead, a judge raised it to $75,000 after prosecutors detailed Woodard’s lengthy history of driving illegally and other criminal convictions.

Whitfield, who sought an increase to $150,000, argued that raising the bond was

necessary for the protection of the public. In this case, the aggravated driving with a

revoked license is a Class 2 felony because of the number of previous convictions,

Whitfield said.

During a Thursday hearing, Woodard’s assistant public defender asked to have the bail reduced to $10,000 because, arguing that the amount was excessive. But Assistant State’s Attorney Andrew Whitfield told Judge Marmarie Kostelny that Woodard had 25 other arrests for driving revoked since 1999. Those arrests occurred around the Chicago area.

Your prior background matters and you really should share it with your attorney so that your attorney can make the best determination on how best to assist you.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on DUI Arrests

2011-06-23T09:49:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM) Top DUI Cop lists. Now the focus has shifted away from the individual officers making arrests to the number of arrests made by city by city.

From aaim1.org:

The most significant deterrents to impaired driving are law enforcement and DUI arrests. The Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM) is pleased to release the results of our 21st Annual DUI Arrest Survey.
The biggest increase in arrests among the top departments was in East Peoria where DUI arrests jumped by 131.0% in 2010 compared to 2009. According to Chief Ed Papis, “Our police department is proud to have made a notable contribution to saving lives on our roadways. Whether they live here or are driving through town, we want everyone to know that in East Peoria we do arrest drunk drivers.” Other municipalities with large increases from 2009 to 2010 are Chicago Heights (81.1%), Fox Lake (69.0%), Pekin (29.9%) and Springfield (19.2%).
Chicago police made 14.9 % fewer arrests in 2010 (3,695) than in 2009 (4,341), while Illinois State Police arrests increased by 7.4% in 2010 (10,734) compared to 2009 (9,996). The sheriff’s department reporting the most DUI arrests was Cook County (515), while Lake (393), DeKalb (327), Will (267) and St. Clair (253) Counties round out the top five sheriff departments.
Illinois State Police Trooper Daniel S. Erickson was Illinois’ Top Cop with 206 DUI arrests. AAIM also commends the life-saving efforts of Chicago Police Officer Timothy Walter who arrested 180 drunk drivers. “When police chiefs make it a priority to get impaired drivers off the roads, lots of arrests are made. There are several individual officers making more DUI arrests per year than many entire police departments in Illinois.

Does anyone else think its odd that AAIM cites law enforcement and actual arrests for DUI are significant deterrents to impaired driving?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Movement Towards Zero Tolerance for Driving After Consuming Alcohol

2011-06-22T06:12:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI atttorney has posted here and here about MADD's movement towards a prohibition of alcohol consumption. Still, it's important to distinguish the difference between driving when impaired because of alcohol consumption and the "beer with co-workers after work" or the "glass of wine with dinner" and then driving home adult. No one wants to be on the road with drunk drivers, but watch the shift from drunk driving to having any amount of alcohol and then driving that is now being advocated.

From webmd.com:

Driving with a buzz can be as dangerous as driving when you are fully intoxicated, a new study suggests.

The blood-alcohol content (BAC) limit in the U.S. is set at 0.08%, but levels well below this legal limit are associated with car accidents that cause incapacitating injury and death.

"Buzz kills," says David Phillips, PhD a sociologist at University of California, San Diego. "No amount of alcohol seems to be safe for driving."

The new study appears in Addiction.

In the study, drivers who tested positive for blood alcohol at levels well-below the legal BAC limit were more likely to be in severe car accidents than sober drivers largely because they drove significantly faster, were less likely to be appropriately using a seatbelt, and were usually driving the striking vehicle.

Lowering the legal BAC limit may help, Phillips says. In Sweden, the BAC limit is 0.02%; in Japan, it is 0.03%.

Researchers looked at data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which includes information on all 1,495,667 people in the U.S. who were involved in fatal car accidents from 1994 to 2008. This data included information on BAC in increments of 0.01.

Car accidents are 36.6% more severe even if alcohol was barely detectable in the driver's bloodstream, the study shows. The findings held even after researchers took into account the days and times of the week when car accidents are known to be more severe. Car accident severity is significantly higher on weekends, between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m., and in June through August.

"There is no safe level," Phillips says. "Why assume that just because you have been driving buzzed for years that it is safe?"

Aren't you curious to know who funded the study?

Chicago DUI Attorney Is Glad a Governor Knows the Limits of Government

2011-06-21T10:46:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI atorney has posted here, here, and here about texting while driving. You know she was opposed to the texting while driving ban that became law in llinois.

Finally, a governor pushes back on the limits of government and he used his veto power.

From the Office of Governor Rick Perry:

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

Pursuant to Article IV, Section 14, of the Texas Constitution, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby disapprove of and veto House Bill No. 242 as passed by the Eighty-Second Texas Legislature, Regular Session, because of the following objections:

Texting while driving is reckless and irresponsible. I support measures that make our roads safer for everyone, but House Bill 242 is a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults. Current law already prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from texting or using a cell phone while driving. I believe there is a distinction between the overreach of House Bill 242 and the government's legitimate role in establishing laws for teenage drivers who are more easily distracted and laws providing further protection to children in school zones.

Do you think other states will follow Governor Perry's lead?

Chicago DUI Attorney Is Glad to Know That Business Stood Up to Government

2011-06-20T08:18:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney posted here about apps alerting drivers to roadblocks.

Now it appears Apple has caved to the government’s request to stop providing this information to citizens, but only in the future, not currently.

From motortrend.com:

**UPDATE**

After the post initially ran, the makers of PhantomALERT responded and said the app had NOT actually been removed from the App store. Sure enough we found an active page for the app, as well as similar apps Trapster, DUI Dodger,Checkpointer, and Buzzed . For clarification, it appears the policy is that Apple will reject future apps per its updated App Store guidelines, according to Apple enthusiast blog Cult of Mac.

Life has become a little bit easier, thanks to the booming Android and iPhone app market that offers an app for just about everything. Chances are if you are ever in need of something, most likely there’s an app to help you out. But are some apps taking it too far when it comes to public safety?

Senators have been fighting for Apple and Google to do away with PhantomALERT and other apps that have DUI checkpoints as part of their service. PhantomALERT an app that is geared toward providing awareness to those on the road by alerting them of red light traffic cams, speed traps, and DUI checkpoints. The app has been quite the controversy, but has since generated a tremendous upward trend in downloads and sales.

The speed trap or the red light camera alerts are not the main concern for Senators, but the information released through the app on DUI checkpoint locations. Senators argue that releasing such information to the public encourages breaking the law by helping drunk drivers evade police. Some other apps, not Phantom ALERT, go as far as providing alternate routes around checkpoints.

Really? What about the idea that you are probably sober if you are able to use the app to figure out how to avoid the checkpoints in the first place?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Pesky Roadside Checks and No Bail

2011-06-17T16:25:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney knows how frustrating these roadside safety checks can be. She’s posted here and here about them. Still, one shouldn’t let a roadside safety check turn into a criminal charge for attempted murder with no bail being available.

June 14, Chicago, Il:

A South Side man has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to run over a Chicago Police officer with his Jaguar in the popular Weed Street District early Monday morning.

The 51-year-old officer, who was conducting a roadside seatbelt safety check, had to hold onto the hood of Rodney Steele’s luxury British car to keep from being hit, Assistant State’s Attorney Christopher Costello said Tuesday.

After the first officer fell off the car, another officer shot at Steele’s black four-door, striking the vehicle’s driver’s side and puncturing his keys, but Steele kept driving at a high rate of speed from the corner of Kingsbury, Weed and Sheffield, Costello said.

Officers had noticed that Steele was wearing his seatbelt improperly around 2 a.m. Monday morning and had asked him to pull over and produce his driver’s license, Costello said.

Steele told officers that they “knew him” and ignored a second request to pull over, Costello said.

That’s when he allegedly accelerated and drove right into the officer, endangering a nearby cab.

When Steele made a “sudden” left turn, the officer slipped off the Jaguar near the taxi, Costello said.

Steele sped off and eventually drove onto the I-90/94 Expressway and exited at the 31st Street exit with marked squad cars behind him, Costello said.

No bail means just that, NO BAIL. Unlike DSK, who had bail set at $1M for allegations of raping a woman in New York (yes he did “make bail” by posting the bond and surrendering his passport, and being under house arrest, with actual police jailers posted), this gentleman can’t exit no matter how much money is posted.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Perils of Youthful Mistakes

2011-06-16T20:29:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about the legal consequences of a DUI when you are under the age of 21. Right now, I’m at the Illinois State Bar Association’s 135^th Annual Meeting and the law is strict in Wisconsin for youthful mistakes that can be tragic as well.

June 16, Milwaukee, WI:

As her fellow Homestead High School graduates head off to college dorms in coming weeks, Madeline Kudlata will split her time between Marquette University and a jail cell as punishment for killing her best friend and classmate in a rollover crash last September.

Kudlata, 18, of Mequon was sentenced Thursday to a year in jail, with release privileges to attend Marquette, as a condition of five years probation. If she violates that or other conditions, she could go to prison for two years, and as many as five, under a sentence imposed, and stayed, by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Kevin Martens after a daylong hearing of emotional testimony from family on both sides.

Sydney Tabakin died Sept. 18 after Kudlata lost control on the ramp to northbound U.S. 41 from eastbound I-94. Kudlata and a front-seat passenger were not seriously injured. Tabakin was riding in the back seat without a seat belt.

In April, Kudlata pleaded no contest to homicide by negligent operation of a motor vehicle. She was initially ticketed for driving too fast for conditions and having an open container of alcohol in her car, but was charged with the felony in January.

Witnesses told investigators that Kudlata was disposing of liquor bottles at the scene. A blood test showed traces of marijuana, but no alcohol. Tabakin had no alcohol or illicit drugs in her system.

Assistant District Attorney Mark Williams told Martens that the case could have been charged as homicide by drug-impaired driving, a 25-year felony, but that his office negotiated the lesser charge, and plea, in the interest of justice and the facts.

"I believe it's a reasonable resolution of a very difficult matter," Williams said. He recommended the year of jail as condition to probation.

Kudlata will suffer the consequences for the rest of her life while her best friend had her life cut short. It could have been just a tragic accident, had alcohol and drugs not be involved, no matter how attenuated.

Chicago DUI Attorney Chuckles, but It Wasn't Funny

2011-06-15T17:33:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI Attorney chuckled today. She read this headline and shook her head in disbelief.

June 15, Springfield, Il:

The Illinois State Police on Tuesday denied any racial bias in deciding when to ask permission to search cars during traffic stops and defended the searches as an effective law-enforcement tool.

But the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said state police ducked the basic question of why troopers are more likely to seek permission to search the cars of black and Hispanic drivers than of white drivers, even though searches of white drivers more often reveal contraband.

If police have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime, they do not need a driver's permission to search a car. Consent searches are used when police have no reason to suspect a crime but still want to conduct a search for some reason. Drivers don't have to allow the search but they do about nine times out of 10.

In defending consent searches, the state police said they seized 2,069 firearms, over 14,472 pounds of illegal drugs, and arrested thousands of motorists for serious crimes in 2009. They did not, however, say how many of those successes were a result of consent searches.

The ACLU's figures show only 177 state police consent searches produced any contraband, and more than half of it came from white drivers. Mostly what troopers found was alcohol and drug paraphernalia. They found weapons only 14 times and more than 50 grams of drugs only eight times.

Well, what do you think? Do the police stop people of color more frequently, than others or is that just a myth right up there with the Tooth Fairy?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Corporate Logos on License Plates

2011-06-14T11:44:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney understands that the State’s financial obligations are larger than its coffers. She’s posted here, here, and here about an increase in court fines in an attempt to fatten up the coffers, even some of the prosecutors have been shaking their heads with disgust over it. Still a new low bar has been reached when a corporate entity is able to run an ad on the license plates we are required to have in order to drive.

June 14, Springfield, Il:

Illinois is looking at allowing corporations to put their logos or advertisements on state license plates, something that has proven successful in raising revenue in Texas.

Sen. John Mulroe, D-Chicago, this spring passed a measure to have the secretary of state’s office study whether the state could make money by allowing corporations to sponsor license plates.

The special plates would be offered to Illinois motorists at a discount, and the companies would pay the state to put their logos or ads on the plates.

The study is to be concluded by Jan. 1.

This is different than the vanity plates currently permitted to highlight being a vet or an alumnus, just picture your local burger chain’s logo on your license plate.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Click It or Ticket Becoming the Law for the Whole Car

2011-06-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about legislation. Well here’s one I didn’t highlight because truthfully, I just didn’t think this was going to be an issue.

HB219:

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that every driver and passenger (rather than every driver, front seat passengers, and certain passengers under the age of 19) of a motor vehicle operated on a street or highway of this State must wear a properly adjusted safety belt, with specified exceptions.

House Committee Amendment No. 1

Adds the driver or passenger of an authorized emergency vehicle and a back seat passenger of a taxicab to the list of persons exempted from the requirement to wear a safety belt.

It looks like a gateway to a traffic stop to me. I can’t imagine Governor Quinn won’t sign this one into law and when it becomes effective drivers need to turn around and make sure all passengers are fastened, not just the ones in special kid seats.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Trooper Who Is Out to Get You

2011-06-12T10:43:00.001-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about speeding. Today’s Chicago Sun Times profiles the trooper you don’t want to meet. He’s written over 5,000 tickets.

June 12, Chicago, IL:

Trooper Jason Heinzl squinted through the sight of his speed gun, fixed the red laser target on the license plate ‘PQQDLE’ and pulled the trigger.

For a split-second as it flashed past Heinzl’s hidden squad car in the passenger seat of a speeding Chevrolet Tahoe SUV, the unmistakable profile of a well-groomed poodle was silhouetted in black against the sun-bleached windshield.

“Seventy-eight miles an hour,” Heinzl said, stomping on the gas and turning on his lights. “That’ll do.”

The 5,005 speeding tickets the 36-year-old veteran of 12 years has written since January 2000 is 603 more than his closest colleague, a Sun-Times analysis of more than 700,000 tickets shows. Or as he puts it, “If I have to get out of my car, you’re usually getting a ticket.”

Seriously, is it worth the risk of getting stopped by this guy or one of his colleagues?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Whether Vehicular Fleeing Should Be Categorized as a Violent Crime

2011-06-11T13:03:00.000-07:00

Did you know that driving away from the police can now be considered a violent crime? No you don’t have to hit anyone or anything for fleeing and eluding the police, in a car, to be deemed a violent crime?

On Thursday, a divided Court, ruled in a 6-3 decision that an Indiana man could be sentenced, federally under an enhancement based on having a background of three violent crimes. Yes. One of those “violent crimes” was fleeing the police in a vehicle.

June 9, Washington, D.C.:

Fleeing from the police in a car is a violent felony that can subject criminals to mandatory 15-year prison terms, the Supreme ruled on Thursday in a 6-to-3 decision.

The decision was the court’s fourth encounter since 2007 with a phrase in a federal law, the Armed Career Criminal Act. Under the law, convicted felons found with guns face a maximum sentence of 10 years. But those with three convictions for violent felonies are subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The law defines violent felonies as including burglary, arson and other “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” The defendant in the case Thursday, Marcus Sykes, pleaded guilty to having a gun in violation of the federal law, and it was undisputed that he had twice committed violent felonies, by robbing a man of his wristwatch and a woman of her purse.

The question in the case was whether a third conviction under Indiana law for fleeing from the police in a car was also a violent felony. Mr. Sykes’s flight was dangerous, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “Sykes wove through traffic, drove on the wrong side of the road and through yards containing bystanders, passed through a fence and struck the rear of a house,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

But, Justice Kennedy went on, the issue was not whether Mr. Sykes’s actual conduct had been violent. Rather, it was whether the crime he had been convicted of was as a general matter a crime of violence.

As a matter of both common experience and statistics, Justice Kennedy wrote, the answer was yes. Fleeing from the police in a car, he wrote, “is a provocative and dangerous act that dares, and in a typical case requires, the officer to give chase.”

Did you notice this was not a unanimous decision? What I find interesting is that Justice Scalia wrote a separate dissent.

From Sykes v. U.S., No, No. 09-11311.:

As the Court's opinion acknowledges, this case is “another in a series,” ante, at 1. More specifically, it is an attempt to clarify, for the fourth time since 2007, what distinguishes “violent felonies” under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii), from other crimes. See James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192 (2007); Begay v. United States, 553

U. S. 137 (2008); Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 122 (2009). We try to include an ACCA residual-clause case in about every second or third volume of the United States Reports.

As was perhaps predictable, instead of producing a clarification of the Delphic residual clause, today’s opinion produces a fourth ad hoc judgment that will sow further confusion. Insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Four times is enough. We should admit that ACCA’s residual provision is a drafting failure and declare it void for vagueness. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357 (1983).

What does violate the Constitution is approving the enforcement of a sentencing statute that does not “give a person of ordinarily intelligence fair notice” of its reach, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that permits, indeed invites, arbitrary enforcement, see Kolender, 461 U. S., at 357. The Court’s ever-evolving interpretation of the residual clause will keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come. The reality is that the phrase “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” does not clearly define the crimes that will subject defendants to the greatly increased ACCA

penalties. It is not the job of this Court to impose a clarity which the text itself does not honestly contain. And even if that were our job, the further reality is that we have by now demonstrated our inability to accomplish the task.

We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular. It should be no surprise that as the volume increases,so do the number of imprecise laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nittygritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to

call a halt. I do not think it would be a radical step—indeed, I think it would be highly responsible—to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes. Congress can quickly add what it wishes. Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.

A decision like this requires citizens to correct the decisions of the court.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on What You Shouldn't Do if You Are in a Roadblock

2011-06-10T19:47:00.000-07:00

It’s a damp night. Still it’s the weekend and you know what that means, another DUI roadblock in a neighborhood. Keep in mind, this doesn’t mean that police aren’t working other areas in patrol cars, on bikes (I saw two bike officers about an hour ago), horses, and ATVs.

From chicagopolice.org:

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a DUI Strike Force Patrol in the Ogden 010^th District. The DUI Strike Force Patrol will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, June 10, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 11, 2011.

The purpose of this program is to saturate a pre-designated area with roving police officers that continually monitor vehicular traffic for signs of impaired driving. Patrols also place emphasis on speed, alcohol-related and safety belt violations. Police vehicles equipped for speed detection are deployed to apprehend speeding violators.

Whatever you do, if you are in the neighborhood, avoid this area by several blocks. Trust me, don’t try to change your course once you see the cones alerting you to the roadblock. Most of the time, if you change course you will find another roadblock awaiting you or suspicious police following you assuming you are driving drunk and that’s the reason your changed your course.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on The Break for Parking Scofflaws

2011-06-09T18:20:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about how difficult it can be to get your driver’s license back. Unfortunately, frequently it comes down to money.

Now, in a nod to these economic dire times, your Illinois legislators thought maybe we should make it a wee bit easier for folks to get their driving privileges restored. Somehow, I don’t think the memo got out about this; the law is almost a year old.

625 ILCS 5/6-306.5:

(d) Any municipality making a certified report to the
Secretary of State pursuant to this Section shall notify the
Secretary of State, in a form prescribed by the Secretary,
whenever a person named in the certified report has paid the
previously reported fine or penalty, whenever a person named in
the certified report has entered into a payment plan pursuant
to which the municipality has agreed to terminate the
suspension, or whenever the municipality determines that the
original report was in error. A certified copy of such
notification shall also be given upon request and at no
additional charge to the person named therein. Upon receipt of
the municipality's notification or presentation of a certified
copy of such notification, the Secretary of State shall
terminate the suspension.

So if you let parking tickets trigger a suspension of your driving privileges, you could get your driving privileges restored by entering into a payment plan with the municipality that reported your lack of payments in the first place. In the past, it was an all or nothing proposition with the municipality once your license was suspended.

Don’t sleep on your rights!

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on an Offer for Dinner-- No It's Not a Client

2011-06-08T15:24:00.000-07:00

“I tell you what, if he comes back with a valid license on the next court date, I’ll buy you a nice vegetarian dinner”. Wow! I thought to myself. It’s not every day that even the government is jaded by the ability of the accused to right the ship. Change Course. Plot a new path. Ask for the Mulligan, in other words begin again.

The accused has numerous charges for driving without a valid driver’s license simply because he never bothered to pay a reinstatement fee to the Secretary of State. That’s right, failure to pay a reinstatement fee (that’s the only reason for the suspension) is enough to land you in the county jail for almost a year and or court fees of up to $2500.

Does that make any sense to you?

Dear Government Prosecutor,

Here’s a list of some of my favorite vegetarian friendly places for that dinner.

Great Lake

Lula

Nightwood

Green Zebra

Sun Wah

Mana

Prairie Fire

Old Town Social

Avec

Blackbird

My client has assured me that your offer of dinner for me is worth it to him. He will comply. He will start again with a valid driver's license.

Yours truly,

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on DUI and Graduation

2011-06-07T17:22:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has commented here on the additional challenges of being under 21 and charged with a DUI. I know that prom season has just ended and graduation and parties to celebrate are upon us. It also can brings tragedy.

When I was growing up in South Carolina, every year seniors would die in some alcohol-related death. Back then the drinking age was eighteen and most seniors were eighteen.

Times have changed. Now the legal drinking age is 21. Times remain the same, seniors graduate from high school and celebrate with alcohol and other drugs. Tragedy occurs.

A couple of weeks ago a friend posted this story on her Facebook Wall and it brought tears to my eyes:

Still, you don’t want to ruin your life before your adulthood begins. You don’t want me to have to defend you in a case where you are charged with a DUI. The stakes are considerably higher when you are under 21.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Subsequent DUI Charges and Court Behavior

2011-06-06T15:25:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about people charged more than once with a DUI, still it never fails to surprise her when people charged with this offense come to court smelling of alcohol, never mind actually being drunk.

From chicagobreakingnews.com:

An Elgin woman charged with DUI six times had her bail revoked this week after police say she came to court intoxicated.

Authorities say 54-year-old Sandra Uher had been free on $100,000 when she was taken into custody.

During her most recent DUI arrest in March, police say Uher failed a field sobriety test and had a preliminary blood-alcohol content of .30, nearly four times the legal limit for drivers.

She was also driving on a revoked license.

The good news is the judge realized her problem is more than a criminal one, she needs help, so she was taken to the medical facilities at the jail.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Your Duty, as a Social Host, to Prevent a DUI

2011-06-04T14:00:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about being held responsible for a DUI when you weren’t drinking or driving. No, not a criminal charge, but when you get sued for someone consuming alcohol on your property, and you didn’t serve it to them. The Illinois Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand for host liability.

From Bell v. Hutsell, Docket No. 110724:

This case arises out of the death of Daniel Bell, age 18, who died in a single-car accident after he had allegedly consumed alcoholic beverages at the residence of defendants in the course of a party organized and hosted by the defendants’ son, Jonathan. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint implicitly acknowledges that the defendants did not provide alcohol for underage consumption, and in fact alleges that defendants informed Jonathan both that alcohol consumption would not be tolerated and that they would monitor the party to see that underage partygoers did not possess or imbibe alcoholic beverages. Plaintiff alleges, however, that the Hutsells were aware of underage consumption on their premises at prior parties; that their son, Jonathan, had previously pled guilty to underage consumption; that alcohol was brought to the party in question and underage guests drank, excessively, with the Hutsells’ knowledge—in some instances in their presence—without objection or consequence; and that Jerry Hutsell “on multiple occasions spoke to a number of underage partygoers who had been drinking alcohol and requested that if they had been drinking at the party not to drive a vehicle when leaving.” The complaint states that Daniel Bell drank alcohol “in full and open view of the defendants,”and that he later walked to his car, “began driving,” and “crashed his car into a tree,” resulting in his death.

Do you think you should be held liable for an adult, albeit an underage adult but an adult nonetheless, drinking and driving?

Chicago DUI Attorney Predicts a DUI Arrest (Including the Date and Location)

2011-06-03T09:49:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney is willing to wager that someone will be arrested, for a DUI tonight (or maybe early tomorrow morning) around the 2400 south block of Ashland.

From Chicagopolice.org:

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a Roadside Safety Check in the Monroe(012th) District at 2451 S. Ashland. The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, June 3, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 4, 2011.

During roadside checks, police officers slow down traffic, stop cars at regular intervals and watch for drivers who show signs of alcohol impairment and other violations as noted below.

“The program is designated to apprehend drivers who are operating vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or drugs,” said Acting Superintendent, Garry F. McCarthy. “It also offers an opportunity to issue citations to drivers who are otherwise a hazard to themselves and others on the public way.”

A warm summer weekend is in the forecast. Yes, I’ve already spotted my first drinking and riding (bicycle) suspect earlier this week. No he didn’t get charged, but I am confident that if he was in a car, even a parked car just sitting there list, he would be a prime suspect for a DUI charge.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Three Strikes, No Not the Cubs

2011-06-02T17:05:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted on the perils of being charged with a DUI here and here. She’s even posted here about the consequences for subsequent offenders. Still she’s a bit surprised at the three strikes and you are out mentality being used by some judges.

May 31, Urbana, Il:

A Champaign man with a long history of felony convictions was sentenced Tuesday to 25 years in prison for his third driving under the influence conviction.

Kenneth Dalton, 43, who listed an address in the 2600 block of Campbell Drive, was convicted by a Champaign County jury in April of driving while drunk in Savoy on Dec. 24, 2010.

Assistant State's Attorney Andrea Bergstrom said a Champaign County sheriff's deputy stopped Dalton for speeding on U.S. 45 near Church Street. He smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and an open 24-ounce beer can in his vehicle.

On field sobriety tests, he showed signs of impairment and urinated on himself while trying to perform the tasks. He refused to submit to chemical testing, Bergstrom said.

25 years for a non-violent offense with no accident and no chemical test results. You know who will pay for every meal and the health care he receives for the next twenty-five years don’t you?

Chicago DUI Attorney Thinks You Should Slow Down

2011-06-01T14:45:00.000-07:00

It’s a beautiful sunny day in Chicago. It’s a perfect day for hopping on your motorcycle or putting the top down on your car and going for a ride. There’s a problem, and I don’t mean the cost of gas at the pump. The problem stems from how quickly the speed limit can change when you are on the expressways or Lake Shore Drive.

Yes. You know you could get a ticket for speeding, but you know darn well that other guy in the Benz is driving way faster than you. Perhaps you were just going with the flow of traffic; trust me everyone speeds, so if you are keeping up with traffic you are speeding. So how fast is too fast? This Chicago DUI attorney has posted the answer here and here. But you can cheat and read below for the answer.

A mere 30 miles over the speed limit is enough to land you in jail for six months. No, you don’t have to have a bad driving record to land in jail. No, there doesn’t have to be an accident, just speeding this high is enough.

So what happens if you are going more than 40 miles over the speed limit? You can face up to a year in jail, $2500 in fines, and you can’t get court supervision. It’s a conviction that will be reported to the Secretary of State.

Trust me, on a day like to day, 30 to 40 miles above the speed limit won’t feel that fast. Certainly not fast enough to land you in jail.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Ticketing Quotas

2011-05-31T10:35:00.000-07:00

They said they wouldn’t do it. That there was no such thing as quotas; this Chicago DUI attorney knows you were skeptical. Well, the good news is the quotas aren’t here (well at least not officially).

May 31, Gary, IN:

Motorists driving on Gary streets should be on extra alert: Traffic cops are under orders to issue tickets more than once an hour, every day all day.

Claiming they want to increase productivity, Gary police administrators ordered traffic officers to write at least 10 tickets per shift.

But prosecutors, defense attorneys and the Fraternal Order of Police say quotas can have a negative impact on public perception, police morale and convictions on all levels.

“It’s not good for us,” Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter said last week.

“I try to talk to police all the time, tell them to be sensitive to members of the public, use some discretion. Setting a strict requirement removes some of that discretion,” Carter said.

This one is official. It’s not shocking for any municipality to try, in these dire economic times, to increase revenue in order to maintain local services, but this is ridiculous. Really, the voters may prefer taxation to being ticketed just to try to balance the budget.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Your Car NOT Being Your Castle!

2011-05-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney wants to remind you that there’s more to worry about than whether or not you will get charged with a DUI when you are driving. She’s posted here and here about being charged with a DUI for marijuana.

Now, what about those other crimes that you can be charged with while in what you thought was your car, a place that you deem as private to intrusion as your home?

Do you think an officer has the right to order you to close your windows and turn your blowers on high for a dog-sniff?

Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court pushed back your right’s to privacy in your car.

From People v. Cheryl L. Bartelt, No. 107276:

After a lawful traffic stop, a police officer performed a set-up

procedure, which entailed ordering the driver, defendant, Cheryl L.

Bartelt, to roll up her truck’s windows and turn the ventilation

system’s blowers on high before a second officer conducted a canine

sniff of the exterior of her truck. The dog alerted on both doors of the

truck, and a subsequent search of the truck resulted in discovery of

drug evidence.

The only issue on appeal is whether the officers’ actions in

ordering defendant to roll up her windows and turn the blowers on

high before conducting the dog sniff of the truck’s exterior constituted

an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment. This seems to be

an issue of first impression nationwide because the parties have not

cited, nor has our research revealed, any decisions that have addressed

the issue.

The dissent would like us to recharacterize the issue as whether

the officers’ actions in ordering defendant to roll up her windows and

turn the blowers on high before conducting the dog sniff of the truck’s

exterior constituted an unreasonable seizure under the fourth

amendment. We decline to do so because it is clear that, in her briefs

and oral arguments before this court, defendant argues that the

officers’ actions in ordering her to roll up her windows and turn the

blowers on high before conducting the dog sniff of the truck’s exterior

constituted an unreasonable search, not an unreasonable seizure.

Here’s a portion of the dissent:

This appeal squarely presents the question of whether a police

officer’s order to a driver, during a routine traffic stop, to perform a

“set-up” procedure to facilitate a canine sniff for narcotics, is an

unreasonable seizure which violates the fourth amendment. It is my

view that it is. Despite the fact that this precise issue was litigated by

the parties in the circuit court, and even though the majority’s own

recitation of the factual background and procedural history of this

cause repeatedly references seizure principles, my colleagues decline

to analyze this appeal in the context of whether defendant was

subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Instead, they review the

propriety of the police action by inquiring whether the “ordering” of

defendant to perform the set-up procedure is “an unreasonable

search.” Slip op. at 8. Using this inappropriate analytical framework,

the majority holds that there is no constitutional violation. As I agree

with neither the majority’s analysis nor the result, I respectfully

dissent.

Keep in mind,that this type of charge can occur whenever you are not the sole driver of your vehicle.

Sure it’s difficult, but you have to remember that the strength of our constitution is challenged when things are wrong, not when things are right.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Double Duty DUI Strike Forces

2011-05-27T10:07:00.000-07:00

Double Duty!

This is the first big holiday weekend without former Supt. Jody Weis in three years. It looks like the new interim Supt. Gerry McCarthy is going to have the force out double time looking for impaired drivers.

From clearpath.org:

DUI STRIKE FORCE PATROL IN THE AUSTIN (015^TH) DISTRICT

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a DUI Strike Force Patrol in the Austin (015^th District.

The DUI Strike Force Patrol will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, May 27, 2011

and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 28, 2011.

The purpose of this program is to saturate a pre-designated area with roving police officers that continually monitor vehicular traffic for signs of impaired driving. Patrols also place emphasis on speed, alcohol-related and safety belt violations. Police vehicles equipped for speed detection are deployed to apprehend speeding violators.

And here’s another one:

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a DUI Strike Force Patrol in the South

Chicago 004th District. The DUI Strike Force Patrol will commence at 8:00 p.m. on

Saturday, May 28, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Sunday, May 29, 2011.

Please keep in mind, that what you think is drunk, is clearly an impaired driver, and what the police think is drunk is the smell of alcohol on your breath or an admission of smoking marijuana or even taking allergy medication.

One more thing, these are Strike Forces, there will be other officers working throughout the city looking for impaired drivers.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Drinking and Driving

2011-05-16T18:31:00.001-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney thinks its time to remind you that it is not illegal to consume alcohol and then drive.

Have you ever had beer at a game and then driven home afterwards?

How about a glass of wine after work with colleagues before driving home for the night?

What about all of those fantastic wedding receptions you attend with, OPEN BAR? You do have one or two drinks before going home after a night of celebrating, don’t you?

All of those common situations could get you charged with a DUI.

In Illinois, we have a jury instruction that provides that a person is NOT under the influence of alcohol if their BAC is under .05. Still this creates a reality that flies in the face of many accused of the crime of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.

There is also significant case law in Illinois that permits one to be found guilty of the crime of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol when there is NOT a BAC over the legal limit of .08. That area includes cases where there isn’t any BAC as well as cases where the BAC is over .05 but under the per se legal limit of .08. That’s right you can be found guilty of a DUI even if you submit to blood, breath, or urine testing and the result is above .05 but under the legal limit of .08.

This Chicago DUI attorney tells her friends and family that the best way to avoid needing her services is to avoid having any alcohol if you are going to drive. Yes, I know that’s not the law.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on losing the right to a trial by your peers

2011-05-02T15:15:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney is a proud member of the National College of DUI Defense.

Last week, a member reported on a change to the rights of the accused in Arizona.

That state has decided that no longer does a person accused of a DUI have a right to a jury trial. Yes, they can go to trial.

As shocking as it may seem, there are other states that don’t permit a jury trial for a first time DUI charge.

Arizona***

Hawaii

Louisiana

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Mississippi

Pennsylvania

In Illinois, you are guaranteed the right to a jury. Yes, I heard you breathe a sigh of relief.

Here's the kicker, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law, although she received a professional courtesy for her own DUI.

*** New law goes into effect January, 2012

Chicago DUI attorney comments on jury service with a DUI

2011-04-25T05:00:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has a sliver of good news, if you could call it that about being charged with a DUI. She’s posted here, here, and here about all of the bad things that happen to the accused.

Former governor Rod Blagojevich second trial is about to begin. The government has streamlined its case against him and decided not to charge his brother this time.

Still, choosing the jurors has not been easy.

April 22, Chicago, Il:

In his first day back in federal court since his trial last summer, Rod Blagojevich learned potential jurors held some unflattering impressions of him.

One referred to the former governor as a “nutcase,” in a written jury form, according to U.S. District Judge James Zagel.

“If you take that literally, that does not mean guilty,” Zagel said.

Those were some of the issues that attorneys dealt with on the first day of jury questioning, in which 22 people were quizzed and nine of those were dismissed for “cause.” In some cases that meant economic hardship or because they said they couldn’t be fair. Jury questioning continues on Monday and by the start of testimony, 18 will be seated.

Among the 13 who are so far staying: a former assistant state’s attorney who also worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as a man who was convicted of assault, DUI and was entangled in a massive financial scam.

Don’t you feel better knowing that a DUI will not prevent you from doing your civic duty and serving on a jury?

Chicago DUI attorney thinks DUI checkpoint apps put the power back in the hands of citizens

2011-04-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about apps that could prevent a DUI arrest. UnThis Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about apps that could prevent a DUI arrest.

If a driver is sufficiently impaired so as to be unable to operate a car safely, I have doubts about his or her ability to use a cell phone app to 'thwart' law enforcement. What's your perspective?

April 17, New York, New York:

FRIENDS don’t let friends drive drunk. If they can’t take their friend’s keys away, they take their smartphone. Why? The phone may have an app that can help them avoid sobriety checkpoints.

Last month, Senators Harry Reid,Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg and Tom Udall asked Apple, Google and Research In Motion, the maker of BlackBerrys, to remove apps from their online stores that help drunken drivers evade sobriety checkpoints.

On March 23, the day after the letter went out, the group said BlackBerry agreed to pull the apps and thanked the group for bringing them to its attention.

Apple and Google? Nothing.

Buzzed, a smartphone app that shows nothing but sobriety checkpoints, is matched with a Web site with a self-explanatory address, EveryCheckpoint.com.

PhantomAlert was one of the apps that Research In Motion pulled from its online store at the request of the senators. R.I.M. did not respond to requests for comment. But Joseph Scott, chief executive of PhantomAlert, defended real-time alerts of sobriety checkpoints as a convenience to law-abiding citizens who do not want to be delayed by a checkpoint. “Assuming someone who gets a D.U.I.-checkpoint alert is going to drink and drive is like assuming anyone who owns a gun is a murderer,” he said.

Still, whether you wish to avoid the headache or the thought of having to stand on one leg to prove your innocence is not your cup of tea, you may want to check out these apps.

Chicago DUI attorney shares free legal advice...from a judge

2011-04-11T14:46:00.000-07:00

I was sitting in court, waiting for my case to be called, when a judge decided to remind everyone why he thought it was important that they should not represent themselves in his court room.

He used to be a criminal defense attorney. He let it be known that he had tried many murders, successfully. He also noted that he was no expert in Driving While Suspended or Revoked cases, but he knew he would hedge his bets on beating a murder case any day over beating a misdemeanor driving while license is suspended/revoked.

So instead of polishing your legal skills with another episode of Judge Judy or Law and Order, why not heed the free advice from a judge?

Chicago DUI attorney comments on a U.S. Supreme Justice being a defendant

2011-03-29T18:51:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney believes that accidents happen.

Still, it’s not every day that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is a defendant.

From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court justice was ticketed early Tuesday for his role in a four-car fender-bender. No injuries to anyone but the cars — including Scalia’s, which had to be towed.

Brooke Salkoff saw it all go down. The former NBC reporter told us she was just behind Scalia’s vehicle, a shiny black BMW in the left lane. “It slammed into the car in front of his, which pushed the other two forward,” and caused them all to skew into the right lane, she said.

[T]he justice got a ticket for following too closely. Fine: $70, plus a $20 special assessment, or, said Schlosser, “he can contest it in court.

Anyone else think he will hire a lawyer to make it just go away

Chicago DUI attorney comments on keeping DUI checkpoint information away from the public

2011-03-23T11:47:00.000-07:00

Wow! Look what happens in the news when you are in court or otherwise going about your day. You are so bombarded by celebrities hurling chairs or going to trial on theft charges, and the passing of a legend that I bet you miss when your representatives try to take away your right to know what’s going on.

From PCMag.com:

Four Democratic senators on Tuesday penned a letter to Apple, Google, andResearch in Motion to urge the companies to remove apps that provide users with information about DUI checkpoints.

"With more than 10,000 Americans dying in drunk-driving crashes every year, providing access to applications that alert users to DUI checkpoints is harmful to public safety," according to the letter, which was signed by Sens. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Mark Udall.

The senators asked the companies to remove the apps, unless the app creators remove DUI or DWI checkpoint functionality.

"One application contains a database of DUI checkpoints updated in real-time. Another application, with more than 10 million users, also allows users to alert each other to DUI checkpoints in real time," they wrote. "Giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern."

Surely, it’s not only the drunk drivers using the app, is it? Oh no, there's also that small bit about the Constitution requiring publication of these checkpoints, but I guess they are trying to avoid mentioning the law.

Chicago DUI attorney thinks you may want to stick to drinking those green shakes this holiday weekend

2011-03-17T13:05:00.001-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney will admit that she’s surprised that there will be DUI arrest today, tonight, and through the weekend.

The Loop is actually quiet and it is clear that many of my colleagues are taking today and tomorrow off from work. As the saying goes, everyone’s Irish on St. Patrick’s Day!

From the Chicago Police Department:

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a Roadside Safety Check in the Near North

(018^th ) District at North Ave and Kingsbury. The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 19, 2011.

An additional Roadside Safety Check will be conducted in the Calumet (005

th) District at 11800 S. Halsted. The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 19, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Sunday, March 20, 2011.

Trust me the police will be out looking for driving violations starting now!

Chicago DUI attorney comments on new insurance legislation that doesn't pass muster

2011-03-15T06:25:00.001-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about driving without insurance.

Seriously, the things that get to the floor as possible new laws never cease to astonish me.

From HB3385:

Automobile insurance; denial of coverage to unlicensed drivers. An insurer issuing a policy of automobile liability insurance listing a driver as insured shall not deny coverage to that driver for the sole reason that he or she lacks a valid drivers license, provided that such person was identified on the application for the policy as an unlicensed driver. However, nothing in this Section shall prohibit an insurer from requesting or enforcing a named driver exclusion with respect to an unlicensed driver.

So what’s wrong with this you ask? Well first, it means your insurance has to continue to cover the claim whenever you are involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. Yes, even if the other party was at fault for the accident. Now before you get righteously indignant and start talking about suing the individual just take a deep breath and think. What are the odds that the person who doesn’t have insurance has money to pay your damages when you sue them? Yep. You are probably looking at a judgment proof individual.

Another problem with this bill is it lets the insurer take money from the unlicensed driver for the premiums, giving the unlicensed driver the false belief that she’s covered, while at the same time, permitting the insurance company to exclude the unlicensed driver. You don’t expect an individual to realize that the policy they are paying for excludes them or their spouse or their young adult son or daughter do you?

At the end of the day, there’s no reason for this bill to be written into law. Why do taxpayers need to codify the insurance industry’s desire to take money from folks while not covering any claims made on the purchased policies?

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the DUI arrest of a former MADD leader

2011-02-28T17:34:00.000-08:00

Whoa! This Chicago DUI attorney can admit she’s as taken aback as many others about the recent arrest of a former MADD chapter president.

February 24, Gainesville, FL:

A former president of the defunct local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was arrested recently by the Gainesville Police Department on a DUI charge.

Debra Oberlin, 48, was arrested after she had difficulty on a field sobriety test. She registered a .234 and .239 on breath alcohol tests. Florida's legal limit for driving is .08.

Gainesville's MADD chapter existed for several years in the 1990s before closing in 1996 because of lack of financial support. Oberlin was the chapter president for three years.

The words that come to my mind come from the people:

Seriously??????!!!!!!

Oh, the irony!!

The irony is the lady who founded MADD was also arrested and found guilty of drunk driving some years back.

Definition of irony...

LMAO

Seriously?!

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the problems with the changes to the MDDP law

2011-02-21T16:02:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney posted here about the changes to the MDDP law. Specifically, judges were taken out of the process effective last week when Governor Quinn signed the law. Unfortunately, it has not been a smooth transition.

It’s the classic Abbott & Costello bit “Who’s on First?”

So here’s the problem. Let’s say you were charged with a DUI around the middle of January. Your first court date is after the new law went into effect. In some cases, the judge is refusing to sign the MDDP. The problem with that is you may need to contact the Secretary of State to participate in the program.

It’s going to be a bit of a rough ride in the interim it appears.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the new DUI law that takes judges out of the process

2011-02-15T19:37:00.000-08:00

It is done. This Chicago DUI attorney has most recently mentioned the problem of the MDDP and courts here. Now, effective on Valentine’s Day, the MDDP no longer requires giving a judge a forum to belittle the defendant or attempt to get the defense attorney to bargain over a client’s right by withholding their signature from the MDDP.

Public Act 96-1526:

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Removes the authority of the courts to order the issuance of a monitoring driving device permit (MDDP) and grants the authority to the Secretary of State. Provides that persons issued a MDDP and who must drive a farm tractor to and from a farm, within 150 air miles from the originating farm are exempt from installation of a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) on the farm tractor, so long as the farm tractor is being used for the exclusive purpose of conducting farm operations. Effective January 1, 2011.

Senate Floor Amendment No. 2

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Removes the authority of circuit courts to order the Secretary of State to issue a monitoring device permit (MDDP) to an eligible first-time DUI offender, and instead, provides for the automatic issuance of a MDDP by the Secretary to an eligible first-time DUI offender. Provides that the eligible first-time DUI offender may file a petition to decline issuance of the MDDP with the court of venue. Provides that persons issued a MDDP and who must drive a farm tractor to and from a farm, within 50 air miles from the originating farm, are exempt from installation of a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device on the farm tractor so long as the farm tractor is being used for the exclusive purpose of conducting farm operations. Provides that the Secretary shall adopt rules for methods for determining indigency with respect to persons eligible for a MDDP. Makes other changes. Effective January 1, 2011.

Onward and Upward!

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the passing of a Lion of Justice

2011-02-07T13:11:00.000-08:00

We were away for the weekend. My husband received an award for his stream conservation work from the Wisconsin State Council of Trout Unlimited. Once I returned from court this morning I was shocked to find that James Ahern had passed.

From isba.org, on the occasion of The 2001 Laureate Award:

To anyone who practices traffic law in Illinois, it is well known that the "dean" of the traffic bar is James J. Ahern, senior. His law firm – Ahern, Maloney, and Moran with primary offices in Skokie –concentrates in the defense of DUI and representation in other traffic matters.

His reputation in the law has several dimensions. He is, first and foremost, an outstanding lawyer. He has appeared frequently in the Appellate and Supreme courts. He represents his clients' interests fully, professionally, and with compassion.

He also is known far and wide as an unselfish teacher. For over twenty years, he has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Illinois Traffic Court Conference. His development of scenarios faced by traffic law attorneys and the panel discussion of these fact situations is a highlight of the annual conference. That part of the seminar is now referred to as "The Ahern Panel."

One of his nominators summed up Jim Ahern's career: He exemplifies the type of lawyer everyone wanted to be when they started law school.

What do we do when a Lion of Justice passes? We do our best to carry on. We strive daily to be the type of lawyer he was.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on technology that won't let you drive drunk

2011-01-31T14:30:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, and here about the future. Specifically, about technology overtaking the ability to even get charged with a DUI, well not exactly true because in Illinois you can get charged with a DUI even if you aren’t driving, but that’s another post.

From Popular Science:

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that driving while under the influence of alcohol is a bad idea. Of course, when under the influence of alcohol the tendency is to think you are a genius (also: good looking, charming, interesting, a qualified referee, good at billiards). So a new technology incubating with the backing of the U.S. Department of Transporation would install sensors in automobiles than unobtrusively test drivers’ blood alcohol contents each time they climb behind the wheel.

The Driver Alcohol Detection Systems for Safety, developed by Waltham, Mass.-based QinetiQ North America, would employ sensors that would test a drivers BAC either through his or her breath or skin. Sensitive breath sensors installed in the cabin could grab respiratory samples from the air to dial in a driver’s BAC, or strategically-placed sensors on the steering wheel and door locks could analyze a driver’s skin to get a BAC reading before allowing him or her to fire up the engine.

Both technologies are nascent, and government officials admit that neither technology would see a commercial rollout for another decade most likely. Even then, they wouldn’t be mandated. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood attended a demonstration Friday at which he said the tech is envisioned as an option, not a mandate.

Which is good, considering the amount of backlash that such a requirement would likely incur. Even with an issue like drunk driving—which pretty much everyone agrees is universally bad—Americans are already touchy about government regulation of their autos, and layering an automotive regulation on top of what some would surely call blatant government intrusion is a recipe for public ire.

Not to suggest this technology is a bad thing, but do you really think seat belts are mandatory, but this wouldn’t be?

Chicago DUI attorney comments on texting, talking, and driving

2011-01-25T14:03:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about distracted driving. Can you believe it, looks like there’s an app for that?

From nytimes.com:

Cellular carriers, having spent years trying to blanket the nation with phone service, are now working on ways to stop people from getting calls and texts when they are behind the wheel.

T-Mobile announced a service this week that, for $4.99 a month, automatically disables rings and alerts and sends calls to voice mail when the phone is in a moving car. Sprint Nextel and AT&T said they were exploring the technology, while Verizon Wireless has been cooperating with small companies to offer a similar service on its network.

The services being tested and deployed are voluntary and can be overridden if a driver needs to use the phone for an emergency. They face real challenges in that the technology, for now, cannot distinguish whether a phone belongs to a driver or a passenger — or, for that matter, a bus rider.

Some think it’s ridiculous to pay someone, like a trainer, to help you in your workout, have we reached a point where we will pay a company to disable our ability to talk or text?

Chicago DUI attorney comments on a new trend in DUI's across the country

2011-01-20T22:15:00.000-08:00

I’m at the National College of DUI Defense’s Mid-Winter Session.

This time, perhaps because it is the start of the year, lawyers from across the country are making predictions. Everyone starts to wonder if what they are seeing is specific to their state or is this something that they anticipate spreading throughout the nation.

What do you think of a charge of Driving Under the Influence of spice, K2, synthetic marijuana, in other words fake drugs?

From the New York Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — Reacting to what it called complaints from law enforcement and a surge in medical emergencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration said on Wednesday that it would ban several chemicals used to make so-called synthetic marijuana products, which resemble herbs or potpourri but mimic the effects of the drug when smoked.

n a notice published in the Federal Register, the agency said it would use its emergency powers to ban possession and sale of five synthetic cannaboids whose effects mirror that of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which gives marijuana its potency. Those chemicals are used to coat a variety of products which are marketed as incense, but have become popular as smokables for those seeking a legal high.

Under the action, the five cannaboids will be listed as Schedule I substances, the most restrictive category, for at least a year while the government studies whether they should be permanently banned.

The temporary action will take at least 30 days to take effect, meaning the products will not immediately be illegal. But on Wednesday, the acting agency administrator, Michele M. Leonhart, made it clear that she believes they are an imminent public safety threat.

“Makers of these harmful products mislead their customers into thinking that ‘fake pot’ is a harmless alternative to illegal drugs, but that is not the case,” she said in a statement.

The products, which began to appear in the United States in 2008, are sold in smoke shops and online under names like K2, Blue Dragon and Black Mamba Spice, and are marked with warnings saying “not intended for human consumption.” But according to the drug agency, those warnings are being ignored, leading to a variety of bad reactions, including agitation, vomiting, seizures and hallucinations.

Tony Newman, a spokesman for the Drug Policy Alliance, which seeks to liberalize the drug laws, said the ban seemed to be the wrong approach.

“The D.E.A. says that prohibiting synthetic marijuana will ‘control’ it — yet we know from history that prohibition is the complete opposite of drug control,” Mr. Newman said, adding that regulating and setting age limits would be a better approach than “relegating it to the black market.”

At one point do we stop fighting a losing war?

Chicago DUI Attorney comments on the new law coming to help you (sigh)

2011-01-10T18:18:00.000-08:00

New Year… More New Laws

Once in a while it happens, a law that many people may actually like. It could even make life easier for residents and citizens.

One of the most onerous things about driving in the city is having to pay the cost to park. The cost of street parking has increased more than 100% in the last two years. Now your legislators thought you should have a way to fight back when the meter, or the infamous pay box, malfunctions.

625 ILCS 5/11-1307:

(b) If for any reason the parking meter serving a space or, in a centralized parking meter system, serving a parking meter zone is malfunctioning due to the accumulation of ice or snow and it has been reported to the local authorities as malfunctioning prior to a violation for the standing or parking of vehicles being issued, it shall be a valid affirmative defense to such violation until such time as the parking meter is brought back into service.

Did you notice the limited use of this one?

Happy New Laws!-- Chicago DUI Attorney's 2011 Edition

2011-01-03T19:15:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about new laws coming to Illinois.

Here are some of the highlights:

Judges will no longer be required to sign, or refuse to sign, MDDP for those accused of a DUI. That will now be between the accused and the Secretary of State. The prior law required a signature of a judge and some judges wouldn’t do it, even though they were supposed to do it (I won’t call that breaking the law, but you can take from it whatever you want).* Awaits the Guv’s signature. What! You don’t doubt he will sign it do you?

Slow Down! It’s no longer a simple speeding ticket if you get caught driving more than 30 mph over the posted speed limit, but less than 40 mph over the posted speed limit. It’s now a Class B Misdemeanor. This means you could actually go to jail for this offense. It also means if you plead guilty or you are found guilty of this offense, you now have criminal background. In Illinois, a Class B Misdemeanor is punishable, upon a conviction, with up to 30 days in jail. Somehow, everyone thinks this is a logical result, but how many of you have ever driven more than 30 miles over the posted speed limit?

It is done. Being charged with a DUI on a snowmobile or a boat will result in the suspension of your car driving privileges. Additionally, if you get charged with a DUI in your auto vehicle a summary suspension will prohibit you from operating a boat or a snowmobile (currently, Illinois does not require a license for operating a snowmobile).

Your kid can’t be your designated driver. 625 ILCS 5/11-507

Chicago DUI attorney wishes you a safe and fun 2010

2010-12-27T18:40:00.000-08:00

It’s a short work week. For many of you, you are already on vacation. You are enjoying the company of family and friends. There are many, many toasts. There is lots of laughter. There is already the promise to treat yourself better in 2011 and quit smoking, eat less meat, and workout more.

There is nothing more that I wish for you than the very best that you wish for yourself and your family during the waning days of 2010.

Still, I want to remind you that I know you don’t think all of those ads apply to you, but they do. You know the ones. Get a designated driver. Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk. Don’t Drink and Drive.

Wait, if you can do just one thing, heed that last one. Don’t Drink and Drive. That means the very best way to avoid having to use my legal services is to avoid drinking any alcohol if you are going to drive. It’s not because you are drunk. It’s not because you are an unsafe driver. It’s because law enforcement is out in greater than normal numbers doing the holiday season. If you get stopped for anything, from dodging one of this fair City’s notorious pot holes, to swerving once you hit a patch of ice, if an officer stops you and you have had anything to drink, you will probably be arrested for a DUI.

One more piece of advice, if you think you are too tired to drive, whatever you do, don’t pull over to get some rest. Get out of the car, or better yet, leave the car and find a way to get some rest before continuing on your journey.

Every year, I represent people accused of DUI who were sleeping. Every year, I represent people accused of DUI where the officer’s first question is “how much did you drink tonight?” It doesn’t matter what you say, if that’s the question the officer asks, you need to think about your rights because you are going to be arrested for a DUI. It won’t matter whether you take those coordination tests, or not. It won’t matter if you blow into the breath machine, under the legal limit, or not. You will be charged with a DUI.

Have a Safe and Fun 2010.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the roadmap to protect a DUI client

2010-12-20T21:12:00.000-08:00

Originally printed in the ISBA Traffic Laws and Courts Section November 2010 Newsletter

People of the State of Illinois v. Marina Kladis, No. 1-09-0686. Discovery sanctions in a misdemeanor DUI case can bar testimony of an arresting officer when a videotape has been discovered

The 1st District ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in partially barring the testimony of the arresting officer in a misdemeanor DUI as a sanction for the destruction of the videotape after the State was served with defendant’s Supreme Court Rule 237 written notice to produce the videotape. This notice was filed by the defendant prior to the first court date (about five days after the defendant’s arrest). People v. Kladis, No. 1-09-0686 (2010) at 3. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to the State, the videotape had been destroyed in the wee hours of the morning of the first court date, approximately 17 hours before the parties were due to appear in court. Kladis at 2.

Defendant Marina Kladis’ motion was granted for sanctions against the State for destroying the in-car videotape of her arrest for DUI. She was charged with violating section 11-501(a) (2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a) (2).

In this matter, a Statutory Summary Suspension (SSS) was filed and scheduled for the first court date where the parties learned that there was an outstanding videotape that was not available for the defendant prior to the SSS Hearing. The State agreed to mail discovery, including the videotape to the defendant and the SSS Hearing was continued for two weeks by agreement. Discovery was mailed but it did not include a videotape. At the agreed date for the SSS Hearing the State tendered two pages of business records to defendant from the police department indicating the requested videotape of the defendant had been purged. Kladis at 5.

Defendant then filed an oral motion for sanctions and was granted leave to file a written motion. At the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions, solely on the SSS Petition the court stated “the trial assistants have so much work to do and so many cases to handle, that I don’t find any bad faith here.” Still the court ruled that the State received notice to produce based on the Rule 237 request, which the court construed as a motion for discovery. Therefore the destruction of the videotape was a discovery violation. The court recognized it had discretion in determining the appropriate sanction and ruled that no testimony would be allowed that would be on the videotape. The court did specify that the arresting officer could testify about his observations anytime prior to five seconds before the actual stop and any actions by defendant after being formally arrested. Kladis, at 5-6. The petition to Rescind Statutory Summary Suspension was granted. The defendant had a subsequent court date for a hearing on defendant’s motion for sanction on the criminal case, motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, and trial.

One of the difficulties facing practitioners stems from the dual nature of a DUI case. A DUI offense has both a criminal component and the quasi-civil matter of driving privileges that is addressed separately through a Statutory Summary Suspension Hearing.

At the Motion for Sanctions in the criminal case the parties stipulated that the officer’s testimony would be the same as it was at the Motion for Sanctions and Petition to Rescind Statutory Summary Suspension”. The court then granted the defendant’s Motion for Sanctions in the criminal case.

So my ruling will be exactly the same. I have no evidence different here, that the Motion for Sanctions pertaining to the case in chief will be granted, the video may not be used, or any testimony regarding what is on the video pertaining to just before the officer stopped the defendant and the time that the defendant was placed in the squad car, which would mean anything that happened on the street prior to her being placed in the squad car. If there was something that she did in the squad car or anything else after that when she got out of the squad car at the police station, or anything that happened in the police station pertaining to this matter which is relevant it will be admitted into evidence.

Kladis at 7.

The State appealed on the basis that the trial court’s sanction was an abuse of discretion. They relied primarily on case law discussing whether the destruction of evidence violated due process. Specifically, Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 548-659, 157 L. Ed 2d 1060, 1066-1067, 1254 S. Ct. 1201, 1202-1203(2004), where the court ruled that when evidence is potentially useful, but not material exculpatory evidence, then failure to preserve does not violate due process without a showing of bad faith on the part of the State. That argument was weighted by the court against Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415 (g) (1).

In this case the court rejected the State’s reliance on there being a discovery violation based on due process. This was in large part because the trial court did not base its ruling on due process but on The Rule 237 written request to produce the videotape was deemed a motion for discovery.

In Illinois, a discovery violation under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(g) (1) only requires a showing that “a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto.” Kladis at 8.

One of the challenges faced by the Court in rendering its decision was how much discovery a defendant is entitled to receive in a misdemeanor case. The majority of cases on point regarding discovery sanctions were felony matters, e.g. People of the State of Illinois v. Koutsakis, 255 Ill. App. 3d 306(1993), People of the State of Illinois v. Kizer, 365 Ill. App. 3d 949, 959-61 (2006). Kladis at 14.

The scope of discovery in a misdemeanor case in Illinois is limited pursuant to People v. Schmidt, 56, Ill. 2d572 (1974). The First District went on to state, “Considering the limited scope of the discovery the Sate is required to furnish under Schmidt in a misdemeanor case, we find no reason to create a ‘material and exculpatory’ prerequisite in order for the defense to obtain the videotape at trial for impeachment of the prosecution witness who prepared it.” Kladis at 19.

Practitioners may wish to heed the suggestions noted by the court in its decision. “We caution, however, that to eliminate any question about whether the State is required to preserve and produce evidence, a signed protective order from the judge could be obtained and then served on the State at the same time the Rule 237 request is served on the State.” Kladis at 19. Additionally, the court also makes clear what types of sanctions a defendant can request. “[T]hat a sanction should be proportionate to the magnitude of the discovery violation.” Kladis at 27.

Defendant did not seek dismissal of the misdemeanor criminal case. The trial court did not completely bar the officer’s testimony and did not dismiss the charges in the criminal case; instead, consistent with the principles articulated in Schambow, Petty, Camp, Koutsakis, and Johns, the court entered a sanction that was limited and proportionate to the magnitude of the discovery violation. The entire testimony of Office Gaske was not barred. The court only barred Officer Gaske from testifying regarding matters on the videotape, while testimony regarding defendant’s driving or other conduct not on the videotape would be admissible.
Kladis at 29.

Kladis provides a roadmap for practitioners to avoid the destruction of discovery as well as how to ask the court for relief, via sanctions, in the event the discovery is inadvertently destroyed.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on mandatory traffic fines

2010-12-13T14:19:00.000-08:00

New fines go into effect on January 1, 2011. This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about DUI fees and fines increasing. This time the fee increase will be shared across a much broader base of people.

From 625 ILCS 5/16-104 (e):

Minimum penalty for traffic offenses. Unless otherwise disposed of prior to a court appearance in the same matter under Supreme Court Rule 529, a person who, after a court appearance in the same matter, is found guilty of or pleads guilty to, including any person receiving a disposition of court supervision, a violation of this Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance shall pay a fine that may not be waived. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the court from ordering that the fine be paid within a specified period of time or in installments under Section 5-9-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections.

In a nutshell, the fine can’t be waived by the judge regardless of the individual’s financial circumstances. I’m not convinced that the revenues generated from this particular fine will be adequate to balance the state’s budget.

Chicago DUI attorney thinks maybe you should hear it straight from the horse's mouth

2010-12-05T20:46:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about how to avoid having to call her (or any other attorney that you know) to defend you. So why not hear it first hand from someone who experienced a DUI arrest? This didn’t happen in Illinois - the current court fees, fines, and penalties described in the article are about triple in the Land of Lincoln.

From the New York Times:

Here’s what can happen: You attend a small dinner party at your brother’s house with your 80-year-old mother, your visiting 74-year-old second cousin from Holland and assorted other family members. As per family custom, you enjoy hors d’oeuvres and several glasses of wine over a lovely meal full of conversation and laughter.

Around 9 o’clock, after a couple of small cups of coffee, and a little more wine, a thimble’s worth of Scotch, you prepare to leave, and do so. Ten minutes later, on a quiet country road near a small town, you notice flashing blue lights behind you; you stop, and you are spoken to by a young officer who asks if you have been drinking.

“Yes,” you say, “I had a couple glasses of wine at a family dinner.”

You are asked to step out of the car for some “field sobriety tests.” You do so, and perform the tests, and feel you have done quite well — except the one where you have to stand on one foot with your arms spread for 30 seconds, and . . . oops . . . you have to touch down a couple of times to keep your balance — no big deal.

You already know what happened don’t you? He did everything the officer told him to do, and found himself arrested for DUI.

It’s the holiday, I can assure you there are greater numbers of law enforcement out looking for DUI’s (valid or not) during this holiday season. Please take my advice, don’t drink anything, no eggnog, gloog, irish coffee or even a nibble of rum cake if you are going to be driving.

Chicago DUI attorney gets an answer to: "Why Did You Blow?"

2010-11-30T17:43:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted, here, here, and here about refusing to submit to blood, breath, or urine testing. She has worked herself into a tizzy trying to figure out how law enforcement officers successfully get so many to submit to these tests.

She couldn’t believe how simple the answers were:

Top 5 Reasons Folks Submit to Testing:

5. He said he would let me go. Yeah, I know I was already handcuffed, but that’s what he said.

4. I told them I wasn’t drunk. All they were going to find was some weed.

3. You mean I didn’t have to take the test? I thought I did.

2. I know I’m not drunk. I only had a six-pack.

And the number one reason folks submit to testing is:

1. He asked me to.

It is the holiday season and you can be certain that law enforcement will be out looking for people to charge with a DUI. Here’s my free legal advice: If you are going to have anything to drink, don’t drive. If you are stopped by law enforcement for any reason that officer is more than willing to let the courts figure out if you are guilty or not of DUI.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on going to jail for speeding

2010-11-22T19:28:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about driving too fast, but now they are going to make it a more serious crime to speed. Not just "pay a fine and keep going" kind of crime that you’ve gotten used to, but the kind of crime that could land you in jail - even if there wasn’t an accident.

From Amendment to HB 3677:

Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 11-601.5 as follows:

(625 ILCS 5/11-601.5)

Sec. 11-601.5. Driving 31 ~~30~~ miles per hour or more in excess of applicable limit.

(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 31 30 [sic] miles per hour or more but less than 40 miles per hour in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class B misdemeanor.

A Class B misdemeanor is punishable, upon a conviction, with up to 180 days in jail. I know you are busy this holiday season, but please slow down.

Chicago DUI attorney wonders if you will get an A on the Pop Quiz

2010-11-15T18:06:00.000-08:00

True or False: Court Supervision Does Not Appear On Your Driving Record

I was in court when the judge said: “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah (Best Charlie Brown’s School Teacher Voice) and if you have a good driving background I will give you Court Supervision. Court Supervision WILL NOT appear on your driving record.”

I was shocked. Over the years I’ve had many, many clients tell me that the judge told them the charges were gone, although they paid a fine. Whenever this happened, I always tilted my head in disbelief because surely they must have misunderstood what the judge said. The conversation would then go something like this:

Attorney: So you were speeding?

Client: Yes.

Attorney: You went before the judge?

Client: Yes.

Attorney: You told the judge you were speeding?

Client: Yes.

Attorney: The judge found you guilty, right?

Client: No. He said it wouldn’t be on my record and I could just pay a little

fine.

Attorney: [Brows furrowed while reviewing client’s driving record]You got the

speeding ticket on January 6^th?

Client: Yep. I asked the cop to let me go because it was my birthday.

Attorney: You went to court for the speeding ticket at the Markham Court

House?

Client: Yes. I paid the fine like the judge said.

Attorney: If it wasn’t on your record, why do I know the date you got the ticket

And what Court house you appeared?

Client: You mean the judge lied to me!

Attorney: I’m sure you just misunderstood the judge.

Let’s be clear, court supervision does go on your driving record. I know it seems like a waste of time to hire an attorney for a minor traffic ticket but you may do well to listen to the first part of the judge’s speech, you know the one where he says he can’t give you any legal advice.

Chicago DUI attorney thinks your Halloween costume shouldn't give the police probable cause for a DUI

2010-11-09T15:17:00.000-08:00

This Chicago DUI attorney posted here about a BAC DUI costume. Still, she’s now beginning to wonder if this is more the stuff of an urban legend.

November 2, Lincoln, NE:

The Halloween crime of the year torch appears to have been passed to Lincoln in 2010.

Early Monday, a police officer pulled over a pickup being driven erratically by a man dressed as a Breathalyzer.

Matthew Nieveen, 19, was cited for second-offense driving under the influence and being a minor in possession of alcohol.

"He was dressed as a PBT (preliminary breath testing) alcohol sensor and had been attending a Halloween party prior to the stop," the report says.

Police took Nieveen to Cornhusker Place, where, the report says, his blood alcohol measured more than twice the legal limit of .08 percent. The legal limit for minors is zero.

Nieveen also was cited for an open container violation and negligent driving before being released to detox staff.

Perhaps young people should harness the power of social media to make sure that no one else gets charged with a DUI for wearing this costume.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the markers for the New Prohibition

2010-11-01T20:30:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney suspects MADD will quickly be on this new study. It could certainly garner legitimacy amongst legislators.

From cnn.com:

Alcohol ranks "most harmful" among a list of 20 drugs, beating out crack and heroin when assessed for its potential harm to the individual imbibing and harm to others, according to study results released by a British medical journal.

A panel of experts from the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs weighed the physical, psychological, and social problems caused by the drugs and determined that alcohol was the most harmful overall, according to an article on the study released by The Lancet on Sunday.

Using a new scale to evaluate harms to individual users and others, alcohol received a score of 72 on a scale of 1 to 100, the study says. It was compared to 19 other drugs using 16 criteria: nine related to the adverse effects the drug has on an individual and seven on its harm against others.

That makes it almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco, according to the article, which is slated to be published on The Lancet's website Monday and in an upcoming print edition of the journal.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals, the study says, while alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.

In the article, the panelists said their findings show that Britain's three-tiered drug classification system, which places drugs into different categories that determine criminal penalties for possession and dealing, has "little relation to the evidence of harm."

Panelists also noted that the rankings confirm other studies that say that "aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."

The Lancet article was co-authored by David Nutt, a professor and Britain's former chief drug adviser, who caused controversy last year after he published an article saying ecstasy was not as dangerous as riding a horse.

I wonder if one of the authors was looking to curry favor after the debacle of his previous article.

This could very well start the march of the Prohibition Movement.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on DUI evaluators setting their own fees

2010-10-26T17:04:00.001-07:00

It happened again. Twice today, once in a face-to-face with another attorney and then again with a group of practitioners the true nature of DUI evaluators was revealed. There was quite a bit of cursing about DUI evaluators.

In Illinois, anyone who pleads guilty to a DUI, or found guilty of a DUI, must submit to a Drug an alcohol evaluation. Okay, that sounds straightforward enough, but here’s the catch.

The evaluators make a recommendation of the type and amount of treatment a DUI offender will received. That recommendation is almost always exclusively used, unchanged, by the State’s Attorney and the courts to determine the sentence.

The sentence then determines how much money the DUI offender must pay, for treatment to, wait for it, the DUI evaluator’s organization. It is not required that the DUI offender receives treatment at the DUI evaluator’s organization but if not there then it must still be an approved DUI provider. Care to take a guess as to who generates the approved DUI provider list?

Chicago DUI attorney explains why you want a DUI attorney to become a judge

2010-10-20T18:18:00.000-07:00

Last week I had dinner with a great group of DUI trial attorneys from across the country.

One in the group is taking the plunge. There was spirited discussion about his desire to change his career path. Take a wild guess what he’s going to do?

Nope, he’s not showing up on Dancing with the Stars, or Iron Chef America, or Top Chef, or America’s Next Top Model.

He wants to be a judge. The table was so silent you could have heard crickets. He was peppered with questions from all angles (I did say this was a group of trial attorneys didn’t I). He just listened and nodded. Many of the questions took the tone of "why in tarnation would you want to be a judge"? He may as well have said he wanted to become a prosecutor or law enforcement judging by some of the laughs and grimaces around the table.

I’ve had time to think about it. Being a judge is way too important a role to have DUI trial attorneys not take this step. These specific practitioners are willing to piece together those bits of testimony that don’t add up. They are familiar with forensics and there eyes will never glaze over when hearing science, math, engineering, or medical testimony.

DUI trial attorneys are that rare group of folks who are frequently viewed with a sneer (or a snarl) more appropriately worn by Billy Idol, not even garbage collectors are asked, “why on earth would you want to do that”? That question is asked of every DUI trial attorney I know on a regular basis.

Choosing to become a judge represents a huge loss to the DUI trial bar. And an even bigger loss to loads of accused folks, but if there’s one thing that a DUI trial attorney knows, it’s that she/he is going to get up every day and fight for our Constitution. The larger community deserves to have judges hearing cases who know what fighting for the Constitution means.

HINT: In a Criminal Case, the Burden of Proof belongs to the Government. The Burden of Proof is very, very high. The Burden of Proof is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on reinstated charges for a former DUI Top Cop

2010-10-19T19:35:00.000-07:00

Stop the Press! This Chicago DUI attorney thought, probably a lot like the accused that this case was over, finito, done! But no, now you can see the awesome power of the government against one of its own previously well-regarded star witnesses, former Chicago DUI Top Cop, John Haleas.

This just in from Chicago Breaking News:

A Chicago police officer once again faces felony criminal charges after an appellate court struck down a Cook County judge's decision to dismiss the indictment against him.

The ruling reinstates charges of official misconduct, perjury and obstruction of justice against John Haleas, the Chicago police officer once lauded for racking up the most arrests for DUI in the state.

The case stems from a 2005 arrest Haleas performed while two prosecutors were riding along with him. He allegedly failed to administer a field sobriety test to the suspect, but the prosecutors later noted that he wrote reports reflecting that he had performed the test. Following an internal investigation, the police department suspended Haleas for one day in July 2007 and in April 2008 he was indicted on the criminal charges.

In August 2009, Circuit Judge James Obbish dismissed the indictment after finding that the state's use of the internal police statement violated Haleas' Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and tainted the rest of the case against him.

Prosecutors are generally barred from using an officer's statements in an internal investigation against him in a criminal case, since the officer may be fired for refusing to cooperate with the probe.

On Friday, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld Obbish's decision to toss out the internal affairs statement but found that further hearings should have been held to determine whether the rest of the state's investigation benefitted from that document. The court sent the case back to Obbish for further hearings.

No. This isn’t double jeopardy. Now imagine, if this is how they treat a former police officer, how are they going to ~~get~~ treat you?

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the need for new laws

2010-10-14T05:53:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about distracted driving.

She’s highlighted what commonsense ought to tell us anyhow, that folks continually being distracted while driving is not limited to the perils of texting while driving.

Heck, several years ago I had a client who was charged with a DUI. He was acquitted. Guess what caused the “poor driving” that cause the police officer to stop my client? No, it wasn’t drinking. Try again if you think he was texting while driving. Nope, he wasn’t talking on his cell phone either. Well, scroll down to the bottom to see what caused his “poor driving, but in the meantime, maybe there’s someone else who can more eloquently explain the perils of creating laws to single out texting over other forms of distracted driving.

From suntimes.com:

When Lora Hunt of Morris smashed into and killed motorcyclist Anita Zaffke in May of 2009 while painting her finergnails [sic], she illustrated a little-known fact: most distracted driving accidents have nothing to do with cell phones.

While more attention has been paid to drivers talking or texting with their cell phones, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says just a fraction of the 5,474 people killed and 448,000 injured in crashes involving distracted driving last year were because of cell phone use.

The NHTSA says only 18 percent of the fatalities and 5 percent of the injuries were cell phone related.

People love to eat in their cars. They can't resist fiddling with the CD player or the radio, chatting with passengers, patting their pets or turning around to get after the kids in the back seat while hurtling down the interstate.

"I don't think we've made nearly as much progress in those other areas of distracted driving," says Peter Kissinger, president and CEO of AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

He says the nation's vehicles and highway systems are so well-designed; they've helped create complacency among many drivers.

"In some sense we've made things too safe, and people get lulled into this sense of complacency," he says. "The system is fundamentally so safe that most of the time when people do these things, they get away with them."

There you have it. So what caused my client’s “poor driving”? He was arguing with his wife. Today’s free legal advice is never, ever argue while driving. Yes. It is another form of distracted driving. Somehow, I don't believe the legislators are rushing to put a no arguing while driving law on the books.

Chicago DUI attorney thinks we already know what will happen to a judge

2010-10-09T20:27:00.000-07:00

-This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about the charge of Reckless Driving for Judge Popejoy.

His troubles have not ended, despite having pled guilty to the charge.

From the Daily Herald:

The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board filed a complaint against DuPage Circuit Judge Kenneth Popejoy, who admitted last month he fled after crashing into a parked car in Glen Ellyn.

The state board found Popejoy's conduct brought his "judicial office into disrepute" and asked the Illinois Courts Commission to hold a public hearing to determine appropriate discipline. Possible sanctions include censure, unpaid suspension or removal from office.

The four-page JIB complaint, filed Thursday, also revealed a few new details about the June 29 crash. For example, it took Popejoy about 10 minutes to answer his door despite repeated notifications that police were waiting outside, according to the complaint.

The Wheaton man pleaded guilty Aug. 3 to reckless driving, a misdemeanor. He was ordered to pay $500 in fines and serve a six-month period of conditional discharge, which is a nonreporting form of probation.

Popejoy said Friday he anticipated the JIB complaint and has fully cooperated.

"As I stated before, I regret my actions regarding the incident and am working hard to put the matter behind me and restore any trust the public may have lost in me," he said in a written statement.

At 8:15 p.m. June 29, Popejoy dropped off DuPage Chief Judge Stephen Culliton at his Glen Ellyn home after the two socialized at a nearby restaurant with other attorneys. Popejoy drove west down Ridgewood Avenue when he struck a college student's unoccupied 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee parked on the north side of the street.

Instead of stopping, the judge continued on, drove up on a curb and ran over two plastic garbage cans. His 2003 Jeep Liberty dragged those cans underneath it as he continued west while the front passenger-side tire was nearly off the rim.

This will probably be like other complaints against other judges and end with a reprimand. As law enforcement has been known to say, “Move along folks, nothing to see here.”

Chicago DUI attorney shares what she heard in court

2010-10-05T13:56:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about suspended driver’s licenses.

Today the following PSA was made from the bench:

Everyone in this room is charged with driving while their license is suspended or revoked. Even though I’m the judge, I can’t give you your license back. The prosecutor standing to my left can’t give you your license back.

Only the Secretary of State can give you your license back.

The response from everyone in the courtroom follows:

Blank looks,
Quiet enough to hear a pin drop
“Huh”?
I need a blanket so I can catch up on my zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It’s a jailable offense. You need to have an attorney represent you. Otherwise today’s small fine as a first time offender has a tendency to become tomorrow’s offer for jail when you are on your fifteenth offense for driving while your license is suspended or revoked.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on a CEO with a DUI keeping a JOB

2010-10-04T16:50:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about the consequences of a DUI arrest.

Wouldn’t it be nice to know that even if you faced such a serious criminal charge, your job is safe?

September 14, Springfield, IL:

Horace Mann Educators Corp. president and CEO Louis Lower hit another driver head-on prior to his arrest for driving under the influence during the Memorial Day weekend, Florida police reports confirm.

Lower, 65, has been placed on leave of absence while he serves a 60-day jail sentence in Indian River County, Florida. He is scheduled for release Oct. 26 and is expected to return to his duties at the Springfield company.

No one was hospitalized as a result of the crash, according to police. Lower pleaded guilty last week to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence involving personal injury or damage to property.

Lower said in a statement Monday that he takes responsibility for “a lapse of personal character,” while the board of directors released a statement expressing confidence in Lower. The statement said he is expected to return to his duties by early November.

Lower joined the company in 2000. Horace Mann specializes in insurance, retirement annuities and financial services for educators.

Still, 60 days in jail for a property damage accident, especially when he can pay for any and all damages, seems a bit excessive. Are you wondering, whether he gets to keep his company auto insurance after he comes out?

Chicago DUI attorney thinks you shouldn't wear clothes that give the police probable cause to make you a suspect

2010-10-03T14:47:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about wearing clothing to court that may cause you a problem.

Even she can’t imagine giving someone legal advice to avoid wearing clothing that could give the police probable cause to charge you with a DUI.

October 1. Webster, MA:

A three-time convicted drunk driver allegedly drove into the front steps of a house while intoxicated and wearing a T-shirt that says, “I have a drinking problem.”

James J. Johnson, 50, of 519 Quaddick Town Farm Road in Thompson, was ordered held yesterday on $2,500 bail on charges of drunken driving (fourth offense), negligent driving and malicious destruction of property less than $250. Mr. Johnson was also cited for a marked lanes violation.

Dudley District Court Judge Neil G. Snider ordered Mr. Johnson to remain alcohol free with random testing, and a pretrial hearing was set for Oct. 28.

A prosecutor requested $10,000 bail, in part because the state could not impose a condition that Mr. Johnson wear an electronic monitor with a “Sobrietor” device that ensures he doesn't drink alcohol. That's because he resides in Connecticut.

Mr. Johnson, who was not injured, slurred his words, according to a police report. When asked what happened, he said his dogs were running around inside his truck, causing him to lose control, police said.

There’s a lot that could be said here, but where does one start?

Chicago DUI attorney is anxious, anxious I tell you to get this sweet app

2010-10-02T15:02:00.000-07:00

Yes! A meaningful response for those of us who ~~love~~ loved to text and drive.

October 2, Chicago, Il:

Now, there's a way to text while driving without having to take your hands off the wheel or eyes off the road.

AdelaVoice's free Android app, called StartTalking, is voice-controlled. You don't need to open any app or navigate menus. It can even operate when the phone screen is dark or the keypad is locked.

You just bark out a pre-assigned name to "wake up" the phone, then start StartTalking.

Following audio prompts -- like "Speak to create a text message for Ed or say 'cancel,' " -- you can dictate and route your message. You can play back texts, too.

No I haven’t downloaded the app yet but once I do, you can be sure I will report back.

Now when can we get an app that read out loud, while we are driving received text messages and email?

Chicago DUI attorney doesn't think the law is a laughing matter

2010-09-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney thinks it’s time you know that things aren’t always fair.

I was in a pre-sentencing conference with a judge and a couple of prosecutors.

There was lots of laughter. It wasn’t funny to me.

My client had been charged with a DUI, more than once. Each time he was charged with a DUI, the charges have been dismissed. Unfortunately, his license is suspended.

I’ve posted here, here, and here about the specialized suspension that occurs whenever someone is charged with a DUI. It’s called a Statutory Summary Suspension. If a person is charged with driving (not drunk driving, just driving) during the period of Statutory Summary Suspension the penalty from the Secretary of State, is to double the length of the suspension.

So what was the laughter about? Right now, if there are no changes to the law, my client won’t be able to drive, simply because he was charged with a DUI, for approximately ten years. One of the sentencing participants has a child under the age of ten. That child will be able to drive legally before my client can.

Each time he drove, while his license was suspended, based on a DUI arrest that was dismissed, the Secretary of State exacts its pound of flesh. That’s on top of whatever fines or penalties he paid for the charge of driving while his license was suspended.

Sometimes you win the battles and still lose the war.

Chicago DUI attorney isn't surprised that new distracted driving laws may not be working

2010-09-28T17:17:00.000-07:00

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here, here, and here about distracted driving. Today, she watched it up close and personal. She was with her husband, who was driving and didn’t have his Bluetooth operating when a call came through for him. He then tried to drive and turn the Bluetooth on, it failed. He eventually passed the phone to me and she told the caller we would call him back in a few moments. She then set up the Bluetooth and dialed the friend for her husband.

Unfortunately, the Secretary of Transportation has his “knickers in a twist” about some recent studies suggesting that the Distracted Driving Laws could cause more accidents.

From ihis.org:

HLDI researchers calculated rates of collision claims for vehicles up to 9 years old during the months immediately before and after driver texting was banned in California (January 2009), Louisiana (July 2008), Minnesota (August 2008), and Washington (January 2008). Comparable data were collected in nearby states where texting laws weren't substantially changed during the time span of the study. This controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.

"Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist, crashes increased in 3 of the 4 states we studied after bans were enacted. It's an indication that texting bans might even increase the risk of texting for drivers who continue to do so despite the laws," says Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

HLDI's new findings about texting, together with the organization's previous finding that hand-held phone bans didn't reduce crashes, "call into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes," Lund adds.

Noncompliance is a likely reason texting bans aren't reducing crashes. Survey results indicate that many drivers, especially younger ones, shrug off these bans. Among 18-24 year-olds, the group most likely to text, 45 percent reported doing so anyway in states that bar all drivers from texting. This is just shy of the 48 percent of drivers who reported texting in states without bans. Many respondents who knew it was illegal to text said they didn't think police were strongly enforcing the bans.

"But this doesn't explain why crashes increased after texting bans," Lund points out. "If drivers were disregarding the bans, then the crash patterns should have remained steady. So clearly drivers did respond to the bans somehow, and what they might have been doing was moving their phones down and out of sight when they texted, in recognition that what they were doing was illegal. This could exacerbate the risk of texting by taking drivers' eyes further from the road and for a longer time."

Using a driving simulator, researchers at the University of Glasgow found a sharp decrease in crash likelihood when participants switched from head-down to head-up displays. This suggests that it might be more hazardous for a driver to text from a device that's hidden from view on the lap or vehicle seat.

Perhaps there were sufficient laws already to deal with this issue that covered a wide-range of bad driving including eating, reading the newspaper, or changing the station on the radio.