OWI/DUI

OWI/PAC .17 Amended to Reckless Driving

This case comes out of a stop in Columbia County. Our client was pulled over by the State Patrol for illegal tinting of their windows and no front license plate.  The trooper smelled the odor of intoxicants and the client admitted to having consumed a couple of drinks earlier in the evening.  

Our client was put through field sobriety tests and was arrested for an OWI.  This is the point where the case turned, the client had a prior OWI conviction which was more than 10 years ago.  That would make this OWI charge another first offense; however, the trooper misread the teletype and repeatedly informed the client that this was a 2nd offense and a blood test was required. 

Attorney Corey Chirafisi filed a motion challenging the defendant's consent to the test because the client was misinformed regarding what he was being charged with (2nd offense vs. 1st offense).  The parties had a lengthy consented hearing with multiple sets of briefs filed.  Prior to the Court deciding the issue, the government offered to amend the charge from an OWI to Reckless Driving.  It was the outcome the client was hoping for all along.  The OWI conviction would have triggered the IID requirement based on it being the client's 2nd offense (in lifetime) and the test result was above the 0.15 threshold.  Very happy client.

Felony Drug Possession- all evidence suppressed

Client was charged with OWI and felony drug possession. Client was involved in an accident which ultimately lead to police locating fentanyl in the client’s purse. The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff from an outstanding lawyer in Milwaukee and we got started. The government wanted the client to plead to the felony drug charge, as fentanyl is an opioid, and they believed a conviction was appropriate. 

The video in the case actually was the big game changer here. The video showed the client was arrested and her purse was removed from her body and not searched for almost 20 minutes after she was put in the back of the squad car. That information was never mentioned in the police reports. 

We argued the search was unlawful without a warrant. After a lengthy hearing, the Court agreed, and suppressed the drugs found in the client's purse.

EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, DANE COUNTY OWI DISMISSED

The Dane County District Attorney' Office dismissed an OWI case against our client after Attorney Tim Verhoff successfully argued the evidence was obtained in violation of the United States Constitution.  A Dane County deputy sheriff stopped our client for a license plate violation at approximately 3:00 a.m. Upon making contact with the client, the deputy observed a strong odor of intoxicants, and the client  admitted to the deputy that she had been drinking shots earlier that night.  Based on that information, the deputy requested the client to perform field sobriety tests, and he arrested her for OWI at the conclusion of the tests.  Given the lack of bad driving prior to the stop,and the lack of outward indicators of impairment, our lawyers filed a motion challenging deputy's basis to ask our client to perform field sobriety tests.  At the hearing, Attorney Verhoff thoroughly cross examined the deputy.  He then argued the deputy did not have a sufficient reason to extend the scope of the stop and conduct an OWI investigation.  The judge agreed and ruled that all of the evidence obtained after the deputy's initial contact with our client was inadmissible at trial.  Without any additional evidence, the prosecution was left with little choice but to dismiss the case against our client.

On Day of Trial, OWI/PAC Amended to Reckless Driving

The Palmyra Police Department stopped our client for speeding.  Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have blood-shot and glassy eyes.  The officer also smelled the odor of intoxicants.  The officer had the client perform field sobriety tests.  At the conclusion, the officer arrested the client, who agreed to submit to a blood test.  The test result revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.09. 

Our office litigated the case for several months.  Our attorneys believed our client had a good defense at trial, but the prosecution repeatedly had extended the same offer.  The client could plead to the OWI for minimum penalties.  Our attorneys informed the client that even if convicted at trial, he would not be in a significantly worse position than if he simply accepted the offer.  On the morning of the trial, the prosecutor reached out to Attorney Verhoff, who told the prosecutor he was ready to go and would see him in court.  At that time, the prosecutor stated, "No, that's not going to happen."  Attorney Verhoff asked what the prosecutor meant, and the prosecutor indicated he would be willing to resolve the entire case short of a trial with an amendment to Reckless Driving and a dismissal of the speeding ticket.  It goes without saying that our client was ecstatic with the outcome and happy that he heeded our advice not to settle for the original offer. 

Not Guilty Verdict OWI/PAC, Dane County

The Maple Bluff Police Department stopped our client for a registration plate lamp being out in the early morning hours.  The officer noticed an odor of intoxicants coming from the client and had him complete field sobriety tests.  The client was arrested and agreed to submit to the a breath test, which showed an alcohol concentration of  0.10.  As the case moved forward, the the prosecutor offered to settle the case for a dismissal of the lamp violation and a plea to the OWI for the statutory minimum penalties.  With little to lose, the client listened to our advice and rejected the offer. 

At the trial, Attorney Verhoff objected to the manner in which the prosecution attempted to introduce the test results on grounds of a lack of proper foundation.  The judge sustained the objection and the test result was never received into evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, Attorney Verhoff argued that there could be no conviction on the PAC charge due to a lack of a test result received into evidence.  While he acknowledged the client should be convicted of the lamp violation, he argued the government failed to prove the OWI.  He honed in on the lack of any bad driving and the officer's answers to his questions regarding the client's performance on field sobriety test. 

After the trial, but before the verdict was rendered, the arresting officer and the bailiff both complimented Attorney Verhoff on his performance.  The arresting officer, who does OWI training for his department, even told Attorney Verhoff he would be using the cross examination and trial experience when he trains other officers in the future.  While it was nice, if not unusual, to receive adulation from the officer who made the arrest, the verdict was even better: Not guilty on both the OWI and the PAC!

5 More Great Outcomes for Clients

OWI 1st/PAC- Waukesha County- Amended to Reckless Driving

            The first case involved a client that was called in for sleeping in his vehicle on the side of the road after a day at a golf outing.  The client pulled his vehicle off the side of the road and a passerby called the police to check on him.  Once the police showed up, the case was off and running.

            The difficulty initially was the location of the case.  Waukesha County has been notoriously hard on OWI cases.  This one started no differently.  The case started in municipal court.  While the client was not initially successful at the municipal level, the information obtained through cross examination of the officers ultimately lead to resolution of the case in circuit court.

            Attorney Corey Chirafisi was able to raise serious questions as to what time the client was driving his vehicle.  That driving time put the test result, which was .089, in real jeopardy.  Also, based on the officers testimony regarding the 20 minute observation period, it became clear that no observation period of the client was ever done.

            On the eve of trial, the prosecutor offered to resolve the case for a reckless driving ticket.  The client was more than happy to accept that amendment.  It was especially satisfying as the client was unsure whether or not he wanted to appeal the case to circuit court.  Having never been arrested before, he had real questions about how that outcome may have been different from municipal court.  We are very glad he was willing to trust us to help him get through this. 

OWI- Amended to Inattentive driving- Dane County

            The second case shows why hiring a lawyer can change a case very quickly.  The client was charged in Dane County with OWI as she was stopped for speeding.  The officer believed that she was intoxicated based on the time (almost 2 a.m.), the odor of intoxicants and the bloodshot, watery eyes the officer said he observed.  The client was thinking about just pleading guilty to the OWI for a minimum sentence seeing that her test result was right at the legal limit. 

            After speaking to Corey Chirafisi, the client made a decision to fight the case; that turned out to be a great decision.  Attorney Chirafisi had dealt with the prosecutor on multiple occasions in the past.  After a conversation about some of the weaknesses in the government’s case, the prosecutor offered a reckless driving.  That was rejected by the client.  We believed we could do better, we were right.  Finally, the prosecutor offered a 4 point reckless driving ticket and even dismissed the speeding charge.

            Making a call to our office turned out to be a wise decision for the client.


Felony OWI 4th –amended to misdemeanor

            Collaterally attacking prior convictions has become more difficult as time has passed.  While it allows prior cases in which the client did not have a lawyer to be voided for counting purposes, courts and prosecutors have become better at dealing with these potential issues.

            The client was arrested for a felony 4th OWI charge.  Obviously, avoiding a felony conviction and all that comes with that was a very big goal of the clients.  So, Attorney Corey Chirafisi reviewed the client’s prior OWI convictions and found that he did not have a lawyer on his 2nd offense.  Sounds great, but the problem was that he did have a lawyer on an earlier criminal case which made things far more interesting.

            Attorney Chirafisi and the client put all the necessary paperwork together and filed the motion challenging the prior conviction.  The government, as per usual, was not going to concede this issue.  A hearing was held.  The client testified, was cross examined and did a great job.  The court found that the government did not meet their burden and voided the prior 2nd offense conviction, turning this felony 4th into a misdemeanor. 

            The ramifications are enormous.  Gun rights, felony probation, possible prison time.  The client was extremely grateful for the work our firm did on his case.


Possible False Imprisonment Dane County-Declined Prosecution

            We have said this multiple times in this blog, getting a lawyer as early as possible can make a huge difference in how a case turns out.  We spend a fair amount of time dealing with clients who likely will be charged, but hire us before formal charges have been filed.  Some of the time, we can avoid any charges being filed.  That is hands down the best result.

            This case was incredibly challenging as it dealt with a possible felony false imprisonment with a stranger.  Stranger cases are far more difficult to maneuver as prosecutors worry about danger to the public and protection of the community when deciding how to charge these cases.  The client is a highly successful student with a very bright future.  He did what many college students do: went out, drank too much and found himself in the company of a female who he had met that evening. 

            The women ultimately called the police and reported that the client had held her down against her will.  The police spoke to the client before he had counsel and in fact arrested and booked him.  The clients family was referred Chirafisi and Verhoff and we started by informing the police that the client was no longer interested in cooperating with any investigation.  We then reached out to the DA’s office in an attempt to get “ahead” of the reports reaching their office.

            After a conversation with law enforcement, there was an agreement for up front counseling with no referral to the DA’s office at all.  Case done, client’s future secure.


1st Degree Sexual Assault of Child- Charges Declined

            This blog above mentions the benefits of getting a lawyer before a case is filed.  This is another perfect example of how that works to a client’s benefit.

            The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff on a Saturday from a former client on a possible sexual assault investigation.  Making a call to our office on a Saturday was the first positive step.  The police work weekends, and so do we.  We got in touch with the client and made sure that no statements were provided to the police.  That was helpful, since later that day the detective attempted to make contact with the client to get a statement.

            Because the allegation involved a biological child, the county then got involved with social workers who also were doing an investigation and wanted to speak to the client.  We had to step in and prevent and type of statement whatsoever from being made by the client.  Don’t help the police, any statement will only do that. 

            We then spoke to some of the possible witnesses to the matter and let the DA’s office know that we had begun our investigation.  Ultimately, with no client statement to either law enforcement or social services, the DA was left to make a charging decision based on what information they had.  They made a decision to decline the prosecution of a charge that is the most serious in this state, short of 1st degree intentional homicide. Another great result for a really good guy.

OWI-2nd at 0.14 Dismissed, Sauk County

In this case, our client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff upon a recommendation from another local lawyer.  The client, an out-of-state resident and over-the-road salesman, was in Wisconsin on business.  On his way home from diner at a restaurant, police stopped him and ultimately arrested him for OWI-2nd Offense and PAC-2nd Offense with a reported alcohol concentration of 0.14.  The client was clear from the start.  Any OWI-related conviction would result in the loss of his license and the loss of his career.  Attorney Verhoff began the case by conducting the administrative review hearing.  This proved to be instrumental in the ultimate outcome, as the police officer gave answers to questions that did not align with the video evidence later received.  Armed with this information, Attorney Verhoff filed a motion to suppress evidence in the case.  On the day of the scheduled hearing, the prosecutor told Attorney Verhoff that he thought the prosecution would prevail at the suppression hearing.  However, the prosecutor was more concerned about what Attorney Verhoff would do to the officer in cross examination at trial.  Given his concerns, the prosecutor made an unusual offer in this time of case. He agreed that if the client withdrew the suppression motion and settled the case short of trial, he would dismiss the OWI and the PAC charges.  Instead of those charges, the prosecutor agreed to have the client plead to an obstructing charge.  In so doing, the client avoided any licensing implications and saved his job.  Needless to say, the client was thrilled with the outcome.  

4 More Outstanding Results Include No Prosecution on Negligent Homicide Charge

In the past 10 days or so, Chirafisi & Verhoff has had four more outstanding outcomes for our clients!

Case #1- Pre-charge Negligent Homicide

This case involved a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of the client’s passenger.  Initially when the client’s family called us, there was an allegation that the client had failed to stop at a stop sign, resulting in the vehicle striking a semi which ultimately led to the death of the passenger.  We were informed that there were multiple witnesses who observed the accident.

At that point the client had not been charged, so it gave us an opportunity to get to work on some areas of the defense.  The first thing we did was hire an accident reconstructionist.  The expert was able to get out to the scene shortly after the accident and get measurements before the government was able to complete their reconstruction.  

We notified the State that we had been retained and that an expert was on board.  Ultimately after more than 8 months of investigation in the case, the State had the detective assigned to the case inform us that no criminal charges were being brought against the client.  While the case involved a tragedy when the passenger lost his life, we were able to help avoid the client from having to face serious felony charges stemming from the accident.

Case #2-  OWI 1st/Refusal- Complete Dismissal of all Charges

Client was on vacation at a campground when he was arrested for OWI 1st.  What made matters much more difficult was he was an Illinois licensed driver.  The penalties for Illinois drivers arrested for OWI in Wisconsin is very severe in Illinois.  Clients can lose their driving privileges in Illinois for years, even on 1st offenses.

The client was also alleged to have refused to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his blood when requested by the police.  Believe it or not, the case involved the client driving a gas powered golf cart on a public roadway.  He was involved in an accident which severely injured him and he had no memory of what occurred.  The prosecutor wasn’t moving on the case, initially recommending the OWI charge along with the IID requirement.  

We began by watching a video from a bar parking lot where the accident occurred.  We slowed down the video literally second by second.  What we discovered was for a split second on the video, headlights from a vehicle were on the golf cart and we could see that another person was actually the driver of the golf cart.  Once the accident occurred, that person fled the scene and because our client suffered a head injury, he had no recollection as to who was driving.

We then showed the prosecutor the video from the bar and he dismissed all charges against the client.

Case #3- OWI/PAC 1st- Dane County- amended to inattentive driving

This client, like many we have, needed a valid license to continue working a brand new dream job he had just landed.  A conviction would have resulted in immediate termination from his company.  

A gas station worker witnessed our client pull into the parking lot with a flat tire and riding on his rims.  The client was alleged to have parked his car, opened the door and threw up, then tried to go to sleep in the parking lot.  The police arrived shortly after our client got there, and our client was put through field sobriety tests after the police noticed his blood shot eyes, slurred speech and his clothes having vomit on them.

The client tested a .088 on the breath test after being arrested.  Further, the client informed the police that he had not consumed alcohol for 6 plus hours as it was approximately 5:30 a.m. when the police made contact with him.

Ultimately after back and forth negotiations with the prosecutor, the government offered to resolve the case for an inattentive driving ticket.  It saved the client's career.

Case #4- Two Counts of Second Degree Sexual Assault turned into One count of Child Abuse to Deferred Prosecution with Alford Plea

This case took two years to resolve.  It started as 2 counts of sexual assault.  Client had used our services in the past and when these charges were filed he came to us again for assistance.

The turning point in the case was when we were able to convince the judge that the time alleged in the complaint (approximately 3 weeks) was too long.  The prosecution was required to go back to the mother of the complainant and she had to narrow down the time frame.  That changed the entire case.  She narrowed it down to 3 days.  When we were provided with that information, we were able to get the client's work records which showed it was likely that he was working at the time of the allegation.  

Once we provided that information to the DA, the case basically fell apart.  If the client does not get in any trouble for the next 12 months, the entire case will be dismissed.  Outcome totally changed our client's life. 

OWI Amended to Reckless Driving, Verona

The City of Verona Police Department pulled our client over for failure to dim her bright lights at about 1:40 a.m..  The officer asked her if she had been drinking, and the client admitted to being on her way how from an area bar with her husband.  After field sobriety tests, police searched the car and located an open bottle of alcohol.  The client was arrested and agreed to a breath test, which carried a 0.08 reported alcohol value.  Attorney Verhoff felt pretty good about the case, and even better after he won the administrative review hearing.  At the pretrial conference, Attorney Verhoff told the prosecutor it would be a trial unless the prosecutor was willing to come off the OWI and PAC charges.  And prior to trial, the prosecutor did just that, agreeing to amend this matter to a reckless driving ticket.    

OWI/PAC 1st- .14- Amended to Reckless Driving- Parked on Railroad Tracks

Our client awoke to realized he was parked on railroad tracks.  He didn't know what happened, so he decided to call 911.  Probably a bad idea.

When the police arrived, they begun to question the client regarding the odor of alcohol they could smell and were interested in how he got his vehicle on the railroad track.  One thing lead to another and our client was ultimately arrested for OWI.  Our client blew a .14 at the station.  Our client originally tried to handle the case himself and was unable to get anywhere with the prosecutor.  He then made the decision to hire Chirafisi & Verhoff to see if we could help him.

Yeah, we could. We reviewed the reports and not only was the client not driving on a roadway, but there was zero indication as to what time the vehicle went from the roadway onto the railroad track.  Initially, the prosecutor was not moved by the argument.  We then filed a motion to exclude the breath test, and she started to become moved.  As the hearing approached, she came around.

An issue in the case was that our client drove the vehicle down the railroad tracks and simply parked it.  That could be classified as impaired driving.  So, at the end of the day, faced with our motions and arguments, the prosecutor offered Reckless Driving to our client. Our client happily accepted the offer, as his goal was to avoid an OWI conviction.

Evidence Thrown Out, 0.16 OWI Case Dismissed

In this case, our client was stopped for failing to properly signal a lane charge.  The Dane County Sheriff's Department deputy reported that upon contact he observed our client to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the client admitted to consuming alcohol for several hours.  The deputy asked our client to submit to field sobriety tests, and the client declined to perform them.  He was arrested on a criminal OWI charge and submitted to a breath test with a reported value of 0.16.  Attorney Verhoff reviewed the reports and video evidence in this case and filed a motion to suppress the evidence, asserting the deputy did not have a lawful basis to conduct the traffic stop.  Relying on the statute governing signaling, Attorney Verhoff argued no traffic was impacted by his failure to signal the lane changes, as required by law.  At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the ruled in our client's favor.  She threw out all evidence against the client and dismissed all charges.

OWI Amended to Reckless Driving, Columbia County

This case is an excellent example of why conducting the administrative review process can be critical in an OWI case.  Our client was charged with both OWI and PAC violations after Columbia County deputies found him asleep behind the wheel of his personal vehicle.  He "failed" field sobriety tests and agreed to take a blood test, which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.09.  The client, who has a commercial driver's license (CDL), hired Chirafisi & Verhoff, as recommended by a different lawyer.  At the administrative review hearing, the deputy gave answers that enabled Attorney Verhoff to argue the client's license should not be suspended.  The hearing examiner agreed.  As the court case moved forward, Attorney Verhoff filed legal motions challenging the admissibility of the blood test results, based off the answers to question he asked the deputy at the administrative review hearing.  After almost two years of litigation, the prosecution finally gave up, dismissing the PAC charge and agreeing to amend the OWI charge to a Reckless Driving citation.  By avoiding the OWI and PAC convictions, our client was able to save his CDL and keep his job. 

New Year, Three More Outstanding Results

Forgery/Uttering- Dismissed by Court at Preliminary Hearing (Dane County)

Some people say preliminary hearings are worthless, we don’t think that's the case.  In this case, the client was charged with Party to a Crime of Uttering a forged document.  Our client was 18 years old with a bright future and was understandably concerned about how this could impact her future.  

After a review of the criminal complaint, Attorney Corey Chirafisi believed that there was no proof that the client was aware that the document she possessed was forged.  So, we did what many lawyers don’t: we had the preliminary hearing.

At that hearing, Attorney Chirafisi was able to establish, through questioning of law enforcement, that there was no proof that the client was aware the document she was given was in fact forged.  The Court even went so far as to say that if the Court would bind the matter over for trial, the Court would have to ignore the evidence presented in the case.  The Court dismissed the case after arguments.

One main point here: preliminary hearings are not what they once were.  Now that hearsay can be admissible, it has undoubtedly made it easier for the government to prove these hearings, but they are still worth having and this case proves that point.

Case #2- OWI 1st/PAC- .13 (Dane County)

Another great result for client charged with Operating While Intoxicated.  Our client was extremely concerned about this ticket, he works as an EMT and has to drive ambulance from time to time, something he cannot do with a revoked driver’s license.

He called Chirafisi & Verhoff and told us about his situation and asked if we could help.  We thought we could.  

First, at the administrative review hearing, we were able to get some helpful information regarding the stop of the client’s car.  It helped form the basis for the motion that we were able to file regarding whether the police had a basis to stop the client.

After almost two years, the prosecution agreed to amend the charge from an OWI to a reckless driving. They were willing to do this even with a test result that was well over the legal limit.  All “wins” are great, but when it unquestionably changes the course of a client’s career, it is very rewarding.  No OWI conviction, no revocation and client able to do what he loves.

Case #3- OWI 1st/PAC- .08 (Onieda County)

This client was referred from another attorney as the stakes were pretty high for the client.  His job required that he always have a valid license and the OWI conviction would make it impossible for him to continue at his job.   We got to work looking at every angle for the weak spot in the case.

The prosecutor was initially unwilling to move off of the charge.  She believed the video and client’s performance on field sobriety tests provided great evidence for her on the OWI charge.  After a close review of the video and pulling the maintenance records of the intoximeter we felt that we had our hook to try the case to a jury.

Turns out that wasn’t necessary.  On the eve of trial the prosecutor called and ultimately agreed to amend the OWI charge to a Reckless Driving.  Under other circumstances, maybe a reckless wouldn’t have been accepted, however, where everything is on the line for the client, it was an easy decision.

No OWI allows him to continue in his career, his goal all along.  Another great outcome for a very satisfied client.

OWI 1st/ PAC 1st .13- Amended to Reckless Driving

Our client was picked up because the police noticed her vehicle was stopped about 30 feet in front of the stop sign and our client was on her phone.  The client admitted to police that she had been drinking and failed the field sobriety tests.  The next challenge was that her breath test at the police station registered 0.13 which is well above the legal limit.

This case was attacked in the same manner we attack every case, at the administrative hearing.  At that hearing we were able to lock the officer into certain statements regarding why he believed the defendant was actually impaired.  We made the same gamble in this case as well, we were willing to share the transcript of the administrative review hearing prior to the trial in the case.  

The prosecutor read the transcript and was willing to amend the charge even with a test result over 1 ½ times the legal limit.  The case was resolved for a non-alcohol related ticket with a fine.

OWI 2nd/ PAC 2ndAmended to Reckless Driving

Our client was stopped by law enforcement for drifting over the center line and speeding.  Upon approaching the vehicle, law enforcement also noticed 3 beer cans lying on the passenger seat.  The police asked the client to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests (which they said she failed) and they ultimately placed her under arrest for OWI 2nd offense.  Her blood test result was also above the legal limit (.095).

Client had spoken to many lawyers before settling on Chirafisi & Verhoff.  The client made it clear that she could not be convicted and we went to work.

After conducting the administrative review hearing, it became clear that the area to attack was whether or not law enforcement had reason to believe that the defendant was actually impaired.  We took a gamble in this situation and it paid off: the prosecutor, who did not have access to the transcript of the administrative review hearing, asked if we would share that with him prior to the motion hearing. Normally that is not something that we would do, however, in this situation we believed it could help the client.  

After reviewing our examination of the officer, the prosecutor agreed that the case was in jeopardy and made an offer to resolve the case for a reckless driving citation. 

Two More High-End OWI Clients Avoid Prison

It is not unusual for individuals charged with fifth-or-sixth-offense OWI offenses in Dane County to be sentenced to prison.  In two recent cases, Chirafisi & Verhoff clients had one goal in mind: to stay out of prison.  Fortunately, they each avoided that fate.  In the first case, Attorney Verhoff was able to convince the prosecutor that although the client was guilty of a sixth-offense OWI, she should recommend a probation sentence.  She agreed to do so, and the judge accepted the recommendation. 

The second case was a bit more dicey.  The facts were not in the client's favor.  He was convicted of using an inhalant and placed on probation.  The day after he was sentenced in that case, he was again arrested for using an inhalant -- this time after passing out in traffic while huffing.  The client originally had a different attorney on the case, but turned to Attorney Verhoff for help on advice from a friend.  Attorney Verhoff went to work tracking down certain records to see what defense could be mounted. Through negotiation, he was able to chip away at the prosecutor.  Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to recommend an imposed and stayed sentence for probation.  At the plea and sentencing hearing, however, things started to look bleak. Although the prosecutor recommended probation, the judge, upset by the facts of the case informed the parties it was likely the recommendation would not be followed.  The judge allowed Attorney Verhoff to take a break to speak with the client to see if the client still wished to proceed, knowing it was likely he would be sent to prison.  As he walked from the courtroom, several other lawyers commented to him that the judge's comments were "brutal" and things "did not look good" for the client.  After speaking with the client and  resuming the hearing, Attorney Verhoff asked the judge for an opportunity to clarify some of the comments she made about the case and opinions she appeared to have formed.  He then vigorously argued why a probation sentence made more sense than a prison sentence.  By the time he finished the argument, the judge had changed her mind.  She agreed with Attorney Verhoff and indicated she would place the client on probation.  At the conclusion the prosecutor commented that Attorney Verhoff had "clearly changed the judge's mind" with his argument.  Another lawyer watching hearing said that Attorney Verhoff had "pulled his client out of the fire" and that he had "never seen a judge change their mind like that before."

OWI 5TH- Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing

This particular client came to us on a referral from a friend of his that we had previously helped on a case.  The client was on a motorcycle and officers witnessed him being attacked as he stood next to his motorcycle. What started off as our client being a victim of a crime, the situation quickly turned into him being arrested for a felony level OWI.

This case never made it past preliminary hearing.  The prosecutor called the arresting officer to testify and the officer talked about the physical signs of impairment he witnessed with the client and how he had done a terrible job in performing the field sobriety tests. 

Then it was our turn.  The one fact that the officer could establish was when the client was operating the motorcycle.  He testified the client told him he drove it, just not when.  The officer acknowledged that the driving was unknown and because of that he did not know whether at the time the client drove he was under the influence of an intoxicant.

The burden of proof at a preliminary hearing is probable cause, a very easy standard for the government to meet, except for that day.  The Court found that there was no link between the impairment observed and the driving.  The Court dismissed the entire case.

The client was thrilled, once he came out of shock.  He couldn’t believe in about 5 questions we were able to convince the Court there was no probable cause.  His business will continue to thrive and he will be able to go on with his life. We were very happy to have obtained such a great result in his case.

Two More OWI Cases Dismissed or Amended

OWI 1st/PAC- .12- Charges Dismissed on the Morning of Jury Selection

This case is an example of why OWI 1st offenses should proceed to trial.  The client was a middle aged business owner with no prior record of any kind.  Police made contact with him because he “relieved” himself in a parking lot and the case moved forward from there.  He was ultimately arrested and provided a blood sample that came back at .12.  He hired a different lawyer who called Chirafisi & Verhoff and requested assistance in cross examining the blood expert.  We did open records requests of the machine and were ready to go.


The morning of trial rolled around and as the case was being called, the prosecution suddenly stated that they were not prepared and moved to adjourn the case.  The Court had rescheduled the case enough and not only denied the government’s motion to adjourn, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it could never be charged again.


Operating With a Restricted Controlled Substance 1st

Our client was pulled over for speeding.  The officer came up to the vehicle and stated that he could smell the odor of marijuana in the vehicle.  Our client made the mistake of informing the officer that he had just recently smoked and that there was THC in the vehicle. 

The officer searched the vehicle with the client’s permission and located enough THC to charge the client with a felony for Possession With Intent to Deliver as well as Operating With a Restricted Controlled Substance.  A blood draw was completed and the client did have Delta 9 (the active ingredient in THC) in his blood.  At that point, the government no longer needed to prove impairment.  These cases can become very difficult, especially for an inexperienced criminal defense attorney.  Luckily, the client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff.  

After pouring over the video and the reports in the case, we noticed that the client said he had smoked, but not specificially when.  Further, after reviewing the videotape of the field sobriety tests, it was clear that the client passed those tests and the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for that offense.

We didn’t get to fight as much on the next part as we thought: before we filed the motion challenging the blood draw, the prosecution reached out and informed us that he was willing to amend the OWI-Restricted Controlled Substance to a Reckless Driving. 

The client was thrilled, as not only did the OWI charge disappear, but the drug charge was reduced and will be expunged from his record in 12 months.

OWI/PAC/Left of Center- test result .14

This case should provide an example of how being thorough is how you win.

Our client called and was literally distraught about being arrested for an OWI.  She is a college athlete and had some real concerns how this would affect her moving forward.  As usual, the groundwork for the case was started through the administrative review hearing.  At that hearing we were able to get the officer to answer questions in a manner that was extremely helpful to the defense.  We decided to use this information in the court case.

The video of the case was also very helpful.  The officer had indicated that the client was not only weaving within her lane but had actually crossed over the center line which was the basis of the stop of the vehicle.  We literally broke the video down frame by frame and after an exhaustive review of the video it was impossible to see where the vehicle crossed over the center line.  At first the prosecutor didn’t care and was willing to put the officer on the stand to testify about what he saw.

On the day of trial things changed.  The prosecutor had some concerns about the stop and instead of risking losing the entire case, he offered the client an amendment to resolve the matter.

As I mentioned in the previous post, almost every client is very happy when their case gets resolved without an OWI conviction.  This client took it a step further:  She told us that it made her year.  Whether or not we had that big of impact on her life, we will never really know, but for one day it felt good that the client was so appreciative for the work done on her case.