THREE YEAR SUSPENSION RESCINDED, DUI DROPPED!
March 14, 2003 : People v. Abbelino A.:

Late one night, Mr. A. was involved in a fender-bender accident in Elmwood Park . A local police officer was nearby and directed Mr. A. to drive to the nearby police station to complete an accident report. Once in the station, another officer decided to have Mr. A. perform field sobriety tests, and ultimately decided to charge him with a DUI.

Because this was Mr. A's second DUI arrest within five years, he faced a three year statutory summary suspension, and revocation of his driver's license if found guilty.

Mr. Wallin conducted a statutory summary suspension hearing, at which time he questioned the officers who were involved in the arrest. Mr. Wallin then argued to the Judge that the facts of the arrest did not show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. A. had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the arrest. The Judge agreed, and rescinded the three year suspension. After the hearing, the State's Attorney agreed to drop the DUI charge.

WALLIN'S CROSS-EXAM LEADS TO NOT GUILTY
March 12, 2003 : People v. Antonio A.

Coming home from an evening out, Mr. A. was stopped at a roadblock set up by the Cook County Sheriff's Police Department. A sheriff suspected Mr. A. of driving while intoxicated and requested that he perform field sobriety tests, with results that the sheriff characterized as "failing." Mr. A. insisted that he was not drunk and was innocent of the charge against him.

Mr. Wallin conducted a hearing in which he cross-examined the arresting Sheriff. The Sheriff admitted under cross-examination that he had not observed Mr. A. to have driven erratically or committing any moving violations. He also admitted that Mr. A. had been able to stand on one leg without putting his foot down and walk a straight line without stepping off the line. After reviewing a transcript of the Officer's testimony, a Cook County Judge found the evidence insufficient and found Mr. A. Not Guilty of DUI.

ALL CHARGES DISMISSED IN CRASH CASE!
March 4, 2003 : People v. Clinton B.

As Mr. B. was driving home some friends down a Chicago street, a large SUV ran a red light, causing a serious intersection collision. Mr. B.'s sedan was knocked into a wall and he was stunned when his air bags deployed. A few minutes later, he was stunned again to find out that he was the one who was charged with going through a red light and, even worse, DUI. Shortly thereafter, Mr. B. found out that the other driver's passenger was planning to sue him for damages.

At trial, attorney Harold Wallin's cross-examination of the other driver and the arresting police officer proved that the other driver had made a left turn into the intersection without looking at oncoming traffic and after Mr. B's vehicle had already begun to enter the intersection, thus causing the accident. Furthermore, Mr. Wallin successfully argued to the Judge that Mr. B.'s arrest was based upon no evidence showing that his driving had been impaired due to alcohol consumption. The court granted a "directed finding" and dismissed each charge against Mr. B.!

COURT FINDS EVIDENCE LACKING AND RULES NOT GUILTY
June 11, 2002 : People v. Jennie P.

Jennie P. thought she would get help when a police officer came over to help her with her stalled car. Instead she was arrested and charged with a DUI. Because of another DUI that Jennie had many years ago, her license would be automatically revoked upon a conviction for this new case.

Attorney Harold L. Wallin advised Jennie to take the case to trial, and through his cross-examination of the arresting officer, was able to convince the Court that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Ms. P. was intoxicated at the time of the arrest. She was found "Not Guilty" of DUI.

Ms. P. sent Harold Wallin a thank you letter, which can be seen here.

OFFICER'S INCONSISTENCIES MEAN "NOT GUILTY"
June 7, 2002 : People v. York H.

Mr. H. had pulled his car over to the curb to talk to a neighbor, when suddenly he was confronted by several police officers, who arrested both of them. Mr. H. was charged with a DUI. Because of his driving background, Mr. H. was faced with license revocation if found guilty of the DUI.

Attorney Wallin took the case to trial. The Court found Mr. H. not guilty of all charges, noting that the two officers who testified contradicted each other, and their own tickets, whereas Mr. H.'s testimony was consistent with one of the officers. That, combined with a lack of evidence of erratic driving, field sobriety testing or breath or chemical testing, led the court to find Mr. H. not guilty.

Previously, Attorney Wallin obtained a rescission of Mr. H.'s statutory summary suspension.

CASE DISMISSED FOR CLIENT WHO BLEW .17 ON BREATH TEST
May 21, 2002 : People v. Andre W.

Andre W.'s career was on the line after he was charged with his second DUI. He faced a one year suspension of his driving priviliges, and even worse, revocation if he was found guilty. It didn't help his chances that the breath test result was 0.173, over twice the legal limit.

First Attorney Harold L. Wallin obtained a rescission of the suspension because of a due-process violation.

Next, Attorney Harold L. Wallin presented a Motion to Quash and Suppress which alleged that Mr. W. had been arrested without probable cause to believe that he had been driving while under the influence. The biggest problem Mr. Wallin faced was that Mr. W. had taken a portable breath test prior to his arrest which disclosed a reading over the legal limit. In fact, that was the only evidence that supported the officer's decision to arrest, because Mr. W. had not driven erratically and passed all the field sobriety tests. Mr. Wallin was able to win the hearing by successfully arguing that the portable breath test was inadmissible, because the prosecution had not shown sufficient facts to guarantee its accuracy.

After the Court found that the evidence did not support probable cause to arrest Mr. W., the prosecutor decided to drop all charges against him.

RETURNING CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY
March 19, 2002 : People v. David S.

David, a former client, was charged with his second DUI in little over 18 months. He immediately called Harold Wallin to save his license from revocation.

The officer testified that he observed Mr. S. disobey a "no left" sign, and enter into a convenience store. Attorney Wallin's questioning revealed that at no time did Mr. S. stray out of his lane, speed, or make any erratic movements. The Officer also admitted that Mr. S. did fairly well on the field sobriety tests. The Court found Mr. S. "not guilty" because the evidence did not show "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Mr. S. had been driving while impaired.

CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY AFTER OFFICERS' TESTIMONY IS SUCCESSFULLY IMPEACHED
November 20, 2001 : People v. Allen H.

Allen H. believed that he had been wrongly charged with a DUI after he had been involved in a motor vehicle accident on Chicago 's north side.

At trial, attorney Harold L. Wallin was able to successfully impeach the testimony of both the Chicago sergeant and the arresting traffic officer who changed their versions of events from their previous testimony during the summary suspension hearing. Further, attorney Wallin was able to challenge the sergeant's testimony that Mr. H. had plowed into a snowbank, by producing a certified weather record showing that it had not snowed during the entire month of the arrest!

After hearing the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. H. had been intoxicated and found him not guilty of DUI.

CLIENT WHO SCORED 0.22 ON BREATH TEST HAS CASE DISMISSED!
September 5, 2001 : People v. Richard S.

Because it was his second arrest for DUI, Richard S. was facing mandatory revocation of his license after being arrested following an automobile accident in Broadview , Illinois . The case looked bad for him because he had scored 0.22 on the breath test.

First, attorney Wallin succesfully argued that Mr. S.'s summary suspension should be rescinded because of a procedural violation.

Next, attorney Wallin challenged the legal basis for the arrest. He argued to a Cook County judge that, at the time of the arrest, the officer had insufficient facts to believe that Mr. S. was intoxicated. Mr. Wallin got the officer to admit that when he first arrived at the scene, he spoke to Mr. S. and directed him to move his car. Mr. S. drove around the block and parked his car, without incident. This showed that (a) there was nothing unusual about Mr. S's demeanor; and (b) he was able to safely operate a motor vehicle. The officer admitted that he arrested Mr. S. for DUI because Mr. S. had admitted that he had just come from a tavern. Instead of performing field sobriety tests to gauge his suspicions, the officer instead arrested Mr. S. No sobriety tests were performed until after Mr. S. was in custody.

The judge agreed that the officer had "jumped the gun" and had charged Mr. S. with a DUI before he had all his facts. Therefore, the arrest and the subsequent field tests and breath test were inadmissible as evidence against Mr. S. at trial. After reviewing this decision, the State's Attorney decided to drop all charges.

2-FER! CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY IN 2 SEPARATE CASES IN 2 COUNTIES WITHIN 2 MONTHS

When Mr. P. first contacted attorney Harold L. Wallin, he was already in trouble -- he was facing a charge of DUI in Cook County . But things got worse one month later, when he was charged with a second DUI, this time in Lake County . Thanks to the efforts of Harold L.

Wallin, Mr. P. was found not guilty in both cases!

CASE I: June 6, 2001 : People v. Robert P. ( Cook County )

Robert P. was driving home from an afternoon at an Indiana casino boat when he was pulled over by a Chicago police officer for driving 30 miles over the speed limit. The officer claimed in court that he detected an odor of alcohol on Mr. P.'s breath and that he had failed several field sobriety tests. On cross-examination, Attorney Harold L. Wallin showed that the officer had observed Mr. P. drive for over a mile, and that during that time, Mr. P. never weaved within his lane of traffic, let alone enter into any other lane or interfere with any other car. And while he was speeding, this is not unusual on the relatively light Chicago Skyway.

In addition, Mr. P. testified that he has asthma and uses an inhaler, which smells like alcohol, and that he has a knee condition that prevents him from walking steadily.

After hearing all the evidence, the Judge found Mr. P. not guilty, because of a lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. P. had operated a motor vehicle without steady hands on the wheel or driven erratically.

Previously, Mr. P.'s statutory summary suspension was rescinded because the officer had not properly warned Mr. P. about the consequences of refusing to submit to a breath test.

CASE II: August 18, 2001 : People v. Robert P. ( Lake County )

Mr. P. was pulled over for disobeying a red light in Gurnee , Illinois . According to the arresting officer, he failed three field sobriety tests on the scene. Because he had recently used his inhaler, Mr. P. refused to take any breath tests. The judge ruled that inconsistancies between the officer's testimony, Mr. P.'s testimony and the traffic citations created a reasonable doubt of guilt and found Mr. P. not guilty of DUI and disobeying the red light.

TRUCK DRIVER VINDICATED AFTER TRIAL!
July 25, 2001 : People v. Marek S.

Marek S., a truck driver, had been working almost non-stop for 24 hours before he accompanied his family to a party. While at the party he had one beer. His 18 year old daughter was going to drive the family home, but she was afraid to pull the family SUV out of a tight city parking space. So she asked Mr. S. to pull the vehicle out for her. While he was doing this, his 10 year old stepson raced out into the street and began banging on the passenger door. A police officer stopped to investigate, and asked Mr. S. to perform field sobriety tests. The officer claimed that Mr. S. failed the sobriety tests, and arrested him for DUI.

At trial, Attorney Harold L. Wallin emphasized that although Mr. S. had been very tired, he was still able to pull the huge SUV out of a tight parking space, without touching any of the cars -- and then parked again without incident in a new spot near his family. Furthermore, although the officer claimed that Mr. S. failed the field sobriety tests, the evidence showed that Mr. S. gladly performed them and did pretty well considering his age, physical condition, and lack of sleep.

After hearing all the evidence, the Judge dismissed all the charges against Mr. S.

CASE DISMISSED FOR CLIENT WHO SCORED 0.158 ON THE BREATH TEST
June 19, 2001 : People v. Minnie K.

After Minnie K. was involved in a motor vehicle accident, she went with the other driver to a nearby police station to file a report. While at the station, an officer had a "hunch" that Ms. K. might be under the influence of alcohol. He asked Ms. K. to perform a series of field sobriety tests, and she willingly agreed. Even though she passed the tests, the officer was not convinced, and he asked her to take a breath test, resulting in a score of 0.158, nearly twice the legal limit.

Attorney Harold L. Wallin filed a motion claiming that Ms. K.'s arrest was illegal and unconstitutional, inasmuch as it was based upon a mere guess that she might be intoxicated, whereas the United States Constitution requires that an officer have probable cause to believe that a person is impaired before he or she can place a motorist under arrest for DUI and obtain a breath sample. The Judge agreed, finding that Ms. K. had shown no signs of impairment prior to the arrest and the breath test. As a result, the DUI charge has been dismissed.

CLIENT WHO SCORED 0.14 ON THE BREATH TEST HAS HIS CASE THROWN OUT!
October 2, 2000 : People v. Corey A.

Corey A. went out to a nightclub with his friends and drank a few beers. He didn't think he was intoxicated, so he took the breath test -- only to score 0.14, nearly twice the legal limit. Because of his driving background, his driver's license would be revoked if he either plead guilty or lost at trial.

Attorney Harold L. Wallin's first line of defense was to attack the reliability of the breath test. He successfully argued that the breath analysis machine used to test Corey was not properly calibrated. A Circuit Court judge agreed and ordered that the 0.14 breath score could not be used against Corey at trial.

When the case went to trial, attorney Wallin's cross-examination of the arresting state trooper revealed that the state trooper pulled Corey over on the left curb lane of the highway. The trooper then directed Corey to get back in his car, cut across four lanes of traffic and exit of the right-hand ramp of the highway. The trooper admitted that Corey accomplished this task perfectly. The trooper also admitted that Corey did not need assistance getting out of his car, walking, answering questions or performing field sobriety tests. After the state rested, the trial judge directed a finding of Not Guilty.

On November 3, 2000 , Corey A. sent Mr. Wallin a letter stating in part that : "My sincerest thanks goes to you for my excellent legal representation. I could not be happier with the results of my trial. You made a very critical difference in my future...The extra time and effort put forth on your behalf until the end was truly appreciated... Thanks again for displaying experience and skill to get the best possible results for me."

Corey's thank you letter:

JUDGE THROWS OUT SUSPENSION - "THIS IS NOT RUSSIA!"
September 19, 2000 : People v. Abelino A.

Attorney Harold L. Wallin reports another victory for one of his clients. Abelino was stopped by a Chicago police officer for going through a red light. After the police flashed their mars lights, Abelino pulled over and made a proper stop. He then exited his vehicle without swaying or needing support. The officer determined, without benefit of any field sobriety tests, that Abelino was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. In ruling that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. A. was under the influence of alcohol before he arrested him, the Circuit Court Judge thundered that, "this is not Russia ," and that in the United States a police officer cannot first arrest someone before determining whether or not they have comitted a crime.

Abelino works as a driver to support his family. Because of the officer's illegal arrest, he was about to lose his ability to work and support his family. Thankfully, his suspension has now been rescinded and he can continue to work.

NO PROOF OF DRIVING MEANS CASE DISMISSED!
July 11, 2000 : People v. Vincent S.:

A Traffic Court Judge dismissed all charges against a client, including his statutory summary suspension, after Attorney Wallin argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that his client either had driven or was in actual physical control of his vehicle, because even though Mr. S. was sitting inside his vehicle when the officer arrived, his keys were found outside his vehicle on the hood of another car.

BREATH TEST RESULTS SUPPRESSED LEADS TO CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY!
June 13, 2000 : People v. Alfonzo A.:

Although this client scored 0.12 on the breath test, Attorney Wallin successfully argued that the breath analysis machine was improperly calibrated, leading to a ruling that the prosecution could not use the results. At trial, a Traffic Court Judge ruled that the prosecution had not met its burden to prove that Mr. A. was unfit to drive, because Attorney Wallin was able to show that Mr. A. had acted appropriately at all times and did reasonably well during the field sobriety tests.

BOGUS DRUG CHARGE EXPOSED!
May 15, 2000 : People v. James S.

When Mr. S. scored a 0.07 on the breath test, he thought the officer would let him go. Instead, he was shocked to find out that he was now charged with being under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs!  At trial, Attorney Wallin's cross-examination proved that the officer could not substantiate his claim that Mr. S. had used drugs, and the Judge found his client not guilty. Earlier, Mr. Wallin had obtained a rescission of Mr. S.'s statutory summary suspension on separate legal grounds.

JUDGE DECLARES ARREST ILLEGAL!
April 20, 2000 : People v. Marshal H.:

Mr. H. was visiting Chicago from another state and was trying to save money by sleeping in his car. He was surprised to be awoken by an officer and then charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Wallin argued to the Court that Mr. H. was illegally arrested without probable cause to believe that he was under the influence of alcohol, based on the total lack of evidence to show that Mr. H. was confused in any way, shape or form. After the motion was granted, the State dropped all charges. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Wallin successfully obtained a rescission of Mr. H's statutory summary suspension.

Afterwards, Mr. H. thanked Wallin for his thorough preparation, which included coming to court with a copy of a United States Supreme Court case that was issued the day prior to the hearing. Here is an excerpt from Mr. H.'s letter:

CLIENT: "YOU SAVED MY LIFE!"
February 18, 2000 : People v. Chris A.:

Mr. A. was facing revocation of his license after he was accused of being intoxicated and causing a traffic accident. According to the officer, Mr. A. was so drunk that he could barely support himself. This was Mr. A.'s second DUI arrest. At trial, Attorney Wallin took advantage of a discrepancy between the testimony of the accident victim and the officer as to the date and time of the incident, and argued that the State had not proven the facts of the incident beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge agreed, and directed a finding of Not Guilty. Afterwards, Mr. A. told Wallin that "You're the Man! You saved my life! I'm going to erect a statue of you on my front lawn!"

ILLEGAL STOP MEANS DUI IS TOSSED!
February 8, 2000 : People v. Javier M.:

The police claimed they received an anonymous report of a man and a woman having sex and doing drugs in a vehicle parked on a Chicago street. However, when the officers arrived, they did not observe any illegal activity. Nevertheless they stopped Mr. M. to investigate and later charged him with a DUI. Attorney Wallin argued to the Court that in order to make an investigatory stop based upon an informant's tip, the officer must first make observations that corroborate their information. Without such evidence, the officer cannot make any further investigation. After the Court granted Mr. Wallin's motion, the State dropped all charges.

LONG FIRST COURT DATE EQUALS DISMISSAL!
January 11, 2000 : People v. Richard S.:

Mr. S. was facing serious jail time after he was arrested for DUI for allegedly striking a vehicle, careening into a building, and then attempting to drive away but instead crashing into another vehicle, spinning into a third vehicle, which then hit a bus. Attorney Wallin quickly realized, however, that the arresting officer picked an initial court date more than two months after the date of the incident, in violation of an Illinois Supreme Court Rule. When the case went to court, Mr. Wallin presented a Motion to Dismiss, which a Circuit Court Judge granted in light of this due process violation.

Client Found Not Guilty After 0.19 Breath Score Suppressed!
January 10, 2000 : People v. Randall C.:

Randall C. was charged with improper lane usage and DUI after he scored a 0.19 on the breath test. Because he had a prior DUI, he was facing revocation of his driver's license. Mr. Wallin developed a game plan which challenged the manner in which the breath analysis machine had been calibrated, and a Skokie Judge granted the Motion to Bar the results of the breath test from evidence at trial. Without the breath test result, the state's evidence of intoxication was greatly diminished, and a Judge found Mr. C. Not Guilty.

JURY FINDS WALLIN'S CLIENT NOT GUILTY!
December 2, 1999 : People v. James F.:

The police claimed Mr. F. went through a red light, disobeyed emergency lights for several blocks and after he was arrested, failed all their field sobriety tests. Because of a prior DUI, Mr. F. was faced with revocation of his driver's license if he plead or was found guilty. During a jury trial, Mr. Wallin got the officers to admit that Mr. F. had driven several blocks while driving within the speed limit and within his lane of traffic, showing that he maintained proper control over his steering wheel at all times. Coupled with the officers' demeanor and several inconsistencies in their testimony, the jury had no choice but to find Mr. F. Not Guilty. One of the jury members told Mr. Wallin, "If I ever have a DUI, I'm hiring you!"

WALLIN BEATS CLIENT'S DUI AND DRIVING WHILE SUSPENDED CASES!
November 2, 1999 : People v. Norman H.:

Norman H. was charged with his second DUI. At trial, Mr. Wallin was able to show that the arresting officer had observed Norman drive for more than one half mile, without observing any erratic driving, except for momentarily going over the speed limit as he crossed a railroad track. After hearing only the officer's testimony, a Markham Judge found Mr. H. Not Guilty of DUI. While this case was pending, Mr. H. was twice arrested for driving while suspended. Mr. Wallin obtained dismissals for his client on both cases, including one where he successfully argued that Mr. H. was illegally arrested after the police stopped him solely because a random check of his plates revealed that the car's owner was suspended. Mr. Wallin argued that because the officer could not know whether the driver was in fact the owner of the vehicle, the officer had no legal justification for the stop.

COURT: NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST!
September 22, 1999 : People v. Oscar T.:

Mr. T., aged 64, was arrested for DUI after he allegedly caused a traffic accident, then scored a 0.19 on the breath machine. Mr. Wallin argued that at the time of the arrest, before the breath test was given, the officer did not have probable cause to believe that Mr. T. was under the influence of alcohol, since his actions were consistent with any 64-year-old who had just been in an automobile accident. The Court agreed, and suppressed all evidence. With no evidence left to use at trial, the State dropped all charges.

COURT AGREES WITH WALLIN: DEFENDANT IN SHOCK, NOT DRUNK!
August 23, 1999 : People v. Warren J.:

Mr. J. was charged with DUI after he hit a parked car. During Mr. Wallin's cross-examination, the police officer admitted that, although Mr. J. swayed and stumbled as he walked immediately after the accident, by the time they reached the police station, he was able to walk perfectly fine. After hearing all the evidence, the Court agreed with Mr. Wallin that the evidence was consistent with a person in shock, not intoxicated, and that State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

JURY AGREES WITH WALLIN THAT POLICE MISTREATMENT OF CLIENT DISCREDITS PROSECUTION
March 11 and 12, 1999:  People v. Lester S:

Mr. S. was charged with DUI and various other traffic offenses. Mr. Wallin argued to the jury that the Officer had mistreated his 60 year old client, by strip-searching him and grading the field sobriety tests as if he were a young man 40 years younger. After deliberating for over three hours, the jury came back Not Guilty.

AFTER GETTING THE WHOLE STORY, JUDGE FINDS CLIENT NOT GUILTY
December 17, 1998 : People v. Steve K.

Mr. Wallin's client had spent an evening hanging out a local tavern with his friends. Over the course of the night, he had three beers. Feeling perfectly fine to drive, he was surprised to be pulled over and charged with a DUI and improper weaving. Because Mr. K. had a prior DUI, he was faced with revocation of his driver's license. Mr. Wallin cross-examined the arresting officer to show that the failing scores that Mr. K had received on the field sobriety tests were merely the officer's opinion, and that Mr. K. had actually done quite well. Further, Mr. Wallin had an automotive expert testify that Mr. K's vehicle had a steering condition that made it impossible to drive straight, and he showed the Judge pictures of the street showing that Mr. K. had not weaved excessively, because if he had, he would have hit a parked car.  After hearing all the evidence, a Cook County Judge found Mr. K not guilty.