Update

MR. WALLIN'S LATEST VICTORIES

WALLIN OBTAINS “NOT GUILTY” FOR CLIENT WHO BLEW 0.083 ON BREATH TEST!
March 27, 2006: People v. Clifford H. ( Maywood , Illinois )

Clifford H. was stopped by the Riverside Police Department after he was clocked going 52 mph on First Avenue at 2:30 a.m. The officer had Mr. H. perform some field sobriety tests and then arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Back at the police station, Mr. H. submitted to breath testing, revealing a result of 0.083, just over the legal limit of 0.08. An additional charge of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) greater than 0.08 was issued.

At trial, Mr. Wallin's cross-examination of the officer revealed that Mr. H. did not drive in an impaired manner. Furthermore, Mr. H. did fairly well on the field sobriety tests. Attorney Wallin also was able to show that the breath test result fell within the margin of error of the breath testing instrument, and furthermore, that due to the absorption of alcohol in Mr. H.’s blood system, it was possible that that Mr. H.’s blood alcohol concentration was well under the legal limit at the time of the traffic stop. After hearing all the evidence, the Judge found Mr. H. not guilty of DUI.

MOTION BROUGHT BY WALLIN SAVES CLIENT FROM CERTAIN JAIL SENTENCE!

November 30, 2005: People v. Calvin G. ( Chicago, Illinois):

Mr. G. was in the midst of a sentence of court supervision for a DUI when he made the poor decision to drive home from a friend’s house after having drunk a few beers. He was stopped at a Chicago Police “roadside safety check” (also known as a roadblock). The officer smelled an odor of alcohol on Mr. G’s breath and noticed that his eyes looked glassy. The officer asked Mr. G. to perform field sobriety tests and a breath test, which revealed a result of 0.16 – twice the legal limit. Not only was Mr. G. facing a stiff sentence for getting his second DUI within two years, but he was also facing jail time from the judge in the first case for violating the terms of his court supervision.

Attorney Wallin filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, alleging that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. G. and charge him with driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Wallin was able to show to the court that Mr. G.’s driving did not show any signs of impairment, and that he successfully completed field sobriety testing. After the hearing, the court agreed with Mr. Wallin, and the case was dismissed!

WALLIN CAPITALIZES ON OFFICER’S SLIP-UP TO SAVE THE DAY FOR CLIENT!

August 29, 2005: People v. Christopher C.: ( Skokie, Illinois):

Mr. C. was arrested for his third DUI. Because of his background, the case was upgraded to a felony charge of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol. During the state’s presentation of the case, the arresting officer stated he believed that Mr. C. had been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Attorney Wallin took advantage of that mistake, arguing that his client was charged only with driving under the influence of alcohol, which is a separate and distinct charge from driving under the influence of drugs or driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and drugs. The law requires that the state prove each fact alleged in the indictment. Since the state did not prove that Mr. C. was in fact driving under the influence of alcohol (because the officer did not know whether Mr. C. was under the influence or alcohol or drugs), the state had failed to meet its burden of proof. The judge unhappily agreed with Mr. Wallin’s argument, and ruled that he was compelled to dismiss the charges against Mr. C. even if he thought that Mr. C. was probably guilty. Before Mr. C. left the courtroom, the Judge told him that he was a very lucky man to have avoided a conviction.