Success Stories


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.

Read More


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.!

Read More


Mr. K. was stopped by an Illinois State Police sergeant for speeding on I-294 as he was traveling home from a business dinner. The officer suspected Mr. K. of being under the influence and had him perform three field sobriety tests. Mr. K. was arrested and charged with DUI. Because he had a previous DUI, Mr. K. was facing a three year suspension and a mandatory revocation.

Mr. Wallin conducted a hearing on the three year suspension in October. Mr. Wallin cross-examined the arresting sergeant and showed the Judge a video of the arrest. The Judge declared that “this man was not drunk” and rescinded the summary suspension.

Despite the Judge’s ruling at the suspension hearing, the State’s Attorney decided to proceed with the DUI charge. A different Judge heard the DUI trial on December 23, 2003 . After the State’s Attorney presented the sergeant’s testimony, Mr. Wallin cross-examined him to such great effect that the Judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence without seeing the videotape or hearing from Mr. K.!

After the hearing, the official court translator who assisted Mr. K. during the hearing approached Mr. Wallin and told him that he was very impressed by Mr. Wallin’s cross-examination of the arresting officer, particularly how Mr. Wallin went straight to his main points and got the sergeant to admit to several weaknesses in the case. The translator asked for Mr. Wallin’s business card, because he was the best DUI attorney the translator had seen.

Read More


Mr. R., a successful real estate developer, was driving home one night when he was stopped by the Wheeling police and charged with a DUI. Because of a prior DUI, Mr. R. was facing mandatory revocation of his driver’s license.

On December 5, 2003 , the parties stipulated to the officer’s testimony at a previous hearing, at which time Mr. Wallin had shown that Mr. R. had performed very well on two out of three field sobriety tests and had not shown any signs of mental impairment. The Judge agreed that the evidence was insufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge also commended Mr. Wallin for the quality of the legal work performed on behalf of Mr. R. and expressed a desire that other attorneys that appeared before him would be so diligent in defending their client’s rights.

Read More


Mr. P. had a very long day; after waking up at 3:00 a.m. to get to work by 5:00 a.m. , he put in a demanding day at work and then had to stay in town to attend an employee recognition dinner at night. As he was traveling to his home in Indiana at 1:00 a.m. , he fell asleep on the Dan Ryan Expressway and crashed into a barricade. He suffered injuries to his head and knee, and his car was totaled. To top it off, he was charged with a DUI.

At trial, Mr. Wallin challenged the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution used to try to show that Mr. P. had been driving while intoxicated, arguing that the indications of intoxication could equally be indications of personal injuries. Given the lack of clear-cut evidence, the Judge found Mr. P. not guilty.

Read More


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 on our Thank You Notes page here:
Click Here

Read More


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.

Read More


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 privileges, 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.

Read More


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.

Read More


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 snow bank, 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.

Read More