Success Stories

CLIENT WHO SCORED 0.22 ON BREATH TEST HAS CASE DISMISSED!

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 successfully 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 S.’s summary suspension should be rescinded because of a procedural violation.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.

TRUCK DRIVER VINDICATED AFTER TRIAL!

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

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.

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

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 inconsistencies 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.

CLIENT WHO SCORED 0.14 ON THE BREATH TEST HAS HIS CASE THROWN OUT!

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:
Click Here

JUDGE THROWS OUT SUSPENSION – “THIS IS NOT RUSSIA!”

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 committed 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!

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.

JURY FINDS WALLIN’S CLIENT NOT GUILTY!

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!”

BREATH TEST RESULTS SUPPRESSED LEADS TO CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY!

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!

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.