Franklin Park Client found not guilty on DUI and all other Charges

This DDT Law Group client was charged with Aggravated Speeding, Illegal transportation of alcohol, and a DUI in Franklin Park.  The client hired our firm before the first court date.  At the first court date, we entered our appearance, filed all the necessary motions, and received discovery from the prosecutor.  After discussing all the evidence that was available in this case, we decided to set the client’s case for trial in front of a judge.

The facts of the case were that our client was coming home after working all day and was in a bit of a hurry.  Travelling at a higher than average speed, our client popped up on a Franklin Park police officer’s radar.  Our client was informed by the officer that he had been travelling 79 MPH in a 40 MPH zone.  Our client provided his driver’s license and his proof of insurance without any issue.  The Officer claimed that our client had bloodshot, glassy eyes, as well as a “faint” odor of alcohol.  The Officer never asked if our client had been drinking alcohol or how much he may have been drinking.  The Officer talked to the client for several minutes and based on the fact that the client had been speeding more than 26 miles above the speed limit, arrested him for misdemeanor speeding.  After the arrest, the Officer did find a bottle of Hennessy on the passenger floorboard.

The Officer then transported the client back to the police station with the idea that he would have him perform field sobriety tests at the station, which he agreed to.  The client did a very good job on all of the tests, and the video even seemed to contradict some of the Officer’s claims regarding clues of impairment on the tests.  After the tests, the Officer decided to arrest our client for DUI.  After arresting him for the DUI, the officer read the client the “Warning to Motorist” which informs the client how long he will be suspended if he refuses the breath test and what happens if he takes the breath test and gives a result above the legal limit of .08.  The client agreed to take the test but had medical complications with his lungs, so the breath sample did not register, even though he blew into the breath machine about 6 times.  The Officer went ahead and marked the test as a “refusal” since the client was not able to complete the test.

At the trial, the Judge heard the officer testify to his initial conversation with our client, his arrest, and the client’s performance on the field sobriety tests.  Our client did not testify in the case.  The testimony from the Officer did not seem to rise to the level of someone guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” of a DUI.  Moreover, the Judge viewed the video and was frankly shocked by how little evidence existed for the Officer to arrest our client and think he was impaired and intoxicated.  Based on our cross examination of the Officer as well as our decision to present the video of the field sobriety tests, the Judge was so frustrated by the Officer’s judgment on this case that she not only found our client “not guilty” of the DUI, but she found him “not guilty” of the illegal transportation (even though there was alcohol in the car) and the misdemeanor speeding ticket (even though our client was clearly speeding).  The Officer’s lack of credibility helped our client achieve a fair and equitable resolution.

If you would like a similar case analysis, we are happy to provide one for free. Simply call our office and schedule an appointment with one of our DUI lawyers. We will provide a no obligation strategy session so you can determine how to best proceed and find a lawyer you are comfortable with to represent you in this important matter.