CLIENT CHARGED WITH DUI IN ROLLING MEADOWS-FINDING OF NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL
Chicago DUI lawyer, James Dimeas's client was charged with a DUI
at the Cook County Courthouse in Rolling Meadows
Illinois. James Dimeas's client was arrested in the early morning hours by the Arlington Heights Police Department. James Dimeas's client was an accountant. The client had been working late into the night preparing income tax returns. It was early April and the tax filing deadline was rapidly approaching. The client owned his own tax preparation service and this was his busiest time of the year for him.
The client was sick with flu-like symptoms for about a week before the DUI arrest. Because the client was so busy at work, he did not have the time to go see his doctor. The client had taken numerous over-the counter medications to deal with his sickness. The client had scheduled an appointment with his doctor for two-days after his DUI arrest and a day after the tax filing deadline.
On the day of the DUI arrest, the client arrived at work at 8 a.m. He took a short lunch break at about 1:30 in the afternoon. His day at work was very busy. He had meetings with approximately six 6 clients and had been preparing tax returns all day. He left his office at approximately 12:30 the next morning. On his way home from work, he took a detour to go to the drive-thru of a local restaurant so he could get something to eat. At the trial he testified that after he picked up his food order, he was driving home and reaching into the bag of food on the passenger seat that he had just purchased from the restaurant and grabbing fries and eating them as he was driving.
As the client was driving home, an Arlington Heights Police Officer started following his vehicle. At the trial, the Arlington Heights Police Officer testified that he initially started following the vehicle after he clocked the vehicle speeding. After the officer started following the client's vehicle so he could issue him a speeding ticket, he observed the client's vehicle swerving over the painted lines on the roadway several times. The officer followed the client's vehicle for a few minutes and pulled over his vehicle so he could issue him a ticket for Speeding and Improper Lane Usage. The officer testified that he suspected that the client may be Driving Under the Influence.
The officer testified that the client pulled over as soon as he activated the emergency lights on his squad car. According to the officer, there was nothing improper about the way the client stopped his vehicle. After the client pulled over his vehicle, the officer walked up to the driver's side and asked for the client's license and insurance. The client produced his driver’s license and insurance card immediately and without any difficulty. As the officer was talking to the client he testified that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath. The officer asked the client if he had been drinking and the client told him that he had not been drinking and that he does not drink alcohol. The officer asked the client where he was coming from and where he was going. The client informed the police officer that he was coming from his work and was heading home. The officer asked the client where he worked, the client gave him the address of his tax preparation office. In his police report, the officer indicated that the route that the client was taking home did not make sense since the street that the client was pulled over on was not the right route to get from his office to his residence.
The officer asked the client to exit his vehicle so he could perform Field Sobriety Tests. When the client asked the police officer why he wanted him to take a Field Sobriety Test, the officer told him that he noticed that his vehicle had been swerving and that he smelled alcohol on his breath. The client told the police officer that he has been sick and has been taking medication for his illness. He told the police officer that he had been taking NyQuil all day and had scheduled an appointment to see his doctor. The officer performed the Field Sobriety Tests on the side of the road. After the Field Sobriety Tests were completed, the officer asked the client if he would be willing to take a Portable Breath Test. The client refused to take a Portable Breath Test. He told the officer that he would not take a Portable Breath Test but that he would be willing to go to the nearest hospital and take a blood test. The officer informed him that he would not take him to a hospital and placed him under arrest for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
After the client was taken to the police station, he was asked to take a breathalyzer test and he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Once again, the client offered to go to the hospital and take a blood test. The police officer refused to take him to the hospital and charged the client with a DUI.
When the client consulted with James Dimeas for this DUI, he already had a lawyer for his DUI. The clients first DUI had occurred approximately 12 years earlier. The client had received Court supervision for his first DUI. The lawyer had convinced the client that he would lose his DUI case and that he should just plead guilty. Since this was the clients Second DUI
, the client consulted with James Dimeas for a second opinion. The client suspected that his lawyer did not know what he was doing because after doing his own research, the client realized that since this was his second DUI, he was facing a mandatory revocation of his driver's license. His DUI attorney had not told him that he was facing a revocation so he suspected that his DUI lawyer didn't know what he was doing. After speaking to James Dimeas, the client decided to fire his lawyer and hire James Dimeas to represent him.
Since the prosecutor had made an offer to the client's prior lawyer that involved a guilty plea, the prosecutor was unwilling to restart negotiations for a possible reduction from a DUI to Reckless Driving. A guilty plea to a Reckless Driving would not cause the clients license to be revoked. Consequently, the case proceeded to trial.
At trial, the judge was shown the entire video of the DUI arrest that was taken from the squad car. Even though the police officer indicated in his police report that he saw the client's vehicle swerve over the painted lines on the street several times, the video from the squad car only showed that his vehicle only swerves over the painted lines once. After the officer asked the client where he was coming from and where he was going, the police officer admitted that the client did have a bag of fast food in his car. The officer admitted that he did not note the bag of food in his police report. The client paid for the food with his debit card and was able to produce a receipt showing the date, time, and location of the purchase of the fast food. This receipt explained why the client was driving on the roadway and show that the police officer was wrong when he stated in his police report that the route he was taking did not correspond to the address of his office and his home. The receipt also indicated that he had purchased a large order of French fries that he was eating with one hand while he was holding the steering wheel with the other. This could explain why the vehicle swerved slightly in the video.
The video of the Field Sobriety Tests showed that the client did not fail the Field Sobriety Tests and did not appear to be intoxicated. On the squad car video, the client could be heard offering to go to the hospital several times to take a blood test.
After hearing all of the evidence and arguments, the Judge found the client Not Guilty of the DUI. As a result, the client did not lose his license and was able to walk out of court a free man.
James Dimeas is a nationally-recognized, award-winning, DUI lawyer with over-27 years of handling DUI's in Chicago
, Cook County
, DuPage County
, Kane County
, and Lake County
. James Dimeas was named as a "Best DUI Attorney." Recently, the American Society of Legal Advocates named James Dimeas a "Top 100 Criminal Defense Lawyer In the State of Illinois For the Year 2018, 2019, and 2020." Expertise named James Dimeas a "Best Criminal Defense Lawyer in Chicago." The American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys named James Dimeas a "10 Best Attorney for Client Satisfaction." The National Trial Lawyers named James Dimeas a "Top 100 Criminal Defense Lawyer." AVVO rates James Dimeas as "Superb", 10 out of 10, the highest rating possible for any DUI attorney in the United States.
If you are facing a DUI, you can contact
James Dimeas anytime for a free and confidential consultation. You can talk to James Dimeas personally
anytime by calling him at 847-807-7405