In the vast array of tools in use to shame people arrested for DUI in Illinois and other states, I can't imagine MADD, AAIM and other knee-jerk act-without-thought emotional response types passing up something like this. I'm talking about an apparent gag by a University of North Texas student. Senior Brian Baugh apparently had some fun with Twitter and sent up some tweets purporting to list recent arrests, complete with mug shots from the "Denton Police".
So how long until we see a DUI Arrest Twitter page from the Chicago Police Department? Will apology tweets be issued when my clients find their DUI cases dismissed or they are found not guilty? I plan to insist on it - what do you think?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Arrest does not equal guilt
An off-duty Chicago police officer was arrested yesterday after he was alleged to have caused a fiery crash while driving drunk on Illinois roads. After a hearing, Judge Panarese set bond for officer Frugoli at $500,000. Fights broke out and the crowd got more than a bit unruly, upset that Frugoli was "a free man". Apparently, not only did they forget that Mr. Frugoli is innocent until he either enters a plea of guilty or is proven to be guilty, they also grossly misunderstand the purpose of bond.
Bond is meant to ensure the appearance, cooperation and compliance of a defendant facing criminal charges in Illinois courts. That's pretty much it. Failing to show up in Chicago's criminal court at 26th and California, committing another crime or refusing to comply with the lawful orders of a judge will result in the loss of the entire bond amount. A Chicago cop with no other criminal history? $50,000 of his hard earned cash ought to do that job just fine.
Bond is meant to ensure the appearance, cooperation and compliance of a defendant facing criminal charges in Illinois courts. That's pretty much it. Failing to show up in Chicago's criminal court at 26th and California, committing another crime or refusing to comply with the lawful orders of a judge will result in the loss of the entire bond amount. A Chicago cop with no other criminal history? $50,000 of his hard earned cash ought to do that job just fine.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
DUI? You're fired!
Love watching Khloe Kardashian on NBC's Celebrity Apprentice with Donald Trump? Too bad. You see, the Donald apparently lives in a cave, and didn't know that Khloe Kardashian had a DUI, leading to this:
Without any regard whatsoever for the individual facts of her case, and having no regard for the fact that Ms. Kardashian has already been punished by the Court and undergone treatment, attended classes and more, Trump instantly jumped to the worst possible consequences of a DUI. Citing MADD and specifically alcohol-related deaths (more on that bit of misdirection another time), Trump apparently placed Khloe Kardashian's DUI on the same level. I don't know, did she cause an accident? Hurt anyone? To "The Donald" and unfortunately to many people, all DUI cases are the same. Like so many, Khloe falls victim here to the stigma of a DUI.
For this very reason, anyone facing a DUI arrest must proceed carefully. When facing a DUI arrest in Illinois, contact an Illinois DUI attorney who will carefully analyze your case and give you the best chance at an aggressive defense. The Cook county based DUI law firm of Fagan, Fagan & Davis offers a free consultation. Learn more now at http://www.888DUIStop.com
Without any regard whatsoever for the individual facts of her case, and having no regard for the fact that Ms. Kardashian has already been punished by the Court and undergone treatment, attended classes and more, Trump instantly jumped to the worst possible consequences of a DUI. Citing MADD and specifically alcohol-related deaths (more on that bit of misdirection another time), Trump apparently placed Khloe Kardashian's DUI on the same level. I don't know, did she cause an accident? Hurt anyone? To "The Donald" and unfortunately to many people, all DUI cases are the same. Like so many, Khloe falls victim here to the stigma of a DUI.
For this very reason, anyone facing a DUI arrest must proceed carefully. When facing a DUI arrest in Illinois, contact an Illinois DUI attorney who will carefully analyze your case and give you the best chance at an aggressive defense. The Cook county based DUI law firm of Fagan, Fagan & Davis offers a free consultation. Learn more now at http://www.888DUIStop.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009
ASA O'Reilly gets it!
Kudos to Cook County ASA Lawrence X. O'Reilly. Really. It isn't often you'll see something like that here, but I'm sincere.
A recent Chicago Sun-Times article reports that ASA O'Reilly, supervisor of Chicago's Cook County Traffic Division is calling on the feckless and beleaguered Chicago Police Department to make sure those police officers who focus on DUI enforcement be assigned squad cars equipped with video cameras.
Mr. O'Reilly notes that video equipment will benefit police officers and help protect the rights of those they encounter.
Too true.
As any seasoned Illinois DUI attorney will tell you, many a video has dramatically affected the course of a DUI prosecution. I've reviewed over a thousand arrest videos. Some outright contradicted the officer's written reports, while others merely raised questions. Quite a few strongly supported the officer's version of the events. In those cases, my clients appreciated the clarity of a look back in time.
Not long ago, a very experienced police officer from a large town in suburban Cook county discussed his video experience with me, angry that his municipality had decided to pull the video machines from squad cars (they were losing too many cases because of a few bad eggs, and this was their solution).
Officer C, as we'll call him, recalls a perfectly average DUI arrest. Nice, clean-cut middle-aged lady. Well dressed and well mannered. No trouble or guff at all ending in a moderate 0.13 breath result. That all changed when she returned to the police station two hours after her release to complain that officer C had called her horrible names, verbally abused her and slammed her face-first onto the hood of his car. Ouch.
Maybe she just forgot that he mentioned the video. Hmm? Officer C's commanding officer reviewed the video right then and there and told the woman where to go.
The point of course, is that transparency in law enforcement is a good thing, but more on that later . . .
A recent Chicago Sun-Times article reports that ASA O'Reilly, supervisor of Chicago's Cook County Traffic Division is calling on the feckless and beleaguered Chicago Police Department to make sure those police officers who focus on DUI enforcement be assigned squad cars equipped with video cameras.
Mr. O'Reilly notes that video equipment will benefit police officers and help protect the rights of those they encounter.
Too true.
As any seasoned Illinois DUI attorney will tell you, many a video has dramatically affected the course of a DUI prosecution. I've reviewed over a thousand arrest videos. Some outright contradicted the officer's written reports, while others merely raised questions. Quite a few strongly supported the officer's version of the events. In those cases, my clients appreciated the clarity of a look back in time.
Not long ago, a very experienced police officer from a large town in suburban Cook county discussed his video experience with me, angry that his municipality had decided to pull the video machines from squad cars (they were losing too many cases because of a few bad eggs, and this was their solution).
Officer C, as we'll call him, recalls a perfectly average DUI arrest. Nice, clean-cut middle-aged lady. Well dressed and well mannered. No trouble or guff at all ending in a moderate 0.13 breath result. That all changed when she returned to the police station two hours after her release to complain that officer C had called her horrible names, verbally abused her and slammed her face-first onto the hood of his car. Ouch.
Maybe she just forgot that he mentioned the video. Hmm? Officer C's commanding officer reviewed the video right then and there and told the woman where to go.
The point of course, is that transparency in law enforcement is a good thing, but more on that later . . .
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bad Boyz of Chicago - Chicago PD DUI Hat Trick
First, Chicago police officer John Haleas was found to be fabricating DUI cases last April (and currently faces related felony criminal charges), then earlier this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Chicago police officer Joe Parker stands accused of doing much the same. And today the Chicago police face yet another black eye - Chicago police officer Richard Fiorito faces a federal lawsuit alleging he, too is ready to make up a DUI case from thin air.
To be sure, this is not a good week for the CPD, and Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez cannot be very pleased to have to deal with this in her first months in office.
Probably more miserable tonight is embattled Superintendant of Chicago Police Jody Weis, who just a few days ago, refused to comply with an order by U.S. Magistrate Maria Valdez requiring the Department turn over information about officers with multiple complaints. Talk about bad timing!
Inexplicably, Weis, who is sworn to uphold the Consitution, and to protect the public, argued that turning over the information would “compromise officers’ performance, threaten safety, reduce morale and improperly impugn many officers’ otherwise well-deserved good reputations.”
Superintendant Weis - given the accusations against officers Haleas, Parker and Fiorito, don't you think that not turning over the information does more to "threaten" public safety? Shouldn't you be concerned that the actions of these officers "reduce morale" of their fellow officers? Isn't it time for you to act to protect the public from official misdconduct? Doesn't the act of sheltering officers repeatedly accused of misconduct "impugn many officers' otherwise well-deserved good reputations?"
DUI is punishable in Illnois by up to 364 days in jail and up to $2500 in fines plus costs. Defendants stand to lose their licenses, thousands of dollars, their freedom, their reputations, and in some cases their jobs. Stop playing hide the ball - Chicago police officers need to know their credibility and professionalism is fundamental to the performance of their duties and is not subject to compromise.
To be sure, this is not a good week for the CPD, and Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez cannot be very pleased to have to deal with this in her first months in office.
Probably more miserable tonight is embattled Superintendant of Chicago Police Jody Weis, who just a few days ago, refused to comply with an order by U.S. Magistrate Maria Valdez requiring the Department turn over information about officers with multiple complaints. Talk about bad timing!
Inexplicably, Weis, who is sworn to uphold the Consitution, and to protect the public, argued that turning over the information would “compromise officers’ performance, threaten safety, reduce morale and improperly impugn many officers’ otherwise well-deserved good reputations.”
Superintendant Weis - given the accusations against officers Haleas, Parker and Fiorito, don't you think that not turning over the information does more to "threaten" public safety? Shouldn't you be concerned that the actions of these officers "reduce morale" of their fellow officers? Isn't it time for you to act to protect the public from official misdconduct? Doesn't the act of sheltering officers repeatedly accused of misconduct "impugn many officers' otherwise well-deserved good reputations?"
DUI is punishable in Illnois by up to 364 days in jail and up to $2500 in fines plus costs. Defendants stand to lose their licenses, thousands of dollars, their freedom, their reputations, and in some cases their jobs. Stop playing hide the ball - Chicago police officers need to know their credibility and professionalism is fundamental to the performance of their duties and is not subject to compromise.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Illinois DUI law reporting - Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
- "New DUI Law Requires Offenders to get Breath-Test Devices" - Rockford Register Star
- Illinois' new DUI law "requires breathalyzer–type gadgets in cars for anyone convicted of Driving Under the Influence even once" - MSNBC.com
- In Illinois "First time offenders are required to blow into a interlock device" - WIFR.com
- Illinois DUI law requiring installation of a BAIID "is aimed at first-time offenders convicted of driving under the influence" - Chicago Tribune
Illinois' new DUI law in effect January 1, 2009 creates no new requirement that a BAIID or "Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device" be installed upon conviction for DUI. Such a requirement would be ludicrous, as any motorist in Illinois convicted of DUI will find their driver's license revoked in short order. Revocation means no driving. None.
The new law does, however, punish those who still enjoy the presumption of innocence our society so obviously cherishes (insert sarcasm as needed).
Here's how it really works:
- A motorist is arrested for DUI
- The arresting officer requests that motorist, now accused of DUI, to submit to a breath, urine or blood test
- The motorist either refuses to do so, or submits to testing
- If the motorist either refuses or submits to tests demonstrating either a 0.08 or above blood or breath alcohol content or the presence of a substance such as marijuana (for example), the arresting officer serves a notice of suspension on the motorist
- 46 days later, the motorist's privilege to drive in the state of Illinois is suspended, either for 6 months (for submitting) or for one year (for refusal) assuming they have had no prior DUI or DUI-based suspension within five years
- 30 days after that happens, if the motorist chooses to be able to drive, they may obtain what is called an MDDP or "Monitored Device Driving Permit", install a BAIID on their vehicle, and drive any time, any where they like. If they don't want to drive, they don't need the BAIID
- Motorists who have had a prior DUI or DUI-based suspension within five years need not apply - they are suspended for either one year (for submitting) or three years (for refusing) and can't get any kind of permit, even one that requires they prove they have NO ALCOHOL in their system before driving. Hmm ... very fair, no?
Is it possible there is a reason these stories would rather not report the truth? It is somewhat less palatable to anyone who remembers we live a country governed by a Constitution and Bill of Rights, isn't it?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
DUI Loser?
IDOT is funding a major new DUI enforcement initiative in Illinois to the tune of $1.8 million dollars of taxpayer funds. Of that, $1 million is going to pay for stepped up police enforcement, and $800,000 is now being used for an ad campaign.
Why not spend all of that money on enforcement? Because the ISP has decided to play "nahny-nahny-boo-boo" and spend $800,000 on name calling. Those who are arrested for DUI are now branded "losers" in a new TV ad, which you can view by clicking here.
Putting aside the question of whether spending public funds on some juvenile tactic to exert yet more pressure on "potential" offenders, let's take a look at some of those "losers":
George Bush - Sitting President of the United States
Mel Gibson - actor/director
Kiefer Sutherland - actor
Bill Mitchell - U.S. Congressional Representative from Illinois
Vivica A. Fox - actress
Rip Torn - actor
Mike McGavick - former CEO of Safeco, and onetime candidate for U.S. Senate
Mickey Rourke - actor
Paris Hilton
The truth is that the list goes on forever, and I'm sure the reader can think of a few I've left out. Quite aside from these "losers" are many of my current and former clients who are (and continue to be) lawyers, doctors, research scientists, engineers, teachers, fathers, mothers, and just plain good people. The fact that someone is arrested for DUI hardly makes them a loser, especially given ever looser definitions of what exactly is a DUI.
Are some people arrested for DUI losers? Sure are - and you can probably name a few off the top of your head who are famous for it. But when will the powers that be decide they want to treat DUI in a way that makes sense? Just about nobody goes out to have a good time and to commit the crime of DUI. Part of the reason DUI is so scary is the impairment of the driver's JUDGEMENT, right? So the more that person drinks, the more their ability to judge their situation accurately is affected, right? And when making decisions, the alcohol will impair their ability to make a good decision, right? When you really think about it, the problem of DUI becomes a great deal more complex than calling someone a "loser", doesn't it?
Tattooing people with "loser" because they've been arrested is silly and sophomoric, but under those circumstances, the Illinois DUI law firm of Fagan, Fagan & Davis and our colleagues will be glad to be known as the tattoo removal service!
Why not spend all of that money on enforcement? Because the ISP has decided to play "nahny-nahny-boo-boo" and spend $800,000 on name calling. Those who are arrested for DUI are now branded "losers" in a new TV ad, which you can view by clicking here.
Putting aside the question of whether spending public funds on some juvenile tactic to exert yet more pressure on "potential" offenders, let's take a look at some of those "losers":
George Bush - Sitting President of the United States
Mel Gibson - actor/director
Kiefer Sutherland - actor
Bill Mitchell - U.S. Congressional Representative from Illinois
Vivica A. Fox - actress
Rip Torn - actor
Mike McGavick - former CEO of Safeco, and onetime candidate for U.S. Senate
Mickey Rourke - actor
Paris Hilton
The truth is that the list goes on forever, and I'm sure the reader can think of a few I've left out. Quite aside from these "losers" are many of my current and former clients who are (and continue to be) lawyers, doctors, research scientists, engineers, teachers, fathers, mothers, and just plain good people. The fact that someone is arrested for DUI hardly makes them a loser, especially given ever looser definitions of what exactly is a DUI.
Are some people arrested for DUI losers? Sure are - and you can probably name a few off the top of your head who are famous for it. But when will the powers that be decide they want to treat DUI in a way that makes sense? Just about nobody goes out to have a good time and to commit the crime of DUI. Part of the reason DUI is so scary is the impairment of the driver's JUDGEMENT, right? So the more that person drinks, the more their ability to judge their situation accurately is affected, right? And when making decisions, the alcohol will impair their ability to make a good decision, right? When you really think about it, the problem of DUI becomes a great deal more complex than calling someone a "loser", doesn't it?
Tattooing people with "loser" because they've been arrested is silly and sophomoric, but under those circumstances, the Illinois DUI law firm of Fagan, Fagan & Davis and our colleagues will be glad to be known as the tattoo removal service!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)