Spring 2015 Newsletter
We would like to inform you of cases we have successfully concluded within the last few months. If we can help you, contact us at 414-291-9911.
Personal Injury Settlement
Within the last few months four personal injury settlements were reached on behalf of our clients for a total of over $500,000. Call Hayes & Rothstein at 414-291-9911 or email email@example.com.
Dismissal of Criminal Charge
A Milwaukee County judge, based on a motion challenging the stop, recently dismissed a felony case charging our client with felon in possession of a firearm. The DA was seeking a two year prison sentence. We filed a number of motions including a motion to suppress evidence seized in an illegal stop and a motion to dismiss based on destruction of evidence. The City of Milwaukee officers failed to wear a microphone when investigating our client’s vehicle following a routine traffic stop. The audio/video would have shown that our client repeatedly objected to the officers’ entries into the vehicle where the officers eventually found a weapon in a locked console. Our client absolutely denied knowledge that the weapon was in the console. After numerous open records request to obtain evidence regarding the past practices of the two officers involved in this matter, the case was dismissed, to the great relief of our client who is a very successful entrepreneur in Milwaukee. Please call one of our attorneys at Hayes & Rothstein at 414-291-9911 if you have any questions about these or any other legal matters.
Dismissal of Injury Allegations in Operating under the Influence Cases
In one case motion practice and negotiations resulted in the Waukesha County Office of the District Attorney dismissing the injury allegation for a case that would have been punishable by up to 12 years in prison. My client’s wife wrote: “Mr. Hayes did more for my husband than any other lawyer, especially the lawyer we hired for his first offense OWI.”
In another case a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge dismissed a criminal injury portion of the case following repeated appearances on defense motions to disclose employment and medical records for a police officer who claimed she sustained a career ending injury when our client’s vehicle struck the rear of the police squad. The officer claimed our client was traveling 25 mph at the time but the physical evidence was consistent with a collision at 5 mph or less. At one point the municipality made a property damage claim for total loss of the squad. The request was withdrawn following disclosure of the fact that no repair had been made - or was needed - to the squad involved in the collision. We kept our demand focused on the pressure point of the case - disclosure of the officer’s under oath written statements in her application for permanent duty disability. It was the failure to provide these records to the defense that led to the dismissal. The State had been asking for 45 days incarceration upon conviction for the misdemeanor crime of injury by intoxicated use. Our client walked out of court without any jail and without a criminal conviction. She and her family were very pleased.
In a third case we were able to negotiate to avoid a conviction for injury by intoxicated use, avoid any incarceration and to make our client eligible for expungement after one year.
Clients have increasingly been seeking our assistance to fight the Ignition Interlock Device requirement that was mandated in the 2010 update to the OWI law. During the first 10 months of 2014, we have been able to eliminate the Ignition Interlock Device requirement for many clients despite the fact that a chemical test showed a BAC of .15 or above. Our successes include cases involving readings of .17, .16, .21, .15., .16 and .21. There was one instance where our client who was charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test had his case concluded without the IID requirement.
Our successes have been based on filing various motions challenging the accuracy and admissibility of test results on the issue of what our client’s BAC was at the time of the offense.
The issue has been very important to many of our clients with concerns ranging from the need to transport business clients, to the cost of the device, and to the potential unreliability of the device leading to lockouts and other problems. There is also significant concern about operating a motor vehicle without an Ignition Interlock Device. Suppose you are subject to an Ignition Interlock Device order following an OWI conviction. If stopped by law enforcement for operating a motor vehicle without an Ignition Interlock Device, you would be issued two criminal charges with incarceration up to 18 months. Sec. 347.413(1) and 347.50(ls) provide for imprisonment for not more than 6 months and a fine of between $150 and $600, plus costs, for a first offense. Section 347.50(1t) extends by six months the IID period. If you are operating a Class D vehicle without an lID this means that you are operating while your privilege is revoked (occupational or regular license requires functioning IID during IID period) so you will also be subject under Section 343.44(2)(ar)2 to penalties for an OAR occurring during an OWl revocation: imprisonment for not more than one year and a fine of not more than $2,500. Section 343.30(1g)(a) provides for a up to a six month suspension of operating privileges. If the OWl revocation and the OAR suspension occur within one year of each other you will not be eligible for an occupational license.
Please contact us at 414-291-9911 if you have any questions about this or any other legal matters. Our practice is limited to criminal/traffic defense, OWI defense, and personal injury litigation. If you, your family, or your friends need an attorney in these areas of law, please contact us today. If you, your family, or your friends need an attorney in another area of law, please let us know and we will refer you to a respected attorney in that area.