Monday, October 24, 2011
Often, potential clients seek us out because of what they have at stake. Many hire us simply because a drunken driving conviction will land them in the unemployment line. Take for example our client, DRK. DRK works for a utilities company. This means he would have to traverse all of Wisconsin (and parts of Michigan) at any given date and time. His company made clear to him that a conviction for Operating While Intoxicated or any limitations on his driving privileges would mean his termination. DRK had a deplorable set of facts staring him in the face. He was involved in a two-car accident and failed the field sobriety tests on video. Making things more difficult was the fact that DRK refused the chemical test. A refusal often complicates things because it makes a conviction much easier for the prosecutor. So, when Attorney Singh got a hold of County of V. v. DRK, he had to get creative. And that is exactly what he did. By closely analyzing all the paperwork completed by the police, he noticed a very minor error. However, Attorney Singh was able to exploit this error to the point where he challenged the County’s entire case. The County reluctantly agreed to amend DRK’s charge to a reckless driving and he was able to keep his license. DRK spent nearly a year worrying about how the loss of his job would affect him and his family. But thanks to ,Attorney Singh a huge weight was lifted from his shoulders.
Few cases have such an insurmountable set of facts as State of Wisconsin v. TGR. In TGR, the client had an accident, admitted to drinking 7 to 8 beers, failed all the field sobriety tests, provided a blood sample of .266, and was charged with Failure to Notify Police of an Accident, Failure to Wear Seatbelt, and Hit and Run in addition to the drunk driving charges. This was further complicated by the facts that TGR was a commercial driver and this was his second offense, meaning he was facing lifetime disqualification of his commercial privileges if convicted. The State originally recommended 40 days jail and an 18 month license revocation, which also meant the end of TGR’s commercial driving career. However, Attorney Singh, knowing what was at stake, would not settle for an OWI conviction. There were certain facts in TGR’s case which made Attorney Singh question the legitimacy of the blood test result. He focused on this area and picked the case apart. He realized the State could not definitely prove what TGR’s blood alcohol level was at the time of driving, since the time of the accident was unknown. Attorney Singh pointed this out to the prosecutor and the case was amended to a reckless driving. This meant TGR spent no time in jail, never lost his license, avoided a drunken driving conviction, and most importantly, kept his job. Even with that bleak set of facts, TGR had never given up hope. And thanks to Attorney Singh, TGR could not be happier or more thankful.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
In the case of City of C. v. A.M., the client was originally charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated and Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration. As a lineman for a power company and CDL holder, the client needed to avoid any type of alcohol related driving conviction to keep his job. Based upon a very successful cross-examination of the arresting officer at the client's administrative suspension hearing, Dennis Melowski was able to establish that the officer could not have possibly conducted a proper 20 minute observation period of the client prior to the breath test, a prerequisite under Wisconsin law. This deficiency, among many other incosistencies Dennis was able to expose in the officer's version of events, led the prosecutor to agree to drastically reduce the original drunk driving charges--all the way down to the minor traffic offense of Inattentive Driving. Other than paying a fine, the client suffered no consequences related to his arrest and never lost his license for even a single day. His job, and career, were saved.