October 21, 2011: OWI-1st Reduced to Reckless Driving

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.

October 7, 2011: OWI-2nd Reduced to Reckless Driving

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.

October 3, 2011: OWI-1st Reduced to Inattentive Driving

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.

September 13, 2011: OWI-2nd Reduced to Non-Traffic Misdemeanor

In State of Wisconsin v. S.M., the original charge of OWI-2nd Offense was reduced to a non-traffic misdemeanor which will not even appear on the client's driver record and carries no revocation or suspension of driving privileges. The remaining charge of PAC-2nd Offense (.146 blood test result) was dismissed. The client was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service, but otherwise suffered no consequences from this offense---no probation, no jail, not even a fine. This incredible result was achieved shortly before the client's scheduled jury trial when Dennis Melowski disclosed to the prosecutor the evidence he had regarding the flawed testing process of the laboratory used to test his client's blood sample. In short, the prosecutor did not believe she could obtain a drunk driving conviction in light of the evidence Dennis was able to uncover. Having completely avoided a second offense OWI conviction, the client was thrilled with the outcome. 

August 30, 2011: Complete Acquittal in OWI-1st Case

At the jury trial of City of M. v. S.B., Dennis Melowski was able to convince a jury to find his client Not Guilty of both Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated and Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration. Despite having to contend with a .12 breath test result, a squad video and several alleged admissions of guilt by his client, Dennis was able to severely undermine the arresting officer's credibility during cross-examination. This was done by showing significant contradictions between the officer's trial testimony and his testimony at prior hearings, as well as using the officer's own squad video to disprove some of the officer's claims about his client. What's more, Dennis had done an extensive background check of the machine used to test his client's breath and was able to expose several problems with its reliability. In the end, the jury took only 12 minutes to reach their decision. Afterwards, four of the jurors approached Dennis outside the courtroom to ask him for his business card. Most importantly, though, Dennis' client walked out of the courthouse completely exonerated!   

August 22, 2011: OWI-3rd Reduced to Inattentive Driving

In State of Wisconsin v. K.S., Dennis Melowski convinced the prosecutor to reduce the original charge of OWI-3rd to Inattentive Driving and to dismiss the remaining charge of PAC-3rd (.173 blood test result). The reduced charge of Inattentive Driving is a non-alcohol-related, minor traffic offense that involves no suspension or revocation of driving privileges. The client paid a fine of $287.90, but otherwise suffered no consequences from his arrest. If convicted of either of the original charges, the client would have been been sentenced to several months in jail; would have had his license revoked for two to three years; would have had to install an ignition interlock in all of his vehicles; would have paid a fine nearly 10 times the fine he ended up with; and would have had to complete lengthy counseling. Most significantly, the client was facing lifetime disqualification of his commercial driving privileges. The fantastic result achieved in this case saved the client's lifelong career of commercial driving. He couldn't be happier!

July 25, 2011: Successful Attack of Client's Prior Drunk Driving Charge; OWI-3rd Reduced to OWI-1st

When someone hires Melowski & Associates to defend their repeat offense drunk driving charge, we not only analyze their present case, we also look back to the client's previous convictions to see if there are any challenges that can be made there, too. This can lead to incredibly beneficial results, which is precisely what happened in State of Wisconsin v. R.S. The client came to us with an OWI-3rd offense (with a .32 blood test result), a serious criminal charge with a substantial amount of jail time. In reviewing the client's previous two cases, however, Attorney Sarvan Singh discovered a serious defect in the client's second offense case from several years earlier. Attorney Singh brought this to the attention of the judge in the current case and argued that the client's second offense conviction should be thrown out and should not be counted. After hearing Attorney Singh's arguments, the judge agreed. The client's second offense would not count. That left only the client's first offense from 1998, which was too old to count under the repeater statute. This resulted in the client's original charge being reduced all the way down to a first offense, which is a non-criminal charge with no jail time.