On March 24, 2010 in the Skokie courthouse (2nd Municipal District), in the matter of People of the State of Illinois v. M.R., the judge granted Sheppard & Associates’ Petition to Rescind a three year Statutory Summary Suspension of the defendant’s driving privileges.  The suspension was generated based on the defendant’s refusal to submit to chemical testing following her arrest for Driving Under the Influence of prescription drugs.   The Notice of Summary Suspension – the law enforcement sworn report that causes the suspension to be issued by the Secretary of State - failed to list the date and time that the chemical test was offered and also failed to identify the officer’s reasonable grounds for the defendant’s arrest.  Sheppard and Associates filed a Memorandum of Law in support of the defendant’s Petition to Rescind and presented oral argument on the issue.   The thrust of the argument was that the defects in the Notice of Summary Suspension prejudiced the defendant’s ability to contest the grounds for her suspension.  The judge agreed and rescinded the three year Statutory Summary Suspension of the defendant’s driving privileges.

On March 17, 2010, in Circuit Court of Cook County, Second Municipal District (Skokie), in the  case of the People of the State of Illinois v. K.K., Sheppard & Associates’ Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence was granted on behalf of their client.  The motion suppressed nine tinfoli packets containing heroin that were seized from the defendant’s vehicle.  The officers had stopped the defendant’s vehicle pursuant to an anonymous tip that the defendant’s vehicle (the license plate, color, and make of the vehicle were given) was travelling with two occupants and a rifle in the backseat.   At the time of the stop, there was only one occupant in the vehicle (the defendant) and no rifle in the backseat.  The arresting officer testified that, as she approached the defendant’s vehicle to conduct a field interview, she observed on the front passenger seat tinfoil packets spilling out of a Marlboro cigarette pack.  She testified that she knew tinfoil packets to be a common method for packaging heroin.  She searched the vehicle and recovered nine packets of heroin.

Sheppard and Associates argued in their motion that the the anonymous tip was not sufficient to justify the stop because it was not suitably corroborated, it did not predict future behavior of the defendant (e.g., inform officers of what direction the defendant would be traveling in) and that the officers who stopped the defendant did not know what time the anonymous tip came into the police station.  The judge granted the Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence on these grounds and the state was forced to dismiss the case.

On February 23, 2010, in the Maywood courthouse, in the case of People of the State of Illinos v. J.S.(2009), Sheppard & Associates successfuly employed a novel defense to the charge of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.  The defense: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.  Through expert testimony, Barry Sheppard adduced that the symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – which the defendant had been diagnosed with – simulated several of the symptoms of being under the influence of alcohol…poor cognitive ability, poor balance, extreme drowsiness.  The defendant had failed all field sobriety tests and the in-squad video depicted the defendant with poor balance.   The defendant had also fled and eluded the officers when they attempted to stop him, resulting in a lenghty police chase.  Notwithstanding these facts, based on the expert testimony concerning Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the court found there to be reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant’s condition was attributable to alcohol consumption or whether he was suffering a bout of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.    For more on “CFS,” see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome