In the DUI case of People of the State of Illinois v. S.O. (April 14, 2010), in the Third Municipal District, Rolling Meadows, Sheppard and Associates obtained an acquittal on behalf of their client.  The defendant was arrested for DUI after police responded to a rear-end accident where the defendant struck on another vehicle from behind.  The defendant submitted to field sobriety tests and the officer testified at trial that she failed “every point on every test.” An open bottle of Smirnoff vodka was also seized from the front passenger seat of the vehicle.    Sheppard & Associates impeached the officer from his police report and the officer also conceded that he was testifying largely off his reports as opposed to having an independent recollection of some of the events.  The officer further conceded that the defendant’s poor balance could have been attributable to the accident.  

The defendant had submitted to a breathalyzer test which disclosed a blood alcohol content of .071.  Under the law, no presumption attaches to this breathalyzer result, i.e., the defendant is neither prsumped to be impaired nor sober and the case is to be judged on the totality of the circumstances.   

The court ruled that based on the impeachment of the officer, the defendant’s mental acuity at the time of the arrest, and the plausibility that she was “shaken up” from the accident,  the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defendant was also found not guilty of Illegal Transportation of Open Alcohol.  On cross-examination, the officer conceded that he did not smell the liquid in the Smirnoff vodka bottle, taste the liquid or send it to the Illinois State Crime Lab for testing and analysis.  Accordingly, the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the liquid in the Smirnoff bottle was actually liquor.

In the much publicized case of People of the State of Illinois v. B.S.,pending in the Skokie courthouse (2nd Municipal District), the statutory summary suspension of a school bus driver’s privileges was rescinded.  The suspension had been issued on the basis that the drugs, Tramadol and Diphenhydramine, were allegedly detected in the defendant’s urine following his arrest for DUI.   Sheppard and Associates filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of a Petition to Rescind arguing that the suspension should be rescinded because the drugs in question were not identified as “controlled substances” under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act.  (Section 2-118.1(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides that a summary suspension may be contested on grounds that the person submitted to a chemical test which did not disclose a substance prohibited by the Illinois Controlled Substance Act.).   The state argued for an expansive interpretation of the summary suspension statute, submitting  that a summary suspension should be justified whenever a driver tests positive for a drug that could have impaired his ability to drive (regardless of whether the drug was a “controlled substance”).    Over the state’s strenuous objection, the judge granted Sheppard & Associates’ Petition to Rescind the statutory summary suspension of the bus driver’s driving privileges.