Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

Search for Illinois DUI Attorneys by County.

Waukegan DUI Lawyers

• Jones, Alan: Has your license been suspended, revoked or canceled after a DUI or other traffic violation? The loss of your license can seriously impact your life and business, and the consequences for driving with an invalid license are steep.
• Paul Serkland: has litigated a wide variety of criminal offenses -- including extensive trial experience in DUI, Suspended License, and all traffic matters.
• Morrison & Morrison: Drunk Driving (DUI / DWI) It is important to hire a drunk driving lawyer immediately after your arrest. You need to be advised of your legal rights and responsibilities. A drunk driving (DUI / DWI) conviction can lead to potential jail time, fines, license revocation, or community service. On the 46th day after you are arrested for drunk driving (DUI / DWI) you will lose your license. To avoid license suspension and preserve your driving rights should hire a drunk driving lawyer to challenge that suspension in court before the 46th day takes place. As your drunk driving lawyer, we will fight for drivers license reinstatement and apply for a hardship permit which would enable you to drive to and from work.
• Weinstein & Douglas: If you have been charged with a DUI it is imperative to contact the Secretary of State within ten days of your arrest and request a hearing, or your driver's license will be automatically suspended for a minimum of forty five days. This is only the beginning of the penalty for a first time drunk driving convictions and the consequences escalate quickly for multiple convictions.
• Albert Wysocki: Driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is a serious offense in Illinois. You can go to jail, have your license revoked or suspended, and be injured or seriously injure someone else.
• Randie Bruno: Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a defendant has a right to confront his or her adverse witnesses. This means that the defendant has a right to a face-to-face meeting with the witnesses. Included in this right is the right to cross-examine the witnesses. If the defendant is denied his or her right to cross-examine the witnesses, the defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution may also be denied.
• Diaz & Rios: All states have "implied consent" laws that require drivers suspected of DUI to submit to some form of chemical test (breath, blood or urine) to measure BAC. Implied consent laws are based on the logic that all drivers give consent to DUI testing by driving on state roads and highways. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an officer may force a driver to submit to a blood test (without the driver's consent or a warrant) as long as the officer has probable cause to believe the driver is under the influence. While some states allow drivers to choose the form of chemical test, refusing to submit to a chemical test can carry serious penalties (e.g., mandatory license suspension). In fact, refusal to take a chemical test in California will result in a one-year license suspension for the first offense. Further, if a driver is ultimately convicted for DUI, his refusal to submit to a chemical test may enhance the penalties.
• Michael Conway: In a 2001 case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the custodial arrest of an individual committing a minor traffic offense without a warrant constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the Court held that warrantless misdemeanor arrests are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if based upon probable cause. Specifically, the defendant in Atwater v. Lago Vista was arrested without a warrant for violating a Texas law that required front-seat passengers and small children riding in the front of a car to wear a seatbelt. Upon observing that the defendant was driving with her two small children in the front seat, all without a seatbelt, the police officer in the case pulled the defendant over and arrested her. In upholding the arrest as valid under the Fourth Amendment, the Court reasoned that the arrest was reasonable because the officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant had violated the law.
• Mark Curran: The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures generally requires police officers to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause before performing an arrest. Intended to protect against unreasonable searches and arbitrary arrests, the warrant requirement has traditionally been strictly enforced to prevent violations of constitutional privacy interests. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an officer may arrest an individual without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the offender has committed even a very minor criminal offense in the officer's presence.
• Scheller & Burke: The crime of drunk driving is generally defined in two ways: (1) having a blood alcohol content above the limit set by law, or (2) driving under the influence of alcohol. To find a person guilty under the first definition, a jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeded a certain amount. In most states the legal limit is .08 percent. Therefore, if it is proved that the person's BAC at the time of the incident was .08 percent or greater, he or she can be convicted of drunk driving, regardless of how much alcohol was actually consumed. In contrast, the second definition does not refer to any particular BAC. It focuses on the driving behavior of the person; if it is impaired by the person's consumption of alcohol, he or she can be found guilty of drunk driving. Instead of presenting evidence of the BAC to a jury, the prosecution seeking a conviction under this definition generally presents testimony about the person's driving and consumption of alcohol. A police officer will often describe the impaired driving that lead him to pull the person over and the person's ability (or lack thereof) to perform field sobriety tests, such as walking a straight line. Evidence is also usually presented concerning the person's consumption of alcohol and if the jury then concludes that the prosecution has met its burden of proof, it will convict the person of drunk driving. A susceptible person may exhibit impaired driving after one drink and therefore be convicted of drunk driving.
• Steven McCollum: DUI/DWI Traffic violations can have serious criminal consequences, particularly when a driver is accused of driving under the influence. A conviction on DUI/DWI charges may result in fines, the revocation or suspension of your driver's license, and possible jail time. In addition, your insurance company may increase your rates to an unmanageable level. In defending against an impaired driving charge, you have many rights as a criminal defendant, including the right to cross-examine the witnesses against you, even if they are police officers. An experienced criminal defense attorney can make all the difference in such a difficult case.
• Scott Williams: If you are charged with drunk driving, the charges can impact your insurance rates, your ability to drive, and you may even face jail time. It is important that you preserve your rights while protecting your reputation, regardless of the offense.
• Robert Carter: DUI is a criminal offense with serious consequences that include revocation of driving privileges, fines, and/or jail time. These consequences are harsh. However, the fact is in many DUI cases charges can be and are often beaten. This includes the common scenario where an accused individual feels emotional guilt, and senses he/she has no chance in being able to defend against the charge. A critical step in successfully defending against a DUI charge is retaining the services of an aggressive criminal attorney who has experience in discrediting the various pieces of evidence the State uses in court. These pieces include the arresting officer's testimony, breath/blood tests, and the field sobriety test.