How to Avoid a DUI Arrest
Drinking and driving do not mix. This implies that if you’ve been drinking, refrain from driving. Drunken driving can result in injuries and loss of lives – yours and/or others. Why would anyone want to drive under influence and end up smashing their own car or damaging someone else’s property?
The worst thing about drunken driving is that it can lead to you getting arrested, losing your license, paying hefty fines and insurance amounts, and generally lose the kind of life you’ve been living all along.
However, you need not necessarily have to be drunk and drive to get arrested/found guilty of drunk driving in Joliet. In fact, any person with any amount of alcohol in their blood stream can be charged with DUI and be held responsible for an accident which may take place, irrespective of who was actually at fault.
So if you’re under the impression that because you drink and drive responsibly, you’re safe from the drunk-driving charge and its consequences, you’ve got something else coming at you.
In this post, we look at a few measures you can take to avoid a DUI arrest.
Adherence to Traffic Norms
A police officer needs probable cause (or a valid reason to stop your vehicle) to be able to take action against you. Don’t make his job easy by committing traffic violations. It is always a good idea of refrain from driving a vehicle with an expired plate, defunct brake lights/turn indicators/head lights.
When you get into your car, make sure you fasten your seat belt as many states have made wearing seat belts when driving mandatory, failing which an officer is liable to stop your vehicle.
Adhering to speed limits, keeping off your cell phone, turning down the radio, showing indicators and making complete stops will do you good. The less the distractions, the better you will drive.
One of the first things that the officer will look for as evidence against you will be the stench of alcohol on your breath. Do remember that you’ll be dealing with a trained law enforcer here, so merely chewing gum will not mask the stench. You need to be smart about this.
Before you even get into your car, eat something, chew gum, gargle with mouthwash, re-apply your cologne/perfume, or (as a last resort) light up a cigarette. These may work in camouflaging the smell of alcohol originating from your breath.
Keep the windows of the vehicle open to get some fresh air in, and for the alcohol stench to escape.
Keep Alcohol Away
If you get pulled over on a suspicion of DUI and get caught with alcohol in your possession, you could be heading for big trouble. Do not ever make the mistake of transporting alcohol in your car after you’ve been drinking.
If you do have anything stashed up in your vehicle after a night of partying, make sure you discard the liquor bottles/containers from your vehicle, else it may get difficult to convince the court that you were sober when the prosecutor presents pictures of an open beer bottle resting in your car’s cup holder.
Do Not Tell the Officer You’ve Been Drinking
When asked whether you’ve been drinking, use your right to remain silent. A lack of response to the officer’s questions cannot be held against you, so says the Fifth Amendment.
Becoming unresponsive to his questions will prevent the possibility of you having to lie to him, which can be held against you. So make sure you do not lie.
And while this sort of behavior may make you look suspicious, know that you don’t have to provide any answers before consulting your DUI lawyer in Joliet.
Skip the Sobriety and the Breathalyzer Tests
Even if the officer does not smell alcohol on your breath, he may say that he does (he’s allowed to lie to you). He may then ask you perform certain field sobriety tests, which differ from state to state. Remember, you are not under arrest and are not required to perform any of these tests. In fact, performing them might lead to you giving more ammunition in the hands of the officer, which means more trouble for you!
Additionally, say no to perform the portable breath test as well. The officer may say that he will let you go if you pass the test, but do not fall for that. Politely decline to submit to it. While several states now allow officers to carry portable breath units on them, they are undecided upon whether the results can be used as evidence.
In some jurisdictions, a refusal to submit to field sobriety tests may result in the suspension of your driver’s license. If you’ve really had too much to drink and are likely to fail the test, do not submit to them and settle for the license suspension in order to decrease the probability of a successful prosecution in the court.
On the other hand, if you know that you’ve not/barely had anything to drink, you could take the field sobriety tests as there is a high probability that you will pass them.
If the officer places you under arrest and takes you in custody, try and stay calm and be quiet. While you may be panicking inside, refrain from letting it show, especially in violent ways. Focus on regaining your composure and remember not to utter a word.
The officer may start talking to you in a friendly tone to get you to admit to drinking. Again, do not fall for that. Simply respond by saying that you would rather not speak until your attorney is present.
Hire a DUI Defense Attorney
Engage the services of a qualified and an experienced DUI attorney without wasting any more time. Be aware of the fact that regardless of how weak the evidence against you is, the prosecution will seek a conviction against you.
You may not be able to defend yourself as well as an experienced attorney, who will study your case minutely and find technical defenses on your behalf.
Apart from that he will also be able to guide you with the paperwork involved as well as protect many of your procedural rights. A good lawyer comes at a price, but the costs associated with a conviction on your record for a lifetime are significantly higher. So decide well!
To avoid a DUI arrest, it is always best to not drink and not drive. However, if you do find yourself behind the wheel after a couple of drinks and are stopped by a police officer, you will have to be smart in dealing with the situation to avoid an arrest. The above points should keep you from getting in trouble until you can get in touch with an attorney.
A man who says he was shot several times last summer by Joliet police officers has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officers and the City of Joliet.
The complaint, which will be pursued in federal court alleges excessive force and is seeking millions of dollars in damages.
James Pacheco shows the scars left behind by bullets that struck him in several places on his arm, shoulder and upper lip.
These are gunshot wounds he says he sustained when a Joliet police officer fired multiple shots at Pacheco during an incident last summer.
“I had no idea why their guns were drawn or why they were pulling me over,” Pacheco said.
Early in the morning of July 30, 2012, Pacheco was driving in the 900-block of East Washington Street when he was stopped by a train.
He made a u-turn and was stopped by Joliet officers investigating a report that implicated Pacheco in property damage nearby.
Pacheco says officers demanded he get out of the car, and before he could respond, opened fire.
The incident was caught on surveillance video.
Officers could be heard demanding that Pacheco get out of his car. Pacheco in turn asking why, saying he didn’t do anything.
Then, gunshots are heard.
Pacheco, saying he was fearing for his life, sped away and then crashed after a few miles.
“I don’t believe no matter what I did that night, I’m being accused of something that was minor, busting a window, I don’t think anybody deserves to be shot,” Pacheco said.
“You literally drive away to try to save your life. Pull over because you can’t go any further and what does the policeman do? Pull out a taser and tases you twice,” said Jeff Tomczak, Pacheco’s attorney.
Pacheco and his attorney, Jeff Tomczak, have filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Joliet and the officers involved in the incident. The complaint makes several allegations, including excessive force and battery.
“When they pull the trigger of that gun, there has to be no room for error. No room for overreaction. No chance that that’s an unjustified shooting,” said Tomczak.
Pacheco still faces charges following that incident, including dui, and attempted aggravated battery.
An attorney for the City of Joliet says the officer involved in the shooting was under internal investigation, and it was found that the use of force was justified. However, he could not comment on the pending litigation.
There was no resolution Tuesday in the battery trial of a Plainfield Park District commissioner accused of attacking a rival campaign worker in November.
Joliet firefighter Michael Carlin maintains that Peter Steinys, 56, intentionally hit him with a car door, then attempted to strike him before grabbing him by both arms in a dispute over campaign signs.
Carlin was a volunteer for State Sen. Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant, D-49th District, who successfully ran against village trustee Garrett Peck last fall. Peck is also the new executive director of the Plainfield Park District.
Steinys, who was elected to the park board in April, faces a local ordinance charge of battery, rather than a state charge, meaning he won’t be sentenced to jail time if he’s convicted. As his bench trial before Will County Judge Joseph Polito got under way Tuesday, Steinys did not yet testify — but Carlin did, giving his account of what happened on the night before the Nov. 6 election.
Carlin, who lives in Morris, said he was part of a group of three volunteers who were placing signs in a field near Route 59 and Frasier Road, with the property owner’s permission.
“We had some troubles with that exact location with signs being mutilated [and] ripped out of the ground,” Carlin said. Around 11 p.m., Carlin said he returned to the site to check on the signs.
“As I was driving down Route 59 I observed all Garrett Peck signs in the field only we had permission for,” Carlin said, saying the Peck signs obscured some of the Bertino-Tarrant signs, while others had been tossed into the field. Carlin said he parked in the church parking lot on the northwest side of field and then began replacing the Bertino-Tarrant signs.
As cars passed, Carlin said the headlights allowed him to spot a man dressed in black, lying in a ditch on the southeast corner of Route 59.
“Traffic’s coming, so I run across the street and I tell the guy, ‘Hey, we’re the only ones with permission to have signs in this field,’” Carlin said, adding that, during an expletive-laden exchange, the man in black disagreed.
“When he said ‘F you,’ I said ‘F you,” Carlin testified. “It wasn’t like I was telling him we were going to fight.”
Instead, while the man walked back to a vehicle, Carlin said he went back to his car and called Bertino-Tarrant campaign director Glenn Marcum to make sure he was in the right about having permission to place the signs in the field. After speaking to Marcum, Carlin said he ran back across Route 59 and approached the vehicle, a white Volkswagen parked near Feeney Drive and McMullin Circle.
There, he said he attempted to address a man he identified as Peter Steinys — not the man in black, who was a passenger in the vehicle and was not identified in court.
“I bent down … I did like an ‘air knock’ on the window, I motioned for him to roll the window down,” Carlin said. Carlin claims he told Steinys he wasn’t looking for problems, noting that he had just had surgery on his left shoulder, but said the Peck signs had to go.
Carlin testified that Steinys then flung the car door open, hitting him on his left side, before exiting the vehicle and swinging at him with both hands. Carlin said he was able to dodge the punches, and that Steinys then used both hands to grab his arms.
“After he was swinging, he was able to get both hands on me,” Carlin said, claiming Steinys threatened him, saying, “I’m sick of this s—, don’t f— with me, I’m going to f—ing kill you.”
According to Carlin, “As he said this, I’m backpedaling. I was able to shove his hands off with my right hand because I couldn’t use my left arm.”
Carlin claimed he ran, and could hear Steinys chasing after him until the passenger, who was the man dressed in all black, yelled for Steinys to stop.
“I think they only thing that stopped Mr. Steinys was the passenger,” Carlin said.
Steinys attorney Ragan Frietag questioned why Carlin would tell Steinys and the other man, now a passenger in the car, about his shoulder injury.
“Because there was two men sitting in a car,” Carlin said. “I didn’t want to have an issue.” Carlin also denied touching the vehicle.
Freitag pointed out that Carlin initiated the conversations, both with the man in black and with Steinys.
“You put yourself in that situation, didn’t you?,” she asked. Freitag also asked Carlin whether he was in the way of the car door, saying, “So you were in the path of where the door would open?”
“Correct,” Carlin answered, adding, “Or where the window could have rolled down.”
Carlin said after Steinys got back in the car, he notified the men he was calling the police, and that they left before the officer arrived. He also called Marcum to tell him what had happened, Carlin said.
Marcum also testified Tuesday, saying he arrived on the scene shortly after police. He said he was able to give police Steinys’ name after hearing Carlin’s description of his attacker and the white Volkswagen.
Marcum said he had had previous issues with Steinys, and had seen him at various events. “It didn’t surprise me when [Carlin] said who it was,” said Marcum, who also runs Bertino-Tarrant’s family business, Bertino Automotive in Joliet.
Although Steinys has yet to testify, Freitag said there are three defenses for battery: self-defense, defense of another person or defense of one’s property. Polito said it will be up to the village to prove that Steinys did not act in one of those capacities.
With three more witnesses for the plaintiff still to testify, not to mention testimony from the defense, Polito cut the bench trial short, saying he had additional cases to hear Tuesday afternoon at the Plainfield branch court.
An attorney for the Village of Plainfield said two Plainfield police officers and another Bertino-Tarrant campaign worker will also testify. Freitag said only Steinys is expected to testify for the defense.
The trial will resume at 1 p.m. Monday, Aug. 5, at the Will County Courthouse.
A mysterious man dressed all in black and a Joliet firefighter allegedly engaged in a confrontation over political signs for a state Senate race on the eve of the Nov. 6 election.
It boiled over, ending with a third man — Peter Steinys, a campaign worker who months later was elected to the Plainfield Park District Board — being charged in Plainfield with a local ordinance violation of battery.
Steinys later helped install the candidate he was backing, Garrett Peck, as the Plainfield Park District’s new executive director.
This episode of local political intrigue made its way Tuesday to Will County Judge Joseph Polito, who began to sort it all out during a bench trial for Steinys at the branch court in Plainfield.
Steinys’ attorney, Ragan Freitag, said her client was acting in self-defense, as well as trying to defend another person and his property.
According to Tuesday’s testimony, volunteers for Peck and fellow state Senate candidate Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant put out campaign signs near Feeney Road and Route 59 in Plainfield the night before the election.
Michael Carlin of Morris — a Joliet firefighter who said he volunteered to work for the campaign of Tarrant, the eventual winner — testified that he put out pro-Tarrant signs there about 10 p.m. so voters would see them early on Election Day.
He said he returned to the intersection about 11:30 p.m. to check on the signs, and found they had been cut with a knife and tossed into a nearby field. By the light of vehicle headlights on Route 59, he noticed a man wearing all black lying in a ditch on the other side of the road, Carlin testified.
“He was lying there in wait, obviously,” Carlin said.
Carlin crossed the road to confront the man, and told him that only Tarrant’s campaign had permission to put signs there, Carlin testified.
The man in black, whom Carlin said seemed intoxicated, cursed at him and told him they had permission to put Peck’s signs there, too. Carlin testified that he cursed at the man and went back across the street to call a campaign manager.
From his vantage point, Carlin said, he saw the man in black walk toward a white Volkswagen parked near the intersection. Once Carlin confirmed that Tarrant’s campaign had permission to put signs in the field, he walked back across the street toward the car to confront the man again, he testified.
Carlin said he stood by the driver’s side window and “air knocked,” then pantomimed rolling down the car window. Carlin said he told the man in the driver’s seat — who he later found out was Steinys — to remove the signs, and added that he wasn’t looking for trouble and had just had shoulder surgery.
Carlin testified that Steinys then shoved open his car door, hitting Carlin, and said, “I’m sick of this (expletive). Don’t (expletive) with me, I’m going to (expletive) kill you.”
Steinys allegedly grabbed Carlin by the arms, and Carlin twisted away and began to run, he testified.
“I could hear him running after me, still swearing, announcing how he was going to kick my (expletive),” Carlin testified.
Steinys gave up the chase at the urging of the man in black, Carlin said. Meanwhile, Carlin called 911, as well as Tarrant campaign manager Glen Marcum, he testified.
Carlin asked Marcum to come to the scene, because, he said, “I was by myself, and I didn’t feel safe.”
Marcum testified that Carlin was very upset and shaking when Marcum arrived.
When Carlin described the vehicle and told Marcum the license plate number, Marcum knew immediately whom Carlin was dealing with, Marcum testified.
Tarrant campaign workers were familiar with Steinys and his vehicle because of “previous issues” with him during the campaign, the men said.
“It didn’t surprise me,” Marcum testified. “I knew exactly who he was referring to.”
Under cross-examination, Carlin said he did not see anyone tearing up Tarrant’s signs. He also said Steinys never actually hit him.
Freitag did not get the chance to begin her case defending Steinys, as Polito continued the trial to 1 p.m. Aug. 5.
A Will County jury on Wednesday found a former Joliet police officer accused of beating a woman during an arrest not guilty on all counts.
Thomas O’Connor, 37, was charged with aggravated battery after the February 2012 incident in which he punched Shantique Jackson more than 20 times while attempting to arrest her.
The jury deliberated about two hours before returning the verdict before Judge Carla Alessio-Policandriotes.
Afterward, O’Connor briefly thanked the jury; his attorneys, Jeff Tomczak and Dan Rippy; and his family for their support.
“I’m very pleased with the verdict,” Tomczak said. “It’s heartwarming to see the citizens, by way of this jury, standing up for the police officers. It’s good to see that the citizens understand how hard their job is, how dangerous their job is.”
Authorities said O’Connor committed a crime when he repeatedly punched the woman in the head and face before handcuffing her.
Defense attorneys said O’Connor was using his training properly to arrest an unruly person, making split-second decisions under difficult circumstances.
Jackson, 42, claims O’Connor gave her two black eyes, a nasal fracture, a scratch on her eyeball and bruises on her face and scalp on Feb. 9, 2012, in the parking lot of the Star Inn, 2219 W. Jefferson St., Joliet.
O’Connor was fired from the Joliet Police Department after the incident.
Jackson had called police about 1 a.m. to report a fight with her boyfriend, Anthony Layne. Jackson said she was at the motel to see Layne, who was living there, and caught him with another woman.
O’Connor responded to her call, and was the only policeman there until a backup officer arrived after Jackson was in custody, evidence showed.
While O’Connor was there, Jackson and Layne, who attorneys said is a convicted murderer, began to argue again, and Jackson kicked Layne in the groin, according to testimony.
O’Connor then tried to arrest Jackson, slammed her to the hoods of two different cars in the parking lot and punched her in the head more than 20 times, a surveillance video, which was played in the courtroom, shows. It also reveals that O’Connor eventually took Jackson to the ground and hit her a couple of more times before he handcuffed her.
O’Connor testified Wednesday morning that he punched Jackson, who is about the same size as him, as many times as necessary to gain control of a chaotic situation.
He was concerned about his safety during the incident, O’Connor said, as Layne and others were around at the time and he was working alone at a motel known as a site for past criminal activity.
Jackson testified Tuesday that she didn’t have a chance to put her hands behind her back before O’Connor began to punch her in the face. O’Connor said he gave her three or four seconds to comply with his order to give him her hands before he hit her.
Jackson resisted O’Connor’s attempts to handcuff her for about 40 seconds, O’Connor said, while he repeatedly yelled at her to give up her hands.
Jackson denied that she tried to resist O’Connor. She was arrested for domestic battery and resisting arrest, but the charges were dropped.
O’Connor said he punched Jackson because it was what he was taught to do to gain control of a situation.
The trial of a Chicago man jailed since October 2007 in connection with a Plainfield murder is set to start Thursday morning.
Jury selection for Ricardo Gutierrez’s trial started and finished Wednesday.
Gutierrez, 23, allegedly gunned down Javier Barrios, who was 18 when he was killed.
Barrios, a Romeoville resident, was first shot by his ex-girlfriend, 24-year-old Gabriela Escutia, police said.
Escutia allegedly set up a rendezvous with Barrios in a field on Route 59 near a Meijer service station. Gutierrez reportedly joined her for the meeting.
Escutia has confessed to shooting Barrios as he sat in his car, according to a complaint for a search warrant. After firing once, the complaint said, the gun jammed.
Escutia cleared the gun but Gutierrez took it from her and shot Barrios twice more, the complaint said. Gutierrez told police he tossed the gun away on Interstate 55 after shooting Barrios, the complaint said, but Escutia believed he held on to it and brought it back to his home in Chicago.
Escutia and Gutierrez were captured at the residence in Chicago. A search of the home failed to turn up the handgun.
Escutia had sought and secured an order of protection against Barrios two and a half weeks prior to the killing. In her petition for the order she claimed Barrios pushed her down, slapped her, and broke her car window and a headlight. Escutia also accused Barrios of harassing her and “calling and leaving messages.”
Escutia’s case remains pending. She has a March 8 court date.
Before picking a jury, prosecutors and Gutierrez’s attorney, Jeff Tomczak discussed what witnesses might be called at the trial and pointed out that a detective who investigated the case, Troy Kivisto, is no longer a member of the Plainfield Police Department.
In January 2011, sources identified Kivisto as the off-duty Plainfield cop who barricaded himself in his car in Chicago’s South Loop. The officer reportedly threatened to harm himself but was coaxed out of the car by Chicago police after about two hours.
A Chicago police spokesman said at the time the off-duty officer was “distraught for personal reasons.”
A source said Kivisto was recently arrested outside Will County.
Elmhurst Patch reported that a Troy A. Kivisto, 46, was arrested twice in November. On Nov. 24, he was charged with trespass and possession of liquor on public property after a woman walked into a garage in the 200 block of North Larch and allegedly saw him crouching behind her vehicle, police said. On Nov. 26, he was charged with criminal trespass after police found him passed out in the back yard of a home in the 200 block of North Larch, police said. He was reportedly taken to Elmhurst Memorial Hospital because he was intoxicated.
Ricardo Gutierrez was 18 in 2007 when he was charged with murder for allegedly taking part in the fatal shooting of a Romeoville teenager in Plainfield.
Jury selection began Wednesday in Gutierrez’s trial in Will County court.
Javier Barrios, 18, was shot to death Oct. 28, 2007, behind a gas station near 135th Street and Route 59.
Police say Gutierrez, now 23, and Barrios’ ex-girlfriend, Gabriela Escutia, are responsible. The two were arrested on first-degree murder charges two days after the shooting.
Escutia’s case has not yet gone to trial.
Gutierrez and Escutia, 24, remain in the Will County Jail in lieu of $5 million bond. At the time of the shooting, the two were allegedly dating, authorities said.
Witnesses said they heard shots ring out in the late afternoon near the gas station, saw a man stagger into a field south of the station and collapse, and watched his assailants drive away.
Barrios was pronounced dead at the scene.
Earlier that month, Escutia filed a petition for an order of protection against Barrios, a record that had led detectives to her during their investigation of the shooting, police said.