;

D. Guy for DUI!

Experienced Illinois DUI Defense Attorneys

driving under the influenceThe Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC has 100 years of combined experience handling DUI cases. If you have been charged with DUI (DWI), it is vital that you have an experienced and knowledgeable lawyer on your side. At the Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC we know that a DUI conviction can change your life in an instant. You may lose your driver’s license or be forced to spend time in jail. To defend your rights and your freedom, you need skilled legal representation. The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC has experience successfully handling DUI cases.

DUI charges can be complicated. There are many issues involved in every DUI charge. Each detail could greatly impact your case. A police officer has specific procedures he or she must follow and handle correctly. Being a former prosecutor, David Guy Stevens is very familiar with those procedures. He has worked closely with and has instructed law enforcement on all areas of DUI, including; field sobriety testing, breath instrument operation, and report writing. Your case will be thoroughly investigated. The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC will work hard to assure that your rights are protected.

The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC provides strong, experienced DUI defense representation. We handle all types of DUI and DUI-related cases, including illegal drug and prescription drug related DUI and DUI resulting in an accident with personal injury and death.

This firm understands that every DUI case is different – different client, different circumstances, different evidence. Northern Illinois and Suburban Chicago DUI attorney David Stevens views each case and each client as a unique circumstance. However, the commitment to aggressive representation and professional advice is consistent with each client.

At a free initial consultation, David Stevens will look for ways to resolve the case with the least possible harm to the client, the client’s livelihood, and the client’s liberty and freedom.

An experienced DUI lawyer should challenge the stop before proceeding to the merits of the state’s claim. David Stevens begins each initial visit by investigating why the client was stopped and how the evidence was obtained. If warranted, he will immediately file a petition in an endeavor to prevent the summary suspension of the client’s driver’s license.

Restoring, Protecting Driving Privileges

The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC can assist with the reinstatement of our driver’s license if it has been suspended or revoked for DUI.

If you hold a commercial driver’s license, you may face harsh penalties for DUI even if you were driving your personal vehicle. Our attorneys will explain your rights and help you protect your privileges.

Illinois Defense for Multiple DUI Offenders

In Illinois, the penalties increase if you are charged or arrested and subsequently convicted, for multiple DUI offenses. Not only are you facing felony charges with mandatory jail sentencing, but your driver’s license could be revoked for a period of 10 years, if not permanently.

At the Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC, we represent clients in multiple DUI offense cases in Chicago, Wheaton, Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, and Naperville, surrounding Cook, DuPage, Kane, Will and Kendall Counties.

Recent Case Law and News:

  • DUI 1st Dist.

    People v. Strobel, 2014 IL App (1st) 130300 (June 30, 2014) Cook Co., 2d Div. (PIERCE) Reversed and remanded.

    Court’s discovery sanction barred State from presenting any testimony or video at trial as to DUI field sobriety tests due to lack of contemporaneous audio recording. Sanction was too harsh, as no evidence in record to support inference or suggestion that police or prosecution intentionally or inadvertently destroyed any preexisting discoverable evidence. (HARRIS and LIU, concurring.)

  • DUI 2d Dist.

    People v. Kathan, 2014 IL App (2d) 121335 (August 13, 2014) Lake Co. (SPENCE) Affirmed.

    Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of “drug-driving”, after she admitted to ingesting Xanax and Vicodin within two hours of being stopped. Circumstantial evidence is relevant to prove presence of controlled substance. State presented sufficient evidence to show presence of controlled substance, as her level of impairment in confused behavior, failing field sobriety tests, weaving, and HGN test all were basis to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that drugs remained in her system. Defendant had burden to show that her use of medications was exempted as authorized by prescription. (SCHOSTOK and HUDSON, concurring.)

  • DUI 2d Dist.

    People v. Thomas, 2014 IL App (2d) 130660 (May 29, 2014) Du Page Co. (McLAREN) Affirmed.

    This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress cannabis that was seized from defendant, who was passenger in vehicle stopped for alleged violation of section 3-413(b) of Ill. Vehicle Code, where parts of trailer hitch on vehicle obscured some numbers on license plate. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that officer should not have stopped vehicle because section 3-413(b) only prohibits obstructive objects that are attached to license plate and does not pertain to obstructions, like trailer hitch, that are not attached to license plate. Appellate Court further noted that officer had conceded that he was able to clearly see entire plate once he had stopped and approached vehicle.

  • DUI 2d Dist.

    People v. Harris, 2014 IL App (2d) 120990 (May 22, 2014) Boone Co. (McLAREN) Affirmed as modified in part and reversed in part; remanded.

    Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of failure to stop after accident involving personal injury and two counts of DUI. Court erred in admitting breathalyzer machine logbook into evidence, as State failed to lay necessary foundation as State presented no testimony that officer documented and signed logbook at time of certification of accuracy of machine or within a reasonable time thereafter. (BURKE and HUDSON, concurring.)

  • Statutory Summary Suspension 5th Dist.

    People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308 (January 24, 2014) Jackson Co. (THOMAS) Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed.

    Defendant was charged with DUI, and statutory summary suspension (SSS) of his license commenced. Two days later, Defendant was charged with driving on a suspended license, but SSS was rescinded six days later. For crime of driving on suspended license, rescission of SSS is of prospective effect only. Subsequent order of rescission of SSS does not render invalid charge of driving on suspended license. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

  • Aggravated DUI 3d Dist.

    People v. Hambrick, 2012 IL App (3d) 110113 (July 24, 2012) Kankakee Co. (CARTER) Affirmed.

    Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of two counts of aggravated DUI, from incident resulting in death after her passenger was ejected from convertible. Despite its misstatements as to legal standard, court exercised discretion in reviewing evidence and pronouncing Defendant’s sentence. Court explicitly addressed factors in mitigation and aggravation, and concluded that sentence of three years would have deterrent effect and minimize hardship to family, as Defendant’s extended family can care for her three children during her incarceration, and her minor daughters will continue to receive financial support from social security payments from prior death of their father. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

  • DUI 3d Dist

    People v. Harmon, 2012 IL App (3d) 110297 (July 19, 2012) Will Co. (WRIGHT) Reversed.

    Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of DUI and improper lane usage. State presented no evidence as to unit of measurement used by hospital in calculating level of alcohol present in Defendant’s blood serum. Thus, court’s inference, that “221 on admission” on his hospital blood test results meant 0.221 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, was improperly based on speculation. (McDADE and O’BRIEN, concurring.)

  • Ditka Son’s DUI Case Raises Question — Does Chewing Tobacco Skew Sobriety Tests?

    A court hearing for the son of Chicago Bears coaching legend Mike Ditka highlighted an unusual possible foil for a roadside breath-alcohol test: chewing tobacco.(Chicago Tribune)

  • DUI 3d Dist.

    People v. Herman, 2012 IL App (3d) 110420 (December 13, 2012) Will Co. (WRIGHT) Reversed.

    (Modified upon denial of rehearing 1/14/13.) Village police officer issued traffic citations to Defendant, including for DUI. Before trial, Village amended citations to strike out State of Illinois as prosecuting authority and replace it with Village, but did not amend citations to allege only violations of municipal code. Village did not acquire authority to prosecute Defendant for DUI under Vehicle Code, and State did not give its permission to allow Village to prosecute. DUI conviction is thus reversed due to lapse in prosecutorial authority. (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.)

  • Unlawful Use

    People v. Vente, 2012 IL App (3d) 100600 (June 6, 2012) Will Co. (O’BRIEN) Reversed.

    Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of driving while controlled substance present in her urine. Evidence at trial established that Defendant had morphine and codeine in her urine sample, and presence of both was consistent with use of prescription cough medicine; and that her prescription was valid and she had taken medication per prescribed dosage. Thus, presence of controlled substances was not result of “unlawful use or consumption.” (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.)

  • Ex-Lake County Judge is Cleared of DUI but Convicted of Resisting Arrest

    A four-year legal fight over DUI charges against Lake County’s then-chief judge ended swiftly Monday when he was cleared of drunken driving after a one-day trial.(Chicago Tribune)

  • Motion to Supress 3d Dist.

    People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781 (July 6, 2012) Will Co. (KARMEIER) Reversed and remanded.

    Defendant was charged with aggravated DUI and aggravated driving while license revoked (DWLR). Officer’s observations justified investigatory traffic stop, when he twice saw Defendant deviate from his own lane into another lane for no obvious reason. Motor Vehicle Code provision for improper lane usage contains no distance requirement; thus, it is irrelevant to officer’s justification for investigatory stop whether motorist has driven for any appreciable distance in more than one lane. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

To our clients:With a focus on personal service, we are ready and willing to take your call and answer all your questions.Call Today (630) 486-1080

2012 Illinois DUI Penalties Chart

DUI charges can be complicated. There are many issues involved in every DUI charge. Each detail could greatly impact your case.

DUI Penalties Chart

Locations

Call 630-486-1080 • Firm Wide Fax 630-622-1119

Dave Stevens is a great attorney and a tireless advocate for his clients.

-Attorney James Flores Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.