The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/all/20041010210021/http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com:80/case-of-the-week.htm

Case of the Week

Because Appellate Court decisions are so critical to legal defenses in DUI/DWI arrests, Mr. Head has decided to feature a "Case of the Week" for the web site, so that the reader can learn more about traffic stops, evidence in DUI/DWI cases and errors made at trial that can help win cases. Some reported cases do not deal directly with DUI/DWI, but relate to some critical issues, such as search and seizure questions.

Each week, we will add a new case and ARCHIVE the previous week's case, so that these can be reviewed for up to one full year after being featured. In any event, the reader should understand that a decision in ONE jurisdiction may be either more or less favorably decided in YOUR jurisdiction. Always consult competent DUI/DWI defense counsel before assuming that you have little chance of success at trial.

____________________________________________________________________

  • Lomas v. State. No. 5-03-0348 (Ill.App. Dist.5, Decided 06/11/2004)

    The Lomas case from the Illinois Court of Appeals offers a rare judicial opinion that appropriately ridicules a police officer’s illegal stop of a motor vehicle based upon a pure “hunch”.  Reversing the felony drug possession conviction and jail sentence, the appellate court seems to want to remind police everywhere that guesswork won’t comport with the Fourth Amendment of our U. S. Constitution.

    Although many countries allow their law enforcement officers unlimited right to pull over any vehicle for no particular reason at all, the United States Constitution requires SOME identifiable crime, equipment violation, defective tag, etc., as the REASON for the pullover.  See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968) and Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996).  Some state constitutions provide even GREATER protections to their citizens, as is permitted to be done by our federal constitution.  Think of FEDERAL constitutional law as a “floor” for your rights---no state can drop below this standard.  A state government CAN, however, provide a higher “ceiling” for its citizens.

    CLICK HERE to read more on this case.