Not Guilty: DUI Trial Victory in DuPage County | Neil Patel Law

When my client hired me to be his attorney for a DUI in DuPage – we started our normal process – secure all evidence and weigh our options. When I first reviewed the police reports on this case, I thought I might lose.  But then I got the videos and start comparing the two.  I verified things like background and exposure, and I after it all, I think we got some things we can work with here.  At trial, the State’s witnesses don’t present the best versions of their case – Now I got more to work with.  That’s how we got a not guilty on the DUI.

The Illinois State Police had found my client parked on the shoulder of I-355 northbound in DuPage County just after midnight. His car had run out of gas. There was an open Modelo in the center console. His shirt and pants had wet stains on them. He scored 6 out of 6 clues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test — the maximum. And after being Mirandized at the station, he admitted to drinking 12 beers and stated he was under the influence of alcohol.

In this case, the State’s evidence, while superficially powerful, had real and significant gaps — gaps that a judge applying the law strictly would have to reckon with.  But only after a decision is made to take the case to trial.

After a bench trial in the 18th Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, the court found my client not guilty of DUI and not guilty of illegal transportation of open alcohol. He was found guilty only of the petty illegal parking offense, which carried no criminal consequences. The DUI charge — a Class A misdemeanor with potential jail time, mandatory fines, and a permanent criminal record — was defeated.

Here is exactly how that happened, and what it teaches anyone facing a DUI charge in Illinois.

What My Client Was Charged With

The Illinois State Police issued three separate charges following the arrest on I-355 northbound in Milton Township, DuPage County:

• DUI — Alcohol under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2): A Class A misdemeanor for a first offense, carrying up to 364 days in county jail, fines up to $2,500, a mandatory drug and alcohol evaluation, and a minimum one-year statutory summary suspension of driving privileges.
• Transportation or Possession of Open Alcohol by Driver under 625 ILCS 5/11-502(a): A petty offense the State attempted to use to corroborate the DUI.
• Illegal Stopping, Standing, or Parking Where Prohibited under 625 ILCS 5/11-1303: A petty offense for being parked on the highway shoulder. My client was found guilty of this — the only charge nobody was seriously contesting. Its hard to get a not guilty on every ticket – so the focus should be on the most serious tickets instead.

The DUI under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) was what this trial was about. A conviction would have meant a permanent criminal record, mandatory loss of driving privileges, and consequences that follow a person for years. That is what we were fighting. That is what we won.

What the State Actually Has to Prove: The Illinois IPI Standard

Most people charged with DUI do not fully appreciate what the State is required to prove. Drinking followed by driving is not illegal. Smelling like alcohol is not illegal. Even admitting you had beers is not, standing alone, sufficient evidence for a DUI conviction under Illinois law.

Under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2), the offense is driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while “under the influence of alcohol.” The Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 23.29 defines that standard precisely:

“A person is under the influence of alcohol when, as a result of drinking any amount of alcohol, his mental or physical faculties are so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care.“

That phrase — so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care — is the entire ballgame. The State must put evidence in the record that establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this specific person’s ability to drive was actually diminished to that legal threshold. Not that he drank. Not that he smelled like alcohol. Not that he admitted drinking. That his faculties were so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care.

When the State falls short of that standard — even when the facts look uncomfortable — the law requires a not guilty verdict. That is what happened here.

The Police Report vs. The Body Camera

Police reports are written narratives and gives attorneys and outline of expected testimony. Body camera footage is the live record. In DUI cases, those two things are not always the same — and experienced DUI defense attorneys know to treat them as separate pieces of information that must be evaluated against each other.

In this case, the trooper’s written report described my client struggling to provide his driver’s license. The body camera showed him retrieving in approximately 15 seconds — a completely routine interaction. The report’s framing implied difficulty. The video did not support it.

More broadly, the video showed a man who was standing without falling, walking without staggering, and communicating coherently. The trooper’s own Alcohol Drug Influence report — the standardized ISP checklist — reflected this. Balance was noted only as “swaying,” not falling or needing support. Walking was “unsure,” not staggering or stumbling. Turning was “unsure.” Speech had exactly one box checked: “accent.” Nothing else. Not slurred. Not mumbled. Not confused.  The video failed to show “swaying” even.

He knew what city he was in. He knew approximately what time it was. He knew the date and day of the week. These are the cognitive orientation markers that courts weigh when evaluating impairment. On all of them, the video showed a man who was functional.

When a written report’s characterizations diverge from what the camera actually captured, that is not a minor inconsistency. For a judge applying the legal standard rigorously, it becomes a credibility issue that runs through the entire case.

The Field Sobriety Tests

This section gets into something that is almost never explained in DUI case write-ups — and it is one of the most important teaching points from this verdict.

The HGN: 6 of 6 Clues, and Why It Was Not Enough Alone

My client submitted to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and scored 6 out of 6 clues — the maximum possible. That sounds damning. But HGN standing alone, without corroborating physical performance on the balance tests, is a weaker evidentiary foundation than a complete Standardized Field Sobriety Test battery. The court was left with one test result and no others. No PBT or breath sample at the station — he refused the Intoxilyzer EC/IR-II. No blood or urine test. The State had HGN, observations, and an incomplete investigation.

The Walk and Turn Test: What Most People — and Some Officers — Miss

The Walk and Turn is a two-phase standardized field sobriety test developed by NHTSA with eight total scoreable clues. Most people think of it only as the “walk in a straight line” exercise. That misses half the test.

Phase 1 — The Instruction Phase: The officer directs the subject to stand in a heel-to-toe position on a real or imaginary line, arms at the sides, and hold that stance while receiving instructions. Two clues can be scored here: whether the subject cannot keep balance during the instructions, and whether they start the walking phase before being told. But the observations available to a trained officer go beyond those two formal clues. Can the subject get into the starting position at all? Do their feet go heel-to-toe correctly? Do they break the stance before being told to go? Do they sway or stumble while simply standing and listening?

This phase is itself a divided attention task — the subject must simultaneously maintain a physical balance posture and process complex verbal instructions. A thorough DUI investigation treats every moment as an opportunity to memorialize observations. The DUI toolbox that officers must use does not open or close when the walking starts.

Phase 2 — The Walking Phase: Nine heel-to-toe steps forward, a specific pivot turn, nine steps back — counting aloud, watching the feet, arms at the sides. Six additional clues can be scored: missing heel to toe, stepping off the line, stopping while walking, raising arms for balance, an improper turn, and taking the wrong number of steps.

In this case, the trooper completed Phase 1 — the instruction phase. My client assumed the starting position. He held it. He did not break the heel-to-toe stance. He did not stumble getting into position. He did not start too soon. He maintained the stance through the instruction period. He also got into the ready position before declining to continue either balance test.

Here is what that means in court: a refusal does not erase what the camera already recorded. A person who is impaired is severely compromised often struggles to get into the starting stance at all — let alone hold it. The video in this case showed my client getting into position and maintaining it. That evidence was in the record regardless of whether Phase 2 was completed. An experienced officer documents every moment of Phase 1 precisely because it is probative even when the test is not completed. In this case, what the video captured during Phase 1 did not support a picture of severe physical impairment.  Did he break the stance early? Did he struggle to get into the starting stance? Did he mix up left foot and right foot?  Because the trooper just documented it as a refusal, he was unable to comment on what actually happened – good or bad.

The State was left with HGN, written observations that did not match the video, and a field sobriety investigation that was never completed — with the reason for its incompletion being at least partly a language problem that was never explained to the court.

The Language Barrier the State Never Addressed

This is the part of the case that rarely appears in trial write-ups, but it mattered significantly here.

My client is a Spanish speaker. The arresting trooper recognized the communication issue and called for a Spanish-speaking officer, who was present during portions of the investigation. That officer was not called as a witness at trial.

Think about what that means for the record. The back-and-forth that preceded my client declining to continue the balance tests — the exchange that occurred in Spanish, the instructions that may or may not have been clearly communicated, whatever conversation led to his decision to stop — none of that testimony was before the court. The officer who participated in that communication was not there to explain what was said, how it was said, or how my client responded.

This matters in a specific and concrete way. The Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand are divided attention tests. They require the subject to simultaneously perform physical tasks and follow complex verbal instructions. When a language barrier is present, the reliability of any observation about whether instructions were followed or understood is compromised. A thorough DUI investigation — a complete toolbox — documents how instructions were communicated to a non-English-speaking subject. The State could not establish that here because the witness who could explain it was not called.

The absence of the Spanish-speaking officer’s testimony left a gap in the State’s narrative about the balance tests that the court could not bridge with speculation.

The Open Alcohol Charge: What the State Failed to Prove

There was a Modelo can in the center cup holder. The trooper saw it. My client made an awkward attempt to cover it. The State charged illegal transportation of open alcohol under 625 ILCS 5/11-502(a). But charges are not proof, and proof requires evidence in the record.

At trial, the State never asked the trooper whether there was liquid in the can. They never asked whether the can was cold to the touch. They never asked whether the officer detected an odor of alcohol coming specifically from the can, or whether he used his PBT device in passive mode near it to sense the presence of alcohol. Without any of that testimony, the court was being asked to assume the can contained alcohol. Assumption is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I made a deliberate decision not to cross-examine the trooper about the can. This is where trial experience separates attorneys who try cases from attorneys who talk about trying cases.

If I had asked those questions on cross, the trooper would have filled the gaps. A follow-up question — “Was there liquid in the can? Was it cold?” — gives the witness an opportunity to say yes and lock in testimony the State forgot to elicit on direct. I was not going to do the prosecution’s job for them. I knew this judge. He follows the law. If the evidence was not in the record, it was not going to support a conviction. That is precisely what happened. Remind the court of the burden and who has it – its not me or my client, its the State.

Result: not guilty on the open alcohol charge.

Knowing which questions not to ask is a skill that cannot be learned from a book. It comes from trying cases, from knowing the courtroom and the different DUI judges in DuPage, and from having the discipline not to “win” a cross-examination point at the cost of handing the State the evidence they need to win the case.

The Clothes, the Odor, and What Was Not in the Record

My client had wet stains on his shirt and pants. The trooper documented this and noted a strong odor of alcohol. Both observations were in the report. But at trial, the trooper testified to a general odor of alcohol. He did not localize it to my client’s breath. The State did not ask him whether the odor could be emanating from the clothing rather than from the defendant’s breath. The trooper did not state the wet stains could be the result of spilled beer — something that happened to him rather than something he consumed. He was not asked whether a person who has had beer spilled on them can smell strongly of alcohol without being impaired.

I did not ask any of those questions on cross either. That was also intentional. Asking the trooper whether the odor could have come from the clothes invites him to explain why he doesn’t think so — and now the State has testimony on a weak point they never needed to address. The right move was to attack it in closing: the State has the burden, the record contains no testimony localizing the odor to the defendant’s breath, and the court cannot speculate to fill that gap.  No good can come from that – the likely truth was that the client spilled beer on himself – more evidence of impairment.

Miranda Rights and the Statement That Carried No Weight

One of the most widely misunderstood concepts in criminal law — and one that came up directly in this case — is when Miranda rights are actually required.

People arrested for DUI often ask me: “He didn’t read me my rights.” Here is the honest answer: officers are not required to give Miranda warnings at a roadside traffic stop or during a DUI investigation. A Terry stop, a traffic stop, a roadside sobriety investigation — none of these automatically trigger Miranda. The Supreme Court has been clear that Miranda applies to custodial interrogation, and a roadside DUI investigation does not rise to that level.

But the analysis changes the moment an arrest is made. Once a person is in custody — handcuffed, under formal arrest — and is being subjected to questioning, Miranda is required before that questioning begins. Statements obtained in violation of that requirement should be challenged.

In this case, at the moments after my client was placed in handcuffs, he made a statement in response to a question asked by the trooper. That question came immediately following the arrest, before Miranda warnings had been given. Whether the violation was deliberate or inadvertent, the constitutional problem was real: the timing was wrong, the custody had been established, and the Miranda protections had attached.

Again – know your judge.  He knows what was said, but he also knows he cannot consider it.  That means we have a “law judge” –  they follow the law even though the “truth” leads to a different conclusion.  The admissible evidence that remained, measured against the IPI 23.29 standard, was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. For a deeper look at what you should and should not do during a DUI stop in Illinois, see our post on whether to refuse a breath test in Illinois.

The lesson: if you are placed under arrest in Illinois, stop talking. Invoke your right to remain silent. Ask for an attorney. Statements made after arrest in this case were a significant part of the State’s case, and a well-framed constitutional argument rendered the most damaging one a non-factor in the outcome.

Why We Chose a Bench Trial — and Why It Made All the Difference

This was a bench trial — the judge decided the case, not a jury. That was not a default. It was a calculated strategic decision, and in a case like this one, it was the right one.

Here is something I will say plainly, because I think it matters: most DUI trials in Illinois should be bench trials. This is not universally true, but it reflects a real pattern in how cases are won and lost.

A jury in a DUI case brings too much common sense, life experience, bias and judgment into the room. They see a man on the shoulder of an expressway after midnight, open beer in the car, who admitted to 12 beers and said he was drunk — and many will convict. They see a police officer in his nice uniform and say “that carries weight” even though the law says it should not.  That is a human, understandable response. But it is not the legal standard. The legal standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence actually in the record.

Juries often struggle with that distinction when the facts look bad. A judge — particularly an experienced criminal judge who has presided over hundreds of DUI bench trials — applies the law. They know that an open beer can without testimony about its contents is not proven open alcohol. Judges know that a generic odor of alcohol without localized testimony about its source is not proof of impaired driving ability. They know IPI 23.29, and they apply it.  Judges don’t make up their mind until the case is over. Jurors, who aren’t supposed to make up their mind till the end, sometimes still do and even worse, don’t realize they made up their mind already.

In this case, I knew the judge. I had appeared before him. I understood how he evaluated evidence and applied legal standards. The defense strategy — hold the State to their burden, do not fill their gaps on cross, and attack the absence of evidence in closing argument — was designed specifically for a judge who follows the law. In front of a different judge, or a jury, the same strategy carries different risks.

Knowing your judge is part of the practice of criminal defense law. It is not something acquired from reading statutes. It comes from years of trying cases in the same courtrooms. If you are charged with a DUI in DuPage County, hire an attorney who has been in that courthouse — not one learning it for the first time on your case. See our full case results for a broader picture of our trial record in both DuPage and Will County.

The First Offense Reality: Why Fighting Was the Right Call

There is something important I want to say about the decision to take this case to trial — because it is a conversation every DUI defense attorney has with first-offense clients, and most do not have it honestly.

For a first DUI in Illinois, courts have sentencing discretion. With the right mitigation and other information we gather — completing a drug and alcohol evaluation, following any treatment recommendations, no aggravating factors , good character — an experienced DUI defense attorney in DuPage will secure a court supervision sentence for their client, even after a trial. Supervision, if successfully completed, does not result in a conviction on your record. It is a real and often appropriate resolution, and I have helped many clients achieve it.  It keeps your license valid and means no jail.

But supervision isn’t just a slap on the wrist either. It still appears on your driving abstract.  It still means conditions, costs, and time. And in this case — where the evidence had genuine, defensible weaknesses — going to trial was the correct call.

The worst realistic outcome was supervision. The best outcome was what we got: a full acquittal, no conviction, and the ability to potentially pursue expungement of the arrest record entirely. You never get to not guilty without trying.  You have to evaluate the actual evidence honestly and without fear and overcome fear in order to try.

I thought I might lose this case. But the evidence gave us something to work with, my client was a first-time offender with everything to gain and a manageable fallback if we did not prevail, and the I knew the judge would follow the law. Those factors, taken together, made trial the right choice. That kind of analysis — honest, experience-based, specific to your case — is what you should expect from the attorney you hire. Check out our post on five recent DUI victories in Will County for more examples of how we evaluate and fight these cases.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances. The case described in this article is a real matter handled by The Law Offices of Neil Patel. All client names and personally identifying information have been removed to protect confidentiality. This post is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have been charged with DUI or any criminal offense in Illinois, consult a qualified defense attorney regarding your specific situation.