In a Mays Law Office new record, Attorneys Steve Mays and John Orth scored double NOT GUILTY verdicts in an Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) and Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC) case in Dane County. The client, BS, was stopped for operating without required lamps lighted shortly before 10:00 p.m. on Johnson Street near the UW-Madison campus last summer. When the officer inquired whether BS had had anything to drink, she candidly informed him that she had just had two beers at the UW Memorial Union Terrace 20 to 30 minutes prior. The officer had her exit her vehicle and perform field sobriety tests amid heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic. After deeming her performance unsatisfactory, he placed her under arrest for OWI. BS submitted to an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test that yielded a result of .08. The officer issued her citations for Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) and Operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC).

With no intention of advising BS to plead to either of these charges, Attorneys Mays and Orth requested that the matter be set for trial, originally scheduled for November of 2022. With trial approaching, Attorney Orth filed with the District Attorney’s office a scholarly article, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as a “learned treatise,” regarding research studies regarding the physiological absorption, distribution and elimination of alcohol in the human body. This notified the prosecution of his intention to mount a blood alcohol “curve defense.” The fundamental basis of such a defense is the proposition that at the time of driving, there may be unabsorbed alcohol in a driver’s stomach that was absorbed into the bloodstream between the time of driving and the time that an evidentiary chemical test of blood, breath or urine was conducted. This, in turn, would lead to a test result higher than what the driver’s alcohol level would have been at the time of driving – the pivotal time of essence in a PAC charge. Rather than recognize that there might be a fatal flaw in the case and offer to resolve on reduced charges, the prosecution requested an adjournment in order to secure a toxicologist supplied by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Chemical Test Section. This was a mistake the prosecution would come to regret. The request was granted, and the matter was rescheduled for trial to March of 2023.

When the matter proceeded to trial, the State’s first witness was the arresting officer. On direct examination he testified to his extensive training in the detection and apprehension of intoxicated drivers, the damning indicators of intoxication displayed by BS during her performance of field sobriety testing, and the Intoximeter test results showing that she was over the legal limit (the legal limit being .08 and above). Finally, he testified to what the State attempted to characterize as practically a confession – when asked at the end of her processing if she thought she was under the influence of intoxicants at this time, she responded “yes” (which BS herself was able to later address as being the result of simply feeling worn down and defeated and willing to say whatever the officer wanted in order to simply get the ordeal over with).

Attorney Mays’ cross-examination revealed just how little weight the officer’s evaluation of BS’s performance on field sobriety testing should carry. BS’s performance on the balance-related field sobriety tests (the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests) was perfectly fine, something the jury could see with their own eyes through body cam footage. It was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test that was put forth by the officer and the prosecution as the most compelling evidence of BS’s impairment. The officer testified that he observed six out of six possible clues of impairment and that the test – when administered properly – could correctly identify subjects with an alcohol concentration of .08 or above 87% of the time. However, as Attorney Mays made abundantly clear through his extensive cross-examination, whatever value that test might have had was severely compromised by the circumstances under which it was administered (i.e., that it was not administered properly). Confronted about his OWI training with the officer’s own National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) training manual and other training materials – said training Attorney Mays, himself, had received over the years along with periodic training updates – the officer had to reluctantly concede that the multitude of flashing lights (including the officer’s own emergency lights), passing traffic, and other distractions could induce other types of nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes) and he had no way to tell whether the nystagmus he observed was due to alcohol consumption or anything else. This was observed on the arresting officer’s backup officer’s body worn camera – which was clear neither the arresting officer nor the prosecution had given any attention to, much less probably even seen, prior to the trial. By the time Attorney Mays was finished with him, the arresting officer simply had no choice but to admit that the manner in which he administered the test completely invalidated the HGN test results – the prosecution’s claimed “most damning” field sobriety test evidence.

The prosecution then called its expert toxicologist, no less than the Chief of the Chemical Test Section. On direct examination the State’s expert attempted a technique known as speculative retrograde extrapolation (although prosecution witnesses will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the entire name and will simply call it “retrograde extrapolation”). This technique ignores the reality that a person’s alcohol level when charted over time takes on a curve shape, rising during the absorptive phase, peaking, then declining during the eliminative phase. Instead, the manner in which State toxicologists calculate a speculated alcohol concentration at an earlier point in time rests on the presumption that the subject was in the eliminative phase throughout the elapsed time, in this case roughly an hour between the time of driving and the time of testing. Relying on this baseless presumption, the State’s expert opined that BS’s alcohol concentration at the time of driving was likely as high as .10, rather than .08. The prosecution further elicited testimony that based on the Department of Transportation’s standard blood alcohol chart, the maximum alcohol concentration after drinking two beers for a female of BS’s weight would have been approximately .05 – the implication being that BS was lying when she told the officer that she had only had two beers. Again, relying on unfounded assumptions, this calculation was predicated on those two beers having been 4.2% alcohol by volume (ABV) “light” 12-ounce beers. But as anyone who has enjoyed a beer or two at the Memorial Union Terrace would know, that assumption is unlikely to hold true.

Attorney Other started off cross-examination by forcing the State’s expert to acknowledge the slew of shortcomings inherent in breath alcohol testing, from the Intoximeter EC/IR being programmed to accept test results with a whopping margin of error of .02 to the fact that it neither of the two required samples to have an “acceptable” test result, reflects the alcohol concentration at the time of driving nor even reliably correlates to a blood alcohol concentration, the actual source of impairment. Attorney Orth then directed the toxicologist to repeat her calculation of peak alcohol, but this time replace the two 12-ounce light beers with two 15-ounce beers, one with an ABV of 5.2% and one with an ABV of 6.3% (which BS herself would later verify on the witness stand – those being a Fat Tire and Fantasy Factory brands). Now the peak alcohol level came out to approximately .08 – entirely consistent with BS’s statements to the officer and right in line with the test result obtained an hour after driving. After thorough questioning regarding the body of research on the subject of delayed alcohol absorption, the dubiousness of the (speculative) retrograde extrapolation technique, and the unlikelihood that the assumptions relied on in reaching her initial estimates bore any resemblance to the reality of this specific case, the State’s own expert had to concede that she simply could not say what BS’s alcohol concentration was at the time of driving and that it may well have been significantly below the .08 legal limit. With her retrograde extrapolation having been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than meaningless algebra masquerading as science, the State’s expert ultimately wound up being a more effective witness for the defense than the prosecution.

Following closing arguments Attorney Orth asked the jury to return not guilty verdicts. A mere 27 minutes later, they did precisely that.

If you got pulled over for driving under the influence (DUI) and admitted to drinking while on the side of the road, you might be thinking that it’s time to plead guilty. After all, you confessed to the crime, so it must be time to accept the consequences and try to move on.

Right?

Wrong. Even if you told your arresting officer that you had been drinking, you may still have several options for fighting your DUI charge in Wisconsin. Here, Middleton DUI defense lawyer Stephen E. Mays discusses five ways that you may be able to avoid a DUI conviction:

4 Ways to Avoid a DUI Conviction Even If You Admitted to Drinking

1. Showing that Your Admission Doesn’t Constitute a DUI Confession

Just because you admitted to drinking, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you were drunk behind the wheel. For example, let’s say the arresting officer asked you if you had been drinking, and you simply responded “Yes.” The officer then asked you to step out of the car, and the officer proceeded to administer the breathalyzer and administer the field sobriety tests (FSTs) without asking you any additional questions.

In this scenario, what did you actually admit? All you admitted to was that you had been drinking at some point in the past. This leaves open key questions such as:

• How many drinks did you have?
• What types of drinks did you have?
• How long ago did you have your last drink?

To secure a conviction, prosecutors must be able to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With these types of key questions left unanswered, your “confession” does relatively little to help build the prosecution’s case against you.  

Now, what if you said something else? For example, what if the officer asked if you knew why he pulled you over, and you responded, “Probably because I was driving drunk.” Even in this scenario, your words aren’t necessarily proof that you are guilty of DUI.

Why? One reason is that you might be wrong. Even if you think you are intoxicated, you might not be—at least not for purposes of Wisconsin’s DUI statute. Proving intoxication requires clear evidence and expert analysis—and most private citizens (and even most police officers) don’t have the expertise needed to accurately evaluate a person’s level of alcohol impairment.

2. Showing that the Prosecution Doesn’t Have Enough Other Evidence to Convict You

Given that any admissions you may have made on the side of the road are inherently unreliable, prosecutors will need more than just your own words to convict you—or at least they should if you have an experienced DUI defense lawyer on your side. With this in mind, another way to avoid a conviction after you admit to drinking is to show that prosecutors don’t have enough other evidence of guilt.

To secure a conviction, prosecutors must be able to prove that either: (i) you were “incapable of safely driving” due to your alcohol consumption; or, (ii) you had a “prohibited alcohol concentration” (i.e., your BAC was 0.08 or above if you are over 21). Proving that you were “incapable of safely driving” requires more than just evidence that you were drinking, and proving that your BAC was over the legal limit requires a valid breath, blood, or urine test. If prosecutors don’t have the evidence they need, then you are entitled to a “not guilty” verdict regardless of whether you were drunk behind the wheel.

3. Asserting Your Constitutional Rights to Keep Your Admission Out of Court

Another way an experienced DUI defense lawyer may be able to help you avoid a conviction is by keeping your admission (and potentially the prosecution’s other evidence) out of court. This may be an option if:

• The police stopped you in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; 
• The police arrested you in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; or,
• The police interrogated you in violation of your Fifth Amendment rights.

Prosecutors cannot use evidence that the police obtain in violation of your constitutional rights. So, if the police or prosecutors violated your rights—and if your lawyer can prove it—this can also serve to protect you even if you were driving under the influence at the time of your arrest.

4. Negotiating a Plea Bargain that Reduces Your Charge

Finally, even if you can’t challenge the prosecution’s evidence, you may still be able to avoid the severe consequences of a DUI conviction by negotiating a plea bargain. For example, in many cases, it will be possible to negotiate a plea to a “wet reckless”—essentially a reckless driving charge that involves alcohol consumption.

The penalties for reckless driving in Wisconsin are far less severe than the penalties for driving under the influence. The long-term consequences of pleading guilty to reckless driving are far less severe than getting convicted of DUI as well. With all of that said, you never want to plead guilty if you don’t have to, so you should talk to an experienced DUI defense lawyer before you make any decisions about how to approach your case.

Contact Us for a Free DUI Defense Consultation in Middleton, WI

If you are facing a DUI charge in Wisconsin and you admitted to drinking, we strongly encourage you to contact us for more information about how to handle your case. To arrange a free, no-obligation consultation with an experienced DUI defense lawyer in Middleton, call 608-291-9402 or get in touch with us online today.

I am injured and collecting Wisconsin Workers Compensation Benefits, my Workers Compensation Adjuster says that I do not need an attorney, is this true?

While it is true that many workers compensation programs were originally developed to relieve the injured worker from the cost of hiring an attorney, that only applies in a perfect world where the work injury claim has been fully conceded/accepted and the worker is getting ALL the benefits that he is entitled, without argument, delay, or hassle from the workers compensation insurance carrier.

Sadly, rarely does this “Perfect World” happen when a Wisconsin worker is injured.  The workers compensation insurance carrier always has an eye out looking for an opportunity to deny the claim, lessen its exposure and responsibility.  With that mindset, the insurance company looks for any reason to not pay, delay and ultimately find a reason to deny the claim.  These carriers have many tricks up their sleeves to either never pay or stop benefits.  They may claim that the injury never occurred at work, or that the injury is personal to the worker, and therefore not related to what happened on the job.  Or, they may claim that the worker did not report the injury timely, or that the factual rendition of how the injury occurred is not true.  Sometimes, the carrier just ignores the workers and does not even respond to the report of injury and just hopes that the worker will just go away.  Mays Law Office has seen and heard it all from workers compensation insurance carriers.  When hiring an attorney, the injured worker needs to make sure that they choose an attorney with years of experience representing injured workers and aggressively advocates to ensure that the worker is getting every benefit they are entitled to under the law.

Even if you are not quite ready to hire an attorney, at the very least, make a call to Mays Law Office for a free consultation to discuss with Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays if you are being treated lawfully by the insurance company and getting every monetary benefit under the law.

During most consultations, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays can spot concerning issues, such as advising on benefits not told by the workers compensation insurance carrier.  Such benefits, like reimbursement of .51 cents a mile for mileage for medical treatment, therapy, and pharmacy runs.  Most injured workers are never told that they have to make the request to the claims adjuster for reimbursement of mileage if the claim has been accepted.  Or perhaps, the injured worker is having her privacy violated by the workers compensation nurse who shows up at her medical appointment and insists on going into the examination room and participates in the medical appointment by asking questions of the doctor.  Attorney Pierobon Mays will caution the injured worker that they can deny such access and forbid this intrusion.  Or, when it comes to who to treat with, injured workers do not know that they can choose their own treating doctor.  The workers compensation insurance carrier cannot dictate the workers medical treatment.  In Wisconsin, the injured worker chooses who they will treat with.

Oftentimes, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays gets calls from an injured worker because they have been instructed that they have to go see a workers compensation insurance doctor, termed “Independent Medical Examiner” or an “IME.”  Ironically, there is nothing independent about these doctors.  These doctors are hired by the workers compensation insurance companies with a bent toward denying benefits.  These doctors do not offer medical treatment.  They see the injured worker for 15-30 minutes, at a rented facility, ask a few questions, all in the hopes that the worker will say or do something inconsistent to give them a bit of information to use against the worker.  Like, when one injured worker told the doctor that, before the injury, he enjoyed weightlifting.  The alleged Independent Medical Examiner then used this information of weightlifting against the injured worker claiming that the injury was not caused by the lifting of the 100 pound machine which caused the worker to drop to his knees screaming in pain because he herniated a disk in his back.

During your initial consultation and conversation with Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays, she will spot these troubling issues and guide you accordingly.  Such as how does an injured worker interact and communicate with these IME doctors?  Attorney Pierobon Mays will quickly correct that this doctor appointment should be seen as an “adverse medical doctor, ” not your friend or advocate.  Attorney Pierobon Mays will instruct that every injured work needs to take and keep a silent witness at their side in this adverse appointment.  This is a new change in the law that Attorney Pierobon Mays help initiate in Wisconsin.  Attorney Pierobon Mays will provide the injured worker with other Do’s and Don’ts in preparation for this adverse appointment.   Keep in mind, these doctors have marching orders from the workers compensation carrier to act in their favor, which is generally not in line with the injured worker’s interest of collecting benefits.  So, even if the injured worker is getting benefits now, it is always good to have a familiar voice to call on in the event the insurance carrier wants the worker to see their doctor/IME.  Establishing a relationship with an experienced workers compensation attorney early on will provide confidence.  Confidence that, if an attorney is needed in the future then a trusted relationship with Mays Law Office to advocate and collect has already been established.

If a workers compensation attorney is necessary, under the Wisconsin law, workers’ compensation lawyers can only charge up to 20% of the disputed amount recovered.  This attorney fee is deducted from the injured workers recovered compensation.  With this, the injured worker does not pay until they receive compensation for their injury or illness.

Nothing can compensate pain and suffering following a work injury, however receiving workers compensation benefits under the Wisconsin worker compensation laws is an important step on the way back to recovery.  Lisa Pierobon Mays helps guide injured workers through the Wisconsin workers compensation system, working to ensure that the necessary paperwork is properly filed.  Lisa stays involved in all of her clients’ claims and she never turns her client’s over to a paralegal.  Lisa is involved from the first contact, through doctor appointments, to preparing the claim and client for a potential hearing, often pushing the workers compensation insurance company to make a fair settlement or defend itself at hearing.

Lisa is not intimidated by any employer or insurance carrier.  She has taken on the big box retailers, nationally recognized organizations, and institutions in advocating for her clients.  For more information, call for a free same day consultation at 608-291-7609

If you are facing a DUI charge in Wisconsin, you need to defend yourself by all means available. There are several ways to fight a DUI charge, and mounting a successful defense starts with understanding which defenses you can use based on the facts and circumstances of your case.

It also starts with understanding what “defenses” won’t actually protect you.

When you are at risk for a DUI conviction, mistakes can be costly. While there are several mistakes you need to avoid, one of the most dangerous mistakes you can make is saying something that prosecutors can use against you. Too often, we see people say things that they think will protect them, but that in reality only serve to help seal their conviction.

What Not to Say When Facing a DUI Charge in Wisconsin

What are some examples of the things you need to avoid saying when facing a DUI charge in Wisconsin? Here are 10 common “defenses” that not only won’t protect you, but that can also do more harm than good:

1. You Thought You Were Okay to Drive

When facing a DUI charge in Wisconsin, it doesn’t matter whether you intentionally broke the law. If you are under the influence “to a degree which renders [you] incapable of safely driving” or your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is above the legal limit, you can be found guilty of DUI. If you tell the police or the judge that you thought you were okay to drive, this can effectively amount to a confession that you got behind the wheel after drinking.

2. You Just Had One Beer, Shot, or Glass of Wine

While most people are aware of Wisconsin’s BAC limit (which is 0.08% for most drivers), far fewer people are aware that you can be charged with DUI even if your BAC is below the legal limit. This is based on the language in Wisconsin’s DUI statute quoted above. Even if you just have one beer, shot, or glass of wine, if this renders you “incapable of safely driving,” you can be convicted of DUI in Wisconsin.

3. You Were Only a Little Bit Buzzed

For this same reason, you should not tell the police or the judge that you were “only a little bit buzzed.” In Wisconsin, any evidence of alcohol impairment can be enough to justify a conviction.

4. You Thought You Waited Long Enough Before Driving

If you think you might be too drunk to drive, the right thing to do is wait until you are sober before getting behind the wheel. But, even if you try to do the right thing, you can still be convicted of DUI if you don’t wait long enough. This is similar to saying that you thought you were okay to drive. While it might seem like a sound defense, it simply isn’t.

5. You Didn’t Have Any Other Way to Get Home

When you are too drunk to drive, not having another way to get home is not an excuse for getting behind the wheel. If your designated driver left without you or your Uber driver never showed, the law says that you needed to find another way home.

6. You Weren’t Driving When the Police Approached Your Vehicle

There is a common misconception that you can’t be convicted if you aren’t driving when the police approach your vehicle. We’re not sure where this comes from, but it is dangerously incorrect. Even if you are parked when the police approach you, it is still very possible to face a DUI conviction.

7. You Weren’t Driving Dangerously

Another common misconception is that you can avoid a DUI conviction if you weren’t driving dangerously. In Wisconsin, you can be convicted of DUI if you are “incapable of safely driving” or your BAC is over the legal limit. Prosecutors do not need to prove both. So, even if you are fully capable of maintaining control of your vehicle, if you blow above the legal limit on the breathalyzer, this alone can be enough to establish your guilt in court.

8. The Police Stopped You for a Nonmoving Traffic Violation (Not for Drunk Driving)

When the police conduct a lawful traffic stop, they can pursue charges for any traffic violation or criminal offense for which they find probable cause to make an arrest. This means that even if a police officer pulled you over for a broken taillight, if the officer smelled alcohol on your breath after pulling you over, the officer acted appropriately in testing you for alcohol intoxication or impairment.

9. The Police Didn’t Read Your Miranda Rights

Under the U.S. Constitution, the police must read your rights before interrogating you in custody. However, police officers are not required to read your rights before they make an arrest on the side of the road. This means that if you confessed to drinking and driving before your arrest, your confession could be admissible even though the arresting officer hadn’t yet read your Miranda rights.

10. You’re Sorry and You Won’t Do It Again

In Wisconsin, being sorry isn’t enough to save you from a DUI conviction. If you admit to driving under the influence—even if you say that you will never do it again—you can expect to be convicted in court.

While none of these “defenses” will protect you, as we mentioned in the introduction, there are several ways to fight a DUI in Wisconsin. When you meet with a lawyer about your DUI case, your lawyer will examine all of the options you may have for beating your DUI charge. Before you say anything that could make it harder (if not impossible) to fight your DUI, you owe it to yourself to seek advice from an experienced defense lawyer.

Discuss Your Case with a DUI Defense Lawyer in Madison, WI

If you are facing a DUI charge in Wisconsin, we strongly encourage you to contact us before you say anything that could jeopardize your defense. To arrange a free and confidential consultation as soon as possible, call 608-291-7609 or send us a message online now. 

Reflecting back on 2022, the criminal defense side of Mays Law Office, LLC had some very interesting cases with some spectacular results.  A few highlights from Attorneys Stephen Mays and John Orth warrant mention:

Client N.J. avoided a felony conviction (fourth offense Operating While Intoxicated), which would have sent him to Federal Prison due to him being on Federal Probation at the time.  (New felony conviction = revocation of federal probation).  While driving at a time the State was unable to establish, Client N.J. went off the road and hit a barn on someone’s property.  After the accident, Client N.J. went home and consumed alcohol.  There were witnesses to this after-driving alcohol consumption.  The arresting agency arrived at the scene of the accident approximately five (5) hours after the accident took place.  They concluded that N.J. was the driver, went to his residence, and arrested him for a fourth offense operating while intoxicated (OWI).  Client N.J. originally admitted driving, but no time was established, and he told the police he drank quite a bit after arriving home.  Client N.J. originally retained Mays Law Office, LLC, thinking this was his third offense OWI.  Client N.J. had a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .074 at the time he was arrested – which made Client N.J. under the legal limit for driving on a 3^rd offense (.08).  The State later discovered the existence of a third prior OWI conviction – making this current allegation a 4^th Offense, where his legal limit now would be .02.  Attorney Steve Mays was able to convince the State that they could not establish the time of driving, thereby making the BAC test of .074 not legally relevant or admissible in the case as not having been taken within three (3) hours of any time of driving.  Additionally, Attorney Mays also convinced the State that they could not establish that Client N.J. was intoxicated before the accident occurred, rather than having gotten to the .074 level after arriving home following the accident.  In conclusion, the State agreed it could not prove Client N.J. was either intoxicated or had a prohibited alcohol concentration in going off the road and hitting the barn.  Thus, and because Client N.J. had admitted to driving the vehicle which hit the barn, the State agreed to amend the felony fourth offense OWI to a misdemeanor charge of Negligent Operation of a Vehicle off the Highway.  A huge victory for Client N.J. as he avoided the possibility of going to prison and a lifetime driver’s license revocation on the original OWI 4^th charge, as well as having his Federal Probation revoked and sent back to Federal Prison for close to three (3) years.

Client B.M. avoided a hefty prison sentence that a sixth offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) carries by the proactiveness and tenacity demonstrated by Attorney John Orth in this case.  Client B.M. was seen in his vehicle by an officer parked at a closed gas station in the early hours of the morning.  The officer ran the registration and determined that it was valid and that the registered owner possessed a valid driver license.  Client B.M. exited the parking lot and the officer continued patrolling the area.  Approximately 20 minutes later, the same officer saw Client B.M. again parked at a different closed gas station.  The officer stated in his narrative report that this was “suspicious in nature” due to recent calls of burglaries and catalytic converter thefts in the area and he therefore initiated a traffic stop of Client B.M.  Attorney Orth took the position that, while perhaps somewhat unusual, there was nothing inherently “suspicious” about Client B.M.’s behavior, nor could any logical connection be made between the observed conduct and burglary or auto parts theft.  However, perhaps realizing that the grounds upon which he had detained Client B.M. were shaky, the officer conveniently added to his report that Client B.M.’s license plate was obstructed by its frame and therefore the stop could be justified based on an equipment violation.  Client B.M., knowing his plate was not obstructed, took a picture of it immediately upon his release on bail and sent it to Mays Law Office.  But as anyone familiar with the justice system will attest, in these situations, nine times out of ten the officer will simply claim, “That’s not how it was the night of the stop”, and nine times out of ten judges will accept this explanation.  Unfortunately, the officer’s squad video was insufficiently clear to establish the condition of the plate.  However, a careful review of a backup officer’s body cam revealed a split-second window of time in which the plate could clearly be seen.  It was not obstructed and was in precisely the condition depicted in Client B.M.’s photograph.  Armed with a screen capture, Attorney Orth was able to definitively disprove the officer’s claim.  In a motion to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful stop of Client B.M., Attorney Orth argued that the officer was simply and impermissibly acting on a hunch rather than legitimate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of Client B.M.’s 4^th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and that the alleged equipment violation was an outright fabrication.  When the time came for the Court to hear the defense’s suppression motion, rather than allowing his officer to be humiliated on the stand, the prosecuting attorney released the officer from his subpoena and directed him to leave, conceded that the stop was unlawful and moved to dismiss the case in its entirety.  Client B.M. walked out of the courthouse vindicated and no longer facing a prison sentence of up to ten (10) years.

Client F.C. needed Mays Law Office’s services when he was charged with a third offense Operating While Intoxicated (OWI).  Attorney Steve Mays had known Client F.C. personally prior to this incident.  When Client F.C. initially called Attorney Mays for help with his legal case, Attorney Mays spoke to him and, at Client F.C.’s request, he also spoke with Client F.C.’s brother, mother and other family members.  This was because Client F.C. was going to be entering an in-patient Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) treatment facility.  Client F.C. wanted Attorney Mays to be able to be in contact with his family while he was in the treatment facility.  This ended up being one of the best things, and a big part of the success Client F.C. would end up having in his journey toward sobriety.  Attorney Mays joined forces with the family to be an ever-present source of support for Client F.C.  Throughout the case, Attorney Mays spoke with, or had some contact with, both Client F.C. or his family, at least once a week to stay apprised as to his well-being and status in the treatment facility.  While Client F.C. ultimately chose to accept full responsibility for his actions and plead guilty to the OWI charge, Client F.C. was able to take back control of his life by becoming sober.  He attributes this to his voluntary entry into the Sober Living House and the support of Attorney Mays and Client F.C.’s family unit – both of which continued to support him and his goal of changing his life.  In a recent conversation with Client F.C., he proudly relayed to Mays Law Office that as of that day he was 319 days sober and counting.  He is now dedicated to helping others who struggle with an alcohol addiction by being a sponsor to them and being there for them in their time of need.  Although this is not the classic “win” in the eyes of the law (i.e., we did not suppress evidence or get the ever-so-satisfying two word “Not Guilty” verdict), it was a win for Client F.C., his loved ones and Mays Law Office knowing he has taken charge of the direction he wants his life to go.  We could not be more proud of him and his dedication to a new lifestyle and complete sobriety and his dedication to assist others still struggling with addiction.

These cases are just a sampling of the results Attorneys Steve Mays and John Orth were able to achieve this past year, 2022.  Through constant communication with our clients we have proven to get outstanding results for them.  Steve and John always act with an eye for winning at any level, in any type of case.  No case is too difficult or intimidating for them.  They are not afraid to take on any prosecutor or advocate for their clients to any judge Statewide.  They have, just this past year, appeared in over 40 counties throughout Wisconsin.  And while they are tenacious litigators, they still view each case individually, and personally, and realize that every client who hires them is more than just a client – they are people.  They are always treated with the utmost respect and concern for each of their individual situations.  That’s why Mays Law Office gets the majority of its criminal and OWI clients from personal referrals from past and current clients.  These results are just the tip of the iceberg of the criminal defense/OWI success Mays Law Office, LLC experienced in 2022.  If you are in need of an experienced criminal defense and/or OWI attorney, call Mays Law Office, LLC today at (608) 305-4518.