On February 2, 2018, Mark Eisenberg was successful in suppressing a first OWI offense based on a bad traffic stop. The State argued that the police officer had a valid reason to stop the vehicle. Mark Eisenberg argued that there was no probable cause under the law to stop the vehicle, and further the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop. The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The case was then dismissed.

In September, 2017, a jury found a Grant County man not guilty on a charge of first offense OWI. Mark Eisenberg proved his client was not impaired and not above the legal limit at the time he was driving.

Between January and March 2016, Eisenberg Law Offices, S.C., by Stephen J. Eisenberg, Mark E. Eisenberg, and Jack S. Lindberg, have successfully earned evidentiary suppression in four consecutive criminal traffic matters based on improper police conduct, challenging the basis for the traffic stop on two occasions and arguing that field sobriety tests were wrongly administered in the others.

A Sun Prairie woman was stopped by police for failing to yield to an ambulance with its emergency lights activated that was traveling in the opposite direction on West Main Street in Sun Prairie.  The woman was arrested for OWI-3rd and OWI-3rd with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.  Attorney Stephen J. Eisenberg filed a motion to suppress, arguing the police did not have probable cause to stop the woman’s vehicle because it failed to pull over for an approaching ambulance with its emergency lights activated.  The Circuit Court for Dane County agreed with Attorney Eisenberg and found that the arrest of the woman was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and without probable cause.  The charges of OWI-3rd were subsequently dismissed.

In January 2016, the Circuit Court for Dane County agreed with Attorney Eisenberg and found that the arrest of the defendant was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and without probable cause. The charges of OWI 3rd were subsequently dismissed.

On February 19, 2014, a Monona woman was acquitted by a Dane County jury of third offense OWI and third offense OWI with a prohibited alcohol concentration.  The Monona woman was arrested on February 3, 2013, for allegedly operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  Her blood alcohol concentration or BAC was .121.  Steve Eisenberg argued that his client drank alcohol after she had been driving.

On August 3, 2011, a Dane County jury returned not guilty verdicts on charges of first offense OWI and first offense OWI with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant was stopped by police in Middleton, Wisconsin, at 1:00 a.m.  At 2:41 a.m., a breath test revealed a .107 blood alcohol concentration.  At 3:41 p.m., a blood test revealed a .115 blood alcohol concentration.

Attorney Stephen J. Eisenberg, with the assistance of an expert toxicologist, asserted an alcohol curve defense and argued that at the time of driving, the client’s blood alcohol concentration was under the legal limit of .08.  The trial lasted 11 hours and the jury returned verdicts of not guilty in one hour.

Attorney Stephen J. Eisenberg was able to discredit the arresting officer’s testimony and utilize the police squad video to convince the jury that his client was not guilty of the charged offenses.

Since June of 2008, Mark Eisenberg has had four drunk driving charges dismissed and one jury trial in which he received an acquittal on an operating while intoxicated charge.

• In one case in Dane County, police officers went into a security locked building without permission.  They arrested the defendant in her home and charged her with OWI/DUI.  The drunk driving charge was dismissed on the grounds that the police did not have the right to be in the security locked building.
• Another case in Dane County involved police officers from the Monona Police Department arguing that they had stopped the defendant’s vehicle because his taillight was out.  Marsha Lysen obtained the video from the squad car following the defendant’s vehicle.  The video revealed the taillight was on and working at all times.  That case was dismissed.
• In a third and similar case in Columbia County, a police officer indicated that the defendant’s taillight was out.  While this time there was no video, the defendant took her car, when she got out of jail the next day, to the police station.  A different police officer confirmed that her taillights were all in working order.  The judge did not believe the arresting officer, and the case was dismissed.  This was the defendant’s third drunk driving charge.
• In a case in Stoughton, the defendant was reported to be driving erratically.  She pulled into her garage.  The police officer jumped out of his car and ran into the garage to arrest her.  It was her second OWI charge.  The case was dismissed because the police officer invaded the curtilage of the  defendant’s home without a warrant.

In March, 2009, a woman was charged with a second offense OWI/DUI. The case did not involve alcohol, but the prescription drug Xanax or Alprazolam. The State called expert witnesses to testify that the woman was under the influence of Xanax, a central nervous system depressant, at the time she was driving her vehicle at 2:30 a.m. A Washington County jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

A trial was held in September, 2008, in which a defendant had a .18 blood alcohol concentration. The jury found the defendant not guilty of operating while intoxicated.

Stephen Eisenberg has had two not guilty verdicts and another OWI/DUI case dismissed since August, 2008. In a case in Dane County, the defendant was stopped for allegedly weaving in the roadway. Her BAC was .12. Upon a review of the police video, it was determined that defendant’s car did not weave to the extent that justified a stop. The trial court suppressed the evidence and the charges were dismissed.

A Sauk County man charged with his third offense OWI/DUI went to trial in August, 2008. He had a blood alcohol concentration of .26. Steve Eisenberg argued that his client was not operating the motor vehicle at the time of the accident. The jury found him not guilty.

If you or a loved one have been charged with OWI/DUI, you need to contact an experienced drunk driving attorney. Call Eisenberg Law Offices, S.C. for a free consultation at (608) 256-8356(608) 256-8356.

Contact the Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys of Eisenberg Law