Former KC Chiefs assistant coach Britt Reid charged with felony DWI after Feb. crash

From ESPN:

Former Kansas City Chiefs assistant coach Britt Reid has been charged with felony driving while intoxicated for his involvement in a car crash earlier this year that left a 5-year-old girl critically injured.

The Jackson County (Missouri) Prosecutor’s Office filed the class D felony charge Monday, stating that Reid “operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and acted with criminal negligence by driving at an excessive rate of speed.”

If convicted, Reid would face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

Reid, the son of Chiefs coach Andy Reid, surrendered to Kansas City police Monday afternoon and was released after posting $100,000 bond. As part of his bond release, Reid was ordered to not consume alcohol or visit any establishment where alcohol is the primary item sold. He also must report to a dependency services clinic for pretrial supervision, is subject to random drug testing and must use alcohol and GPS monitoring devices

The crash occurred Feb. 4, when police say Reid’s truck slammed into two vehicles on the side of a highway entrance ramp near Kansas City’s NFL training complex next to Arrowhead Stadium, injuring 5-year-old Ariel Young and another child inside one of the cars.

Analysis of the crash indicated that Reid, 36, was driving 83.9 mph just 1.9 seconds before his Dodge Ram collided with two parked vehicles on the ramp — a Chevy Impala and Chevy Traverse, according to a probable cause statement form filed Monday by the Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office. One of the vehicles had stalled because its battery was dead, and the second was owned by a cousin who had arrived to help, according to the charging documents.

A test of Reid’s blood serum after the crash showed his blood alcohol concentration to be at .113, above the legal limit of .08, according to the probable cause statement. Police had previously said Reid admitted to investigators to having had “two or three drinks” along with prescribed Adderall before the crash.

Harold Wallin given prestigious AV Rating – Preeminent by Martindale Hubbell

This week, the legal publisher Martindale-Hubbell gave Harold L. Wallin the prestigious rating of “AV – Preeminent” (their highest rating). Click here to read the official press release.

According to their website:

For more than 130 years, Martindale-Hubbell has been evaluating attorneys for their strong legal ability and high ethical standards through a Peer Review Rating system. Prior to the 1887 edition of Martindale’s American Law Directory, which was the first publication to provide such ratings to attorneys, there was no way of truly knowing if the lawyer you were considering to do business with was trustworthy, ethical, or skilled in the legal field.

Today – Martindale-Hubbell continues to provide verified ratings for attorneys based not only on their legal ability and ethical standards as judged by their peers, but also based on reviews from their clients. While the criteria and format of the Peer Review Rating system has evolved since the 1800’s – the goal of Martindale-Hubbell ratings remains the same: to help keep the public informed when making the decision to do business with an attorney or law firm.

Historically the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ system utilized an “A – B – C” scale to estimate the legal ability and ethical standards of an attorney. To qualify for an “A” rating an attorney had to be reported as “Very High” in their legal ability and had been practicing for at least 10 years, a “B” rating meant an attorney was rated “High” and had to be practicing for at least 5 years, and a “C” rating meant that the attorney was rated “fair” with no limitations on how long they were practicing. A second rating was also given to go along with the “A – B – C” rating and that was a “V,” meaning that the attorney’s peers stated they had “Very High” ethical standards. Over the years this transitioned to “AV”, “BV”, and “CV” ratings – with an “AV” rating meaning that the attorney had reached the highest of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

Today, Martindale-Hubbell conducts a thorough review of attorneys who wish to receive a Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™, through a secure online peer review survey where a lawyer’s ethical standards and legal ability in a specific area of practice is assessed by their peers. Once the review process is completed an attorney may receive 1 of the following Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™:
AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This is given to attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers.
Distinguished: An excellent rating for an attorney who has some experience and is widely respected by their peers for their professional achievement and ethical standards.
Notable: A rating given to a lawyer who has been recognized by a large number of their peers for their strong ethical standards

Chief Judge Evans enters new Remote Hearing Order allowing for resumption of some in-person trials in Cook County

Cook County Chief Judge Evans has entered a new Order that by and large continues with remote hearings for the time being, but will allow some in-person trials (one criminal jury trial began last Monday at 26th Street, another can begin this Monday in Bridgeview, with other courthouses to resume after May 3rd). The order will allow the Presiding Judge of Law Division to set rules for the resumption of civil trials. Arbitration hearings in the Municipal Division shall process remotely via Zoom for now.

Read the entire Order here:

In-Person Bench and Jury trials to resume at Daley Center Traffic Court beginning May 3rd

Yesterday, Diann K. Marsalek, the Acting Presiding Judge of the Traffic Division at the Daley Center, entered a new remote hearing order that, among other things, resumed Zoom trials (which had been prohibited since last November) and allowed for the resumption of in-person bench and jury trials beginning May 3rd.

There will be a catch however: only one jury trial a week will be scheduled and only 1-2 courtrooms will be opened for bench trials, with only one trial scheduled for the morning call and another for the afternoon.

Another change is that penalties will once again be imposed if a defendant fails to appear (either in person or on Zoom), including a bond forfeiture, a failure to appear being entered on one’s driving record and/or a warrant for one’s arrest.

Another change is that any defendant who is returning to court for one of the major traffic courtrooms (402, 404, 405, 406 and 408) at 9:00 a.m. only to make payments on outstanding fines will go to a newly created Zoom room just for them. Anyone with a case for those rooms scheduled for 1:00 p.m. will stay in their original room.

You can read the entire order at this link:

One Year Ago Today: My last in-person trial

One year ago today is when I tried my last in-person case.

My recollection is that up until the night before, although Coronavirus was a growing concern, it still was not at the forefront of my consciousness. Then that night, within a short period of time the President, after having downplayed the virus for over a month, made a nationally televised address to the nation about it. Almost simultaneously, it was announced that Tom Hanks and several NBA players had been diagnosed with it, and that the NBA was shutting down its season.

On March 12th, I had a fairly busy court schedule, all at the Daley Center. I had three DUI cases that morning and another case set for trial that afternoon. That morning, things seemed different. The Public Defenders were requesting longer than usual continuance dates in anticipation of the court being closed for some period of time, possibly six weeks. And the Judges were not issuing warrants against defendants who failed to appear.

At lunch time, I thought about going to a downtown sandwich shop to get away from my office for a half hour, but then for the first time I though about whether I really wanted to sit in a crowded restaurant and it gave me the chills. Instead, I quickly dashed into a lunch place and brought my lunch back to my office.

That afternoon, I came back to court for my trial. The case involved a State Trooper, and State Trooper court calls are notoriously busy because of all the serious traffic tickets that they write – not just DUIs, but aggravated speeding, reckless driving and Scott’s Law violations. This call was no different, and I sat in the packed courtroom, being extra attentive to every cough and sneeze. Whenever possible, I stood outside in the hallway, which was slightly less crowded.

Many of the attorneys were requesting continuances, just so they didn’t have to linger in the courtroom. But I had a very weak case, which I felt was a certain “not guilty” and I wanted to get this over and off my list of things to worry about in case of a shutdown.

It took a while for the court to go through the call. Finally, just as we were about to start, a fellow attorney DM’ed me with a rumor that one of the Daley Center Judges had been diagnosed with the Coronavirus and that Chief Judge Evans would be announcing a court shutdown that evening.

The trial went as expected, and my client was found not guilty. The Judge coughed a few times during the trial, and so did I. Afterwards, I told him about the rumors which were all new to him. As it turned out, neither rumor was true. The courts did not close that night, and although several judges were eventually diagnosed with COVID, none of that happened until several weeks later.

The next day, I had a lighter schedule, just one gun case at a Chicago Branch court. Unlike the Daley Center the day before, the Judge was issuing warrants for anyone who failed to appear. As I sat and waited, I thought of all the people taking public transportation to come and sit in courtrooms across the county and how this could be spreading the virus. This was before we had the term “super-spreader event.” My gun case was dismissed (my client was authorized to possess an automated weapon) and I went back to my office wondering when Chief Judge Evans would be making any announcements.

Nothing happened until that night, when the Order finally came. Cook County would close their courts starting Tuesday, March 17th through April 15th.

That still left Monday. That morning, I came to court wearing surgical gloves (but no masks – I was more concerned about surfaces. Besides, the Sheriff probably would not allow me to wear a surgical mask in court). I had two DUI cases in two different Markham courtrooms, and the experiences in each could not be more different. One opened up reasonably on time, and the Judge ran his call like nothing unusual was happening. I was able to work out a standard plea deal (one more case resolved before the shutdown!). However, for the other courtroom, the doors remained locked for at least a half-hour. Everyone was congregating by the door, although we were trying to keep some distance between us, sort of — it was hard to break old habits. Eventually a rumor was spread that the delay was because the clerk was refusing to enter the courtroom and that the supervisor was having trouble finding a replacement. Eventually, the courtroom opened, and the Judge rushed every case through as quickly as possible. I wanted to speak to the State’s Attorney about my case, but I was told there was no time for that. On my way out of the building, I ran into another attorney, who before law school worked as an EMT. He was also wearing surgical gloves, and that was the last time I shook hands with anyone.

My last case came that afternoon at 1:00 p.m., back in the Daley Center in a civil forfeiture courtroom. My client and I arrived just before 1:00 and the courthouse had already become a ghost town. The Judge and the State’s Attorney were already rushing through cases even before the court call was scheduled to begin. I was told that the case had already been called and that the State was not proceeding with the forfeiture. The Order had already been signed before court was supposed to begin!

On Tuesday, March 17th, I was supposed to try a DUI case at the Daley Center. Currently, that case is still pending. It is set for a status in April for possible trial setting.

Looking back, it was probably good for my mental health that I went into the shutdown with a Not Guilty, two dismissals and a satisfactory plea deal. Plus, I had just settled a personal injury case the week prior.

This time off has not been totally unproductive. On March 12, 2020, I had never heard of Zoom. By late Spring, I had done Zoom depositions, attended a Zoom funeral, and helped design procedures to conduct Zoom Chicago Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Committee candidate hearings. The Courts began using it in June and I have been able to resolve many cases, as well as two Zoom trials, two Zoom summary suspension hearings and several preliminary hearings. I have also settled a personal injury case through a Zoom mediation. Many Judges and attorneys have expressed interest in continuing with the platform, at least for status hearings, after the pandemic is over.

In the meantime, we are still waiting for the resumption of regular, in-person courts. It will be interesting to see what the future will bring.

Off-duty Algonquin police sergeant charged with DUI after crash

From the Lake & McHenry County Scanner (story by Sam Borcia):

An off-duty Algonquin police sergeant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and crashing his vehicle in McHenry. He was almost three times over the legal limit, court documents show.

Timothy P. Cooney, 34, of the 5600 block of Wildspring Drive in Lake in the Hills, was charged with two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Cooney was driving a Chevrolet Trailblazer which was involved in a vehicle crash at Curran Road and Dartmoor Drive in McHenry around 6:44 p.m. on February 21, according to a citation.

A law enforcement report from the arresting officer said Cooney’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.218. The legal limit is 0.08.

The report said that Cooney was involved in a vehicle crash where he was the at-fault driver. The person who called 911 to report the crash told dispatchers that Cooney appeared to be intoxicated.

Read the entire story here:

Johnny Damon charged with DUI

From NBC Boston:

Former All-Star baseball player Johnny Damon was arrested early Friday morning in Florida on suspicion of drunken driving and resisting arrest, court records show.

Damon’s wife, Michelle Mangan-Damon, was also arrested by Windermere police, who’d pulled the couple over after noticing their SUV was weaving on the road about 1:23 a.m., officers said.

Mangan-Damon was charged with hitting an officer and resisting arrest after they were pulled over, according to the records. Both allegedly didn’t follow an officer’s orders and together resisted as he tried taking Mangan-Damon into custody.

After they were handcuffed, an officer found Damon to be slurring his speech, with bloodshot and glassy eyes. He agreed to take a field sobriety test “because he was a ‘big boy,'” an officer wrote in the documents.

Afterward, Damon was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. After being taken to a county DUI testing facility, two breath tests found he had a blood alcohol level of 0.3 and 0.294, nearly four times the legal limit of 0.08, according to the documents.

Update: Bruce Springsteen had 0.02 BAC; raising questions about DUI arrest

Update: DUI dismissed, Springsteen pleads to drinking in National Park, fined $540.

The Asbury Park Press is reporting that Bruce Springsteen had a BAC of only 0.02, well below the legal limit of 0.08, when he was arrested for DUI last November.

The New York Post had more details:

The “Born to Run” icon, 71, had been riding his motorcycle on the peninsula on Nov. 14 when he “was spotted by fans who asked him to pull over and take some pictures,” according to a source close to Springsteen. 

“Bruce stopped, took the pictures, then a fan offered him a shot of liquor, which he took, while sitting on his bike, which was stationary,” the source said.

“Park Police saw what happened and they immediately pulled Springsteen over as he drove away.”

None of this would explain a DUI arrest. The mere consumption of alcohol might justify a citation for public drinking, but a DUI arrest requires more than mere consumption of alcohol – it requires impairment. The Post account is totally devoid of anything that would indicate that Springsteen’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired. He apparently did not not commit any moving violation – yet he was charged with reckless driving in addition to DUI. Furthermore, there is no indication that Springsteen performed, let alone failed, field sobriety tests and it is highly unlikely that he exhibited any blatant indicators of impairment with a BAC of 0.02. This raises serious questions about why he was arrested and more significantly, why the case hasn’t been dropped already.

Bruce Springsteen facing DUI charges in New Jersey

Update: Springsteen’s BAC was 0.02, raising questions about the DUI arrest.

Second Update: DUI dismissed, Springsteen pleads to drinking in National Park, fined $540.

From the Chicago Tribune:

HIGHLANDS, N.J. — Rocker Bruce Springsteen is facing a drunken driving charge for an incident in New Jersey in November.

A spokesperson for the National Parks Service confirmed Wednesday that Springsteen was arrested Nov. 14 in a part of the Gateway National Recreation Area on the New Jersey coastline…

Springsteen received citations for driving while under the influence, reckless driving and consuming alcohol in a closed area. The spokesperson said Springsteen was cooperative throughout the process.

Illinois Secretary of State extends license expiration dates until June 1st

To avoid congestion at your local DMV facility during the COVID Pandemic, Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State, has announced that drivers license and permit expiration dates will be extended until June 1st. I am told that this will include Restricted Driving Permits (RDPs).

Also, according to their website:

Additionally, White stressed that many transactions can be conducted online at instead of waiting at a Driver Services facility. Some of these services include:

•Renewing a license plate sticker;•Renewing a valid driver’s license for qualifying drivers;

•Renewing a valid ID card for those age 22-64 (seniors 65 and older have free, non-expiring IDs);

•Obtaining a driver record abstract;

•Filing Business Services documents, such as incorporations and annual reports; and

•Customers with issues involving administrative hearings may contact

In an effort to reduce facility visits for in-person service, White has expanded online renewals for driver’s licenses and ID cards. Not everyone qualifies, particularly those who are required to pass a written or road test. For qualifying drivers, individuals will receive a letter with a unique PIN approximately 90 days before the expiration date. The PIN is required to renew online. For more information on determining one’s eligibility for online renewal, visit and click on “Read more on how to renew your driver’s license or ID card online” near the top of the main page.