Our client was stopped on the side of the road, partially blocking the roadway on I-95 when law enforcement made contact with him. During his interaction with the initial officer, that officer observed alleged indicators of impairment and called in another officer to conduct a DUI investigation. During the DUI investigation, officers alleged an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from our client, that our client had bloodshot/watery eyes, a slight slur to our client’s speech, and our client admitted he had consumed two (2) beers earlier in the day. Based upon these observations, officers asked our client to participate in Field Sobriety Exercises to determine if his normal faculties were impaired. He was eventually arrested and charged with DUI (his 3rd offense) and Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. Upon receiving the case, our attorneys immediately went to work reviewing the evidence and preparing our client’s defense. Our client informed our office that he had been previously diagnosed with numerous health issues. Our attorneys reviewed our client’s medical history, in conjunction with his alleged “poor performance” on his Field Sobriety Exercises and devised a way to mitigate our client’s outcome. Based upon our attorney’s relationships with the Office of the State Attorney in Brevard County, which have been built over years of diligent representation, our attorney was able to negotiate a reduced charge of Reckless Driving, Our client avoided a third DUI conviction, spent no time in jail, and had his license saved from any further suspension that would have been imposed by the Court.

Our client was stopped by FHP after drifting in his lane, not affecting any other traffic. Upon making contact with our client, the Trooper noticed alleged indicators of impairment on our client: glassy/bloodshot eyes and an odor of an alcoholic beverage. After performaning Field Sobriety Exercises, our client was arrested and charged with DUI. Upon reviewing the case, our attorney immediately went to work for our client, who is a beer sales rep. If our client was convicted of the DUI, or any charge involving alcohol, he would have lost his job and his license with the State. Knowing this, and knowing that the State Attorney’s Office does not willingly dismiss DUI cases, the only option was for the case to be set for trial and have the jury decide if his “normal faculties were impaired”. A few days prior to the trial, the State offered our client a reduced charge of a conviction on Reckless Driving with Alcohol. Due to the ramifications for his employment, our client rejected this offer, and the case remained set for trial. This also showed our client, and our attorney, that the State’s case was in a weak position, giving us a negotiating advantage. The morning of trial, the State amended the charge to Careless Driving, a civil infraction. Our client received no points on his license, no crime on his record, and was able to keep his job and licenses.

Our Client was arrested for DUI and blew a 0.12 on the Intoxilyzer.  Shortly after the arrest, the appellate court released an opinion that fortunately benefitted our Client.  An appropriate motion to suppress the breath test was filed.  But, rather than defend the actions of law enforcement, the State offered to reduce the DUI to a reckless driving, which our client happily accepted.

Our client was allegedly speeding and swerving within his lane prior to being stopped by police.  Upon pulling over, the officer indicated that our client left his vehicle partially in the roadway.  After producing documentation for the car and his ID, the officer noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage and cologne coming from the driver and asked the driver to exit the car. The driver admitted to drinking a glass of wine. The officer indicated unsteadiness and stumbling after he exited.  A series of field sobriety tasks were offered and performed on video.  The officer felt as if the Defendant was impaired by alcohol and arrested the driver for DUI.  Later, a breath test was requested and the driver agreed.  The results were .112 and .109.  Approximatly 20 months after the arrest, the Defendant hired the Ticket Clinic.  His previous lawyer had not obtained the desired result and Ticket Clinic lawyers were asked to take the case over.  After 14 days on the case, the Court set the case for trial, over our objection, giving us VERY LITTLE time to prepare. Prosecutors offered the maximum penalty…1 year in jail and would not agree to lower their offer.  We had NO choice but to go to trial.   Ticket Clinic lawyers retained a breath test expert to rebut the breath test program and breath test results.  The trial lasted 3 full days and was very contenious.  In the end, at approximately 7 PM on the 3rd day of trial, the Jury found our client NOT GUILTY.  Afterwards, the speeding ticket was dismissed as well.

On September 14, 2024, officers from the Pensacola Police Department observed a black Nissan frontier driving the wrong way in eastbound traffic lanes. The police activated the emergency lights and sirens and pulled the vehicle over when the police made contact with the driver that he noticed severe signs of impairment and asked the driver to perform field sobriety tasks. Based upon the interactions with the police officers and their observations of the field sobriety test, the driver was arrested and charge of driving under the influence. It should be noted that the driver is an active member of The United States military, and a conviction for driving under the influence which subject him to being discharged from the Armed forces. After reviewing the case and forging a defense on behalf of, the defendant, the DUI charges were dismissed.

Our Client was involved in an accident that significantly damaged another’s car.  As a result of the investigation, our Client was arrested for a DUI with breath tests of 0.149 and 0.154.  Upon examining the Discovery, we say that the breath tests were administered in violation of Florida Law.  A few days before our motion to suppress the breath tests was heard, the State offered our Client a “wet reckless.”  Our Client accepted the State’s offer; thus, there is no DUI conviction; no license revocation; and, no vehicle impoundment.

Our Client rolled their own car, causing injury to themself.  After law enforcement investigated the accident, our Client was arrested for DUI with breath tests of 0.143, 0.122 and 0.135.  Shortly after our Client was arrested, new case law was released that benefited our Client greatly.  Acting upon the new case law, we filed a motion to suppress the breath tests.  Rather than challenging us, the State offered our Client a “wet reckless.”  Our Client accepted the State’s offer; thus, there is no DUI conviction; no license revocation; and, no vehicle impoundment.

On Sunday, December 17th, 2023, at approximately 0535 hours,Hillsborough county Deputy responded to the intersection of Lithia Pinecrest Rd and Bloomingdale Ave in reference to a Suspicious Vehicle call for service. Upon arrival, he observed a black 2016 Volkswagen Jetta bearing a Florida license plate of stopped at the intersection of Lithia Pinecrest Rd and Bloomingdale Rd. The vehicle was stopped in the left- most straight lane of Lithia Pinecrest Rd with the front of the vehicle pointed northwest. All doors of the vehicle were locked with the front driver and passenger side door windows partially cracked, however, they were not open enough to reach in and open either door. Inside the vehicle, an unknown male occupant, later identified as the Defendant, was observed sitting in the driver’s seat, unconscious, with his head slumped downward. It should be noted numerous attempts were made to wake the Defendant with light and verbal stimuli all met with negative results. It was unknown if he was experiencing a medical emergency. Directly adjacent to the Defendant, the grip of a tan pistole-style firearm was observed wedged between the driver’s seat and the center console of the vehicle. Due to the presence of a firearm, the vehicle still placed in drive, and possible medical emergency, the front passenger side window was forcibly smashed and the firearm was quickly obtained and separated from the Defendant. The Defendant remained unconscious after the firearm was obtained. It should be noted the Defendant advised he was not injured, therefore, Emergency Medical services were not requested. While reaching into the vehicle to obtain the firearm, an opened bottle of Hennessy was observed in the front passenger side floorboard. Both during the window being smashed and after, the Defendant remained unconscious. The Defendant was then woken up, and instructed to place the vehicle in park. A black satchel was observed strapped to his chest and was removed from his person. As the satchel was being removed, the bag zipper opened and a green leafy substance consistent with the appearance of Marijuana was observed in a plastic bag. Once The Defendant was removed from the vehicle,  he was unsteady on his feet and stumbled.  During the interview process, the defendant appeared lethargic, was slow to respond to questions, had glassy eyes, and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his breath and person.  He advised he was heading back to Tampa after dropping someone off in the Valrico area. When the Defendant was asked where he was, he appeared unsure and began looking for a street sign for a reference. It should be noted,  After the Defendant was removed from the vehicle, the following was observed in the front driver’s seat: One pack of ” Raw” rolling papers. One white container with ” Premium Cannabis Flower” with a green wax substance inside. Due to the observations made during the interview process with the Defendant, a Driving Under the Influence investigator was requested to respond to the incident scene and a DUI investigation was conducted. The Defendant was subsequently placed under arrest. He provided a breath sample of .059/.058. A urine sample was also collected and tested positive for marijuana. Result: the firm set the case for trial and prior to the start of the trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.

On February 3, 2024, the Bay County Sheriff’s office conducted a traffic stop on a white Cadillac Escalade for failure to maintain a single lane multiple times. After the officer made contact with the driver of the vehicle, he could smell alcohol emitting from his breath, his eyes were bloodshot and glass, and he believed that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The officer asked the driver to submit to roadside sobriety tasks. After submitting to the roadside task, the officer believed that he was Driving Under the Influence and placed him under arrest. The attorney for the Ticket Clinic reviewed the case and after discussing the facts and evidence of the case.  After negotiations with the State, the DUI charges were dismissed.

Our Client was arrested for DUI but had an alcohol level of only 0.051.  After we successfully challenged the administrative suspension of the driver license for having an unlawful alcohol level, we pointed out the flaws in the case to the State.  They agreed to reduce the charge from a DUI to a reckless driving, which our Client happily accepted.

25CT303 & 381 – DWLS – Lake County – Client was caught driving on a suspended license 2 times within a month.  This was his 9th and 10th time getting stopped for this exact offense.  In the State of Florida, you are required to serve a minimum of 10 days in jail for a 3rd or any subsequent conviction for driving on a suspended license. Our firm helped our client get his license back and we convinced the prosecutor to drop both criminal cases against him.

Our client was charged with resisting an officer without violence, along with four (4) traffic infractions. The officer alleged that our client sped by the officer at high speed and turned off all the lights on the car when the officer got behind our client.  The officer claimed to have attempted to stop our client before our client pulled into a residential driveway.  What the officer did not know was that the residence was our client’s and had security cameras.  The security video showed our client pulling into the driveway in a routine manner with all her car lights illuminated.  Shortly thereafter, the officer can be seen pulling behind our client’s vehicle.  The patrol car did not have its blue lights on until it came to a full and complete stop behind out client’s car.  At that point our client turned off the car, including its lights.  Although the video images were a little distant, you can clearly see the officer calmly walk up to our client outside the driver’s door and interact with our client outside of the vehicle.  The officer claimed this interaction occurred while our client was in the car, wherein our client refused to produce identification, thus resisting the officer.  We provided this evidence to the State and set the case was set for trial.  On the morning of the trial, the State dropped all chargers and joined in our request to have all infractions dismissed.