According to the police, the Defendant was driving the wrong way on a one way street and caused a head on collision with another vehicle. A police officer made contact with the Defendant and noticed the smell of alcohol coming from his breath. His face was flushed, his speech appeared to be slow and slurred and his eyes were bloodshot. The Defendant was charged with DUI and causing Property Damage. The attorney for the firm prepared the case for trial. The State eventually agreed to drop the DUI case against the Defendant.
The Defendant was involved in a 2 vehicle crash. The Defendant struck the rear of another vehicle which had stopped. When the Trooper arrived to investigate the crash, he discovered that the Defendant’s driver’s license had been expired for over a year. The Trooper then issued tickets for Expired DL and careless driving. Result: The firm set the case for a trial and at the trial the charges were dismissed.
The Defendant was charged with DUI after being stopped for speeding and from reports that the State Trooper had received indicating that the Defendant was not driving his vehicle properly. The Trooper smelled alcohol and indicated the Defendant did not perform well on the field sobriety exercises. The Defendant stated that he had consumed a couple drinks earlier in the day and that he probably shouldn't have been driving. After his arrest he was asked to give a breath sample, which indicated he had not been drinking. In addition, he gave a urine sample, which also came back negative. The firm went to Court for the Defendant and requested that the State examine their evidence as the Firm did not believe they had enough to go forward on. The State ultimately agreed and dismissed the charges.
On May 26, 2014, a Tampa Police officer was on patrol on Armenia Ave just north of the I275 overpass. He observed a white pickup truck exit I275 onto southbound Armenia Ave. Upon making the turn onto Armenia Ave, the vehicle made a wide sweeping turn into the inside lane, instead of turning into the corresponding right hand curb lane. The officer began to follow the vehicle and observed it to accelerated rapidly traveling approximately 10mph over the speed limit. The vehicle also drifted within its lane of travel. Based on these factors, the officer stopped the vehicle for suspicion of DUI. When the officer made contact with the driver, he immediately noticed the driver’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his breath. The driver indicated that he consumed 3 or 4 beers with dinner. The driver agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. The driver’s performance on the exercises indicated impairment and based on those clues of impairment, he was arrested for DUI. The driver was asked if he would take a breath test, which he refused. A search of the driver after the arrest revealed marijuana in his front pocket. Result: The firm set the case for trial and the state dropped the DUI charge.
According to the police, an officer saw the Defendant driving without a tag light. They pulled the Defendant over for the traffic violation and noticed the smell of burnt cannabis in the vehicle. The Defendant admitted to having a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle. They eventually arrested the Defendant for Possession of a Controlled Substance. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a program for first time offenders. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the prosecutor to drop the case completely
According to the police, they came into contact with the Defendant and smelled the odor of cannabis. They eventually arrested the Defendant for Possession of a Controlled Substance. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a program for first time offenders. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the prosecutor to drop the case completely.
The defendant was charged with DUI and his vehicle was stopped because he was all over the road. Once stopped the Officer asked the defendant to do roadside sobriety tests. The defendant performed poorly on the tests and was arrested. The Defendant was then asked to give a breath sample, which once provided was over the legal limit. The Firm negotiated the case with the State and was able to get the DUI charge dropped.
The defendant was charged with DUI. His vehicle was stopped because he made a right turn at a red light where such a turn was prohibited. The defendant then was asked to perform roadside sobriety exercises, which he did not do well on, and at that point was arrested. The defendant then gave a breath sample over the legal limit. The Firm was able to negotiate with the State and have the defendant's DUI charge dropped.
The Defendant was charged with DUI after he was stopped for not using a turn signal when he was making a u-turn. The Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises and blew over the legal limit. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the stop of the Defendant's vehicle based upon an improper stop. The State, upon seeing said motion, immediately offered to amend client's charges to reckless driving. The Firm, knowing that the motion was a strong motion, decided to decline that offer and argue the motion. The State then dismissed all charges.
According to the police, an officer spotted a car pulled over near a construction site on the side of the highway. There had been a number of thefts from this construction area, so the officer went to investigate the vehicle. Upon closer inspection, the officer saw the Defendant asleep behind the wheel. The officer tried knocking on the window, but the Defendant did not wake up. The officer opened the door and had to shake the defendant numerous times to wake him up. The officer reached in and turned off the vehicle and removed the key from the ignition. The officer noticed the smell of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, his eyes were bloodshot, speech was slurred and his face was flushed. Inside the vehicle, the officer saw a bottle of tequila which was 2/3 empty and a cup with tequila in the cup holder. The officer asked the Defendant to perform 4 roadside sobriety exercises, and the Defendant did poorly on each. The Defendant was ultimately arrested for DUI. He refused to provide a breath sample. The attorney for the firm investigated the case and prepared for trial. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI charges against the Defendant.
The defendant was charged with DUI after officers witnessed him swerving and then colliding with a vehile parked at a stop light. The officer in the case alleged that the defendant did not do well on his field sobreity exercises, even though the video in the case showed the contrary. In addition, the Officer stated that the defendant allegedly refused a urine test to determine if he was under the influence of drugs. The firm, after winning the formal DMV hearing on the inconsistencies of the Officer's statements, aruged to the State attorney assigned to the case, that there were simply too many inconsistencies with the Officer's statements when compared to the video of the events. The State agreed and dropped the DUI charges. The defendant walked away with his license intact and valid and no convictions of any charges related to alcohol or drugs.
The defendant was observed by a police officer swerving and almost striking a curb. Once pulled over, the officer alleged the defendant had blood shot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. The officer stated the defendant performed poorly on the roadside tasks and refused to provide a breath sample. The firm’s attorney met with the defendant and learned the Sgt. who initiated the traffic stop had arrested the defendant before on a separate matter where the charges were dropped. The defendant believed the Sgt. was unfairly targeting him in retaliation. The firm’s attorney learned the Sgt. had run the defendant's vehicle tag minutes before the traffic stop while the car was properly parked at a restaurant with defendant inside eating, thus supporting the defendant’s theory of retaliation. The firm’s attorney was able to convince the prosecutor to drop the DUI charge.
