The Defendant was on felony probation for a previous conviction when he was stopped by law enforcement and cited for driving with an expired license greater than 6 months. A conviction would have resulted in a violation of the Defendant’s probation and possible prison time. The attorney carefully analyzed the facts of the case and was able to present several legal challenges to the prosecutor. After a heated negotiation, the attorney was able to convince the state to drop the criminal charge and prevent a violation of probation.
At 4:37 in the morning, our client ran into the back of a parked car. Based on the severity of the accident, our client was taken to the hospital. At 7:21, the officer arrived at the hospital and requested a blood sample from our client. The reason she requested the blood sample was because she claimed she could still smell alcohol on our client’s breath. Our client agreed to provide a sample and the result was a .124. Based on the result, our client was arrested for DUI. Our firm filed a motion to suppress the blood results and on the day of the motion, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The defendant was stopped for traveling the wrong way down a one way street. Officers on foot yelled for our client to stop the vehicle, but he continued on. The officers caught up to our client, drew their weapons and ordered him to step out of the vehicle. He complied. The officers noticed that he had an odor of alcohol on his breath, glassy eyes, and three paper wristbands on his wrist. He was also unsteady on his feet. The officers requested that he perform field sobriety exercises and he refused. He also refused to provide a breath sample. He was then arrested for DUI. We filed a motion to suppress and before the motion was heard, the State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for cutting off a police officer causing the officer to slam on his brakes. When the officer approached the car, he noticed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and constricted pupils. Our client admitted to having 4-5 beers. The officer then requested that he perform field sobriiety exercises After this request, our client stated “I only had 6-7 beers.” He eventually agreed to perform the exercises. Based on his performance, he was arrested. An open container of Bud Light was also found in his vehicle. Once at the breath testing center, our client refused to take the breath test. We filed a motion claiming our client’s driving pattern was necessary to avoid colliding with another vehicle that was driving erratically. After reviewing the video and facts, the State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was approached in a parking lot. He was sitting in his vehicle parked. When the officer approached, he noticed our client's pants were undone and his girlfriend's head was in his lap. He was ordered to exit the vehicle. Once outside, the officer noticed indicators of impairment and requested field sobriety exercises. Our client refused to do them and also refused to provide a breath sample. He was then arrested. Our firm filed a motion and on the day of the motion, the state dropped the case.
The defefdant was driving her husband home from a civic event after he had too much to drink. She was pulled over for allegedly driving too slow and cutting off other traffic. The officer alleged our client had blood shot eyes, had a strong odor of alcohol, her clothing was disarrayed, she had trouble finding her license, she admitted to having a few drinks and she stated her husband wasn’t driving because “he is drunker than I am.” The officer further alleged our client performed poorly during the road side exercises and found an open container of alcohol next to our client in the car. Our client’s husband was arrested on scene for allegedly interfering with the DUI investigation when he continuously banged on the window from inside the car. Our client refused to submit to a breath test. The Firm’s Treasure Coast Attorney took the case to trial and was able to persuade the jury to find our client NOT GUILTY. The attorney revealed there was a video made on scene but it was not produced at trial. Furthermore he argued the arresting officer was unfair and biased in his evaluation of the road side exercises. On a side note, a juror was dismissed by the judge during the trial for allegedly evidencing partiality in favor of defense counsel after he asked defense counsel for his business card during a lunch break.
The Police stopped the Defendant for changing lanes and almost crashing into another vehicle. The Defendant then followed another car too closely, and the officer pulled him over. Upon coming into contact with the Defendant, the officer smelled alcohol on his breath and also noticed that his speech was slurred and his eyes appeared red and bloodshot. The police asked the Defendant if he would perform roadside exercises and he agreed. According to the police, he performed all three of the exercises poorly. The Defendant admitted to drinking several beers while watching the races, but he refused to give a breath sample. The Defendant had previously been convicted of DUI. The attorney for the firm prepared for trial. On the day of the trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant resided in an apartment and was employed by the owner of the complex to do a variety of tasks, including collecting rent from the other tenants. The Defendant was fired from his job. After being fired, the Defendant allegedly collected rent in the amount of $2500.00 from tenants and kept the money for himself. He moved out of the apartment and allegedly stole all of the furniture from his unit. He was identified by the tenants as the person who they had given the rent money to. He was also identified by a witness as the person seen moving furniture out of the apartment. He was facing up to 5 years in prison as a result of the charges. The attorney for the firm prepared the case for trial, and the State Attorney eventually dropped all charges against the Defendant.
The defendant was stopped by police for traveling 58 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone. Police noted that he had a dazed appearance and that he had trouble focusing while talking to police, and that he had glassy, bloodshot red, and watery eyes. Police also noted that the defendant was fumbling through his paperwork when asked to provide his registration and insurance. Police further noted that when the defendant was asked to walk to the patrol car he could not walk in a straight line without losing his balance as he was swaying. The defendant performed poorly on roadside exercises and was arrested for DUI. The defendant refused to provide a sample or his breath when asked by police. The defendant was found not guilty of DUI after trial 12-11-07.
The Defendant was seen weaving within her lane and driving without her headlights on at approximately 2:00 a.m. When stopped, she appeared impaired with glassy/reddened eyes, slow dexterity, a flushed face and slow comprehension. She smelled like alcohol and had slurred speech. She appeared unstable on her feet and performed poorly on roadside tasks. She was argumentative and was eventually arrested for Driving Under the Influence. At the breath facility she refused to give a sample of her breath and admitted to drinking at a restaurant prior to being stopped. She said she had a couple glasses of wine. The Firm filed numerous pieces of evidence on behalf of our client immediately upon being retained. We were able to establish that our client had gotten off a plane and rented the vehicle she was driving only hours before she was stopped. Additionally, due to the fact that this was a rental car, one our client was unfamiliar with, it was reasonable that she did not realize the headlights were not illuminated in an already well lit area of downtown. The Firm also was able to point out to the State Attorney’s office that the officer who instructed our client on the tasks made his own mistakes that he subsequently faulted our client for. After pointing all of this out and providing the proof via plane tickets and receipts to the State Attorney’s Office, they agreed to dismiss the charges for Driving Under the Influence.
On August 25, 2012, Tampa police officers responded to the scene of a single vehicle crash. The officers completed a reconstruction of the crash. The officers found a pre-impact skid mark revealing that the motorcycle was traveling north on 40th St. in the inside lane when the rider apparently did not perceive the approaching rotary. After skidding, the motorcycle impacted the edge of the concrete median and then went directly into the center of the rotary. There were two metal street signs with arrows warning of the approaching rotary that were sheared off and had been impacted by the motorcycle. The motorcycle came to rest inside the median of the rotary, near the north side. No helmet was found at the scene and the officers were advised by the paramedics that the motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet. The motorcyclist was identified by a witness as the Defendant. The Defendant had been transported to Tampa General Hospital prior to the officer’s arrival with injuries deemed to be serious and life threatening. The officer then responded to Tampa General to obtain a condition report on the Defendant. A Tampa Fire Rescue officer notified the officer that while treating the Defendant, she noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage. A blood test was conducted on the Defendant pursuant to Tampa General Procedures. The Defendant’s condition quickly deteriorated due to the massive amount of blood loss. The Defendant was rushed into emergency surgery so a legal blood draw could not be completed by the officer. The officer notified the State Attorney’s office requesting a subpoena be done for the results of Tampa General’s blood test. The results were then subpoenaed and provided to the State Attorney’s Office. The results for the test were .254. A DUI charge was then issued against the Defendant. Results: The firm raised several issues with the crash investigation and the blood results to the State Attorney’s Office. As result of our negotiations, the DUI charge was dropped.
On November 12th, 2012, a Tampa Police Officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle weaving within his lane and cross the center lane maker. The officer then initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle for suspicion of DUI. When the officer came into contact with the Defendant, he noticed an odor of an alcoholic beverage. The Defendant was requested to perform field sobriety exercises, which he agreed. After the officer noticed several clues of impairment, the Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI. The Defendant refused to provide a breath sample unless his lawyer was present. He was read Florida’s Implied Consent law and booked as refusing to submit to a breath test. Result: The firm pointed out legal issues with the initial stop and the field sobriety exercises of the Defendant, and the State agreed to drop the DUI charge.
