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.
The Defendant was involved in an accident and hired the Firm to handle the 6 month license suspension due to an unlawful blood alcohol level given at the hospital. The Firm requested a formal review hearing to challenge the suspension of the Defendant’s driver’s license within the applicable 10 day window allowed by the DMV. The DMV did not send a notice of hearing to the Defendant nor did they send it to The Ticket Clinic. The client received a letter upholding the suspension of his driver’s license about 45 days after hiring our firm alleging that we failed to appear and that he waived his right to a hearing. Because the Firm did not receive notice, a call was placed to the DMV. They immediately issued a permit and held a new hearing about 50 days after the Firm had initially requested it. Florida law requires that a hearing be held regarding the suspension within 30 days from the date it was requested. At the first hearing (50 days out), the firm objected to moving forward, arguing that the hearing violated the Defendant’s due process rights because he was not afforded a hearing within 30 days. The DMV disagreed and upheld the suspension. The Firm appealed arguing to the 15th Judicial Circuit that our client’s constitutional due process rights were violated because we were not notified of the hearing that was scheduled within 30 days. The 15th Circuit agreed and entered a 6 page written opinion throwing out the suspension of our client’s driver’s license.
The Defendant was clocked going 97 mph in a 65 mph zone and then witnessed making an aggressive lane change in front of a sedan almost colliding into it. The vehicle continued to make aggressive lane changes and was stopped. As the vehicle came to a stop, all the windows went down. The driver then put all the windows up when asked to leave the passenger window down. The Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol and gave the officer a business card when asked for his license, insurance and registration. He was slurring his words and his eyes were red and watery. He had difficulty standing. He continually said he was lost because of his navigation and told the officer at times that he “loved” him and that he was very sorry. He also would interrupt the officer continuously and performed very poorly on roadsides. The roadsides were all captured on video. He could not even get through the alphabet. The Defendant was then videotaped at the jail where he refused to submit to a sample of his breath. The Firm vigorously negotiated with the State Attorney’s Office regarding the facts of the case and the charges for DUI. After weeks of negotiations, the State of Florida agreed to dismiss the charges for Driving Under the Influence.
The Defendant was driving around 3:00 a.m. without it's headlights and taillights on. The driver of the vehicle then turned them on and swerved over the left line and made a wide right turn. The vehicle then continued over the yellow lane marker three times and nearly struck the median. After being stopped, the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol, his eyes were red and glassy and his speech was slow and slurred. He said he had “nothing” to drink and submitted to roadside exercises. He was swaying as he exited the vehicle. He performed poorly on the roadsides, not even being able to say the alphabet. During the alphabet task, and after butchering it, he said: “Boy, I screwed that up.” The Defendant was arrested and taken to the breath alcohol facility where he refused to submit to a sample of his breath. The Firm negotiated with the State Attorney’s Office pointing out inconsistencies with the video from the jail and the roadside explanation. The State Attorney’s Office agreed to dismiss the charges for DUI the week before trial.
he Defendant was seen swerving on the road, and she almost crashed into a police cruiser on the side of the road. As she continued to drive, she struck the center median. The Defendant drove into the Seminole Casino and jumped the curb, almost striking the metal gates. When the police made contact with her, she appeared confused and disoriented. She told the officer that she did not have any recollection of driving and almost getting into an accident. The officers asked her to perform roadside exercises, and she agreed. According to the police, she performed very poorly. She admitted to police that she had consumed some wine, as well as a prescription sleeping pill earlier in the evening. The attorney for the firm investigated the case. Prior to trial, the attorney was able to convince the State that the driving pattern was due to the consumption of the sleeping aid, which she had a valid prescription for. The State dropped the DUI charges.
The Defendant blew by a fully marked police car at a high rate of speed. The officer was doing 70 mph and the defendant was going at least 90 mph. The Defendant then accelerated again and was slowing to 40 mph and back to 80 mph while almost striking the median on multiple occasions. The vehicle was also swerving over two lanes of travel and then almost stuck a bridge as it went over the intercostal. The officer stopped the Defendant as it sped up to 80 mph in a residential neighborhood. The officer noticed that the Defendant was slurring his words, his eyes were droopy, glassy, bloodshot and watery and his movements were slow. He smelled like alcohol and the officer requested a DUI unit. The driving pattern and initial contact with the Defendant was captured via audio AND video. When the DUI unit showed up, the stopping officer “TURNED OFF” the audio. The Defendant allegedly told the DUI officer that he had 3 or 4 drinks at a bar and then refused to submit to roadside tasks after being told he would be arrested for refusing. After being arrested, the Defendant refused to submit to a sample of his breath. The State Attorney’s Office initially refused to drop the charges for Driving Under the Influence citing the Defendant’s clear impairment and horrible driving pattern for their reasoning. Thus, the firm set and took depositions in the case. At the depositions, the Firm was able to establish that the arresting officer was offered the opportunity to use the audio to record the Defendant’s statements and entire interaction with him. He declined and did not want the audio. The arresting officer then came into the depositions and denied that the stopping officer gave him the opportunity to use his audio microphone to record this contact. After bringing all of this to the attention of the State Attorney’s Office, they agreed to DISMISS the charges for driving under the influence.
The Defendant was seen swerving in the road and not able to maintain a lane. She also stopped for several seconds and did not move when the light turned green. Upon being stopped the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes and the driver was chewing gum very rapidly. She stated she was not swerving and that she had nothing to drink. Her speech was slurred and slowed and questioned everything the officer asked of her. She consented to roadside tasks and performed poorly. After being arrested, the Defendant gave a breath sample of .081 and .080. The firm retrieved the videos of the driving pattern and the roadsides as well as the breath testing facility videos. After reviewing the driving patter, the Firm filed a motion to suppress alleging that the stop was not based upon reasonable suspicion. In addition to that, the Firm spoke with the State Attorney assigned to the case regarding the strength of the roadside video and the low breath reading. The day before the motion to suppress, the State of Florida agreed to dismiss the charges for Driving Under the Influence.
The defendant was stopped at 3:30am by the Edgewater Police Department for speeding and driving with her high beam headlights on. The officer noticed the smell of alcohol and blood shot, glassy eyes upon making contact with the driver and asked her to perform field sobriety exercises. The driver began to perform the exercises, however was unable to complete them and was placed under arrest for DUI. During a search incident to arrest a pipe was found which the driver admitted was used for smoking cannabis. There was nobody else in the vehicle to which possession of the pipe could be attributed. The driver was then taken back to the Edgewater Police Department and given a breath test, the result of which indicated the client had a .16 BAC (twice the legal limit). After litigating the issues and lengthy negotiations with the State, we were able to convince the State to reduce the DUI charge and dismiss the paraphernalia count.
The defendant was stopped at 3:30am by the Edgewater Police Department for speeding and driving with her high beam headlights on. The officer noticed the smell of alcohol and blood shot, glassy eyes upon making contact with the driver and asked her to perform field sobriety exercises. The driver began to perform the exercises, however was unable to complete them and was placed under arrest for DUI. During a search incident to arrest a pipe was found which the driver admitted was used for smoking cannabis. There was nobody else in the vehicle to which possession of the pipe could be attributed. The driver was then taken back to the Edgewater Police Department and given a breath test, the result of which indicated the client had a .16 BAC (twice the legal limit). After litigating the issues and lengthy negotiations with the State, we were able to convince the State to reduce the DUI charge and dismiss the paraphernalia count.
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at approximately 2248 hours, a DUI officer was called to the area of MacDill Ave and W. Azeele St. in reference to a possibly impaired driver. A stop had been initiated by the DUI supervising sergeant for speeding. During the course of the traffic stop, the Sergeant noticed several cues of impairment and he requested a DUI investigator to further the investigation. Upon making contact with the driver, the DUI officer noticed she had an abnormal lack of alertness and appeared to be intoxicated. She deeply stared at the officer and her eyes were bloodshot, watery and glassy. In speaking with her, the officer could note a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her breath and her speech was slurred. She admitted to consuming 3 beers. The Defendant exited the vehicle sluggishly after agreeing to perform field sobriety exercises. She was unsteady on her feet and held onto the door to keep her balance. She displayed multiple clues of impairment when the officer checked her eyes. When the officer began to give the instructions for the walk and turn exercise, the Defendant indicated that she had anxiety problems and stated she was having an anxiety attack, though she did not exhibit any of the typical signs of an anxiety attack such as rapid breathing. When asked if she was diagnosed with anxiety or taking medication for it, she stated no. She then stated she was having an asthma attack, which she stated she did take medication for. The officer felt it was clearly apparent that she was trying to stall or evade the sobriety exercises. The officer then placed her under arrest for DUI. Once at the jail, the officer had the nurses on duty check on the Defendant for any type of distress. The nurses determined she did not require any type of medical attention, so the Defendant was requested to perform a breath test. The Defendant refused to submit to a breath test and was booked for DUI. Result: The case was set for trial and at the last call pretrial date, the State dropped the DUI charge.
