The defendant was charged with driving on a suspended license with knowledge due to a pending DUI charge. Upon meeting with the firm’s attorney, the defendant was adamant that although she knew she had a pending DUI charge, she was unaware that her license was suspended from it. When the State would not back down from seeking a 45 day jail sentence, the firm’s attorney took the case to trial. During trial, counsel cross examined the arresting officers of both the suspended license charge and the pending DUI charge. Despite the State’s efforts to claim the Defendant must have had knowledge, counsel persuaded the Judge otherwise. Our client was found NOT GUILTY and was completely acquitted of all charges.
Defendant was stopped by police after receiving a call from a citizen who noticed a white male walking in front of them with poor balance and that he was stumbling as he walked. The Caller also said that the male was fumbling with his car keys. Police noticed Def. parked off the side of the road. When the Police Officer made contact with Def. he noticed the Def. had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and person. The Police Officer also noticed Def. had bloodshot and glassy eyes and his speech was slow and sluggish, and at times he seemed confused. Def. performed poorly on field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. Def. was transported to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility where he submitted to a breath test. The results were .183 and .187 more than double the legal limit. DUI charge dropped.
The Defendant was observed traveling southbound along South Congress Avenue from Summit Blvd. and was drifting in and out of the center lane several times. The vehicle was also traveling 10 mph under the speed limit of 40 mph. Additionally, the vehicle kept randomly applying its brakes for no area to stop and turn. After making a turn onto Forest Hill Blvd., the vehicle drifted out of its lane with the left wheels passing the lane lines continuously. The vehicle was then stopped and the driver had a noticeable slur to her speech and had red, glassy eyes. Additionally, the driver smelled like alcohol. She said she left Clematis and had a few drinks. She performed poorly on roadside exercises and couldn’t even recite the alphabet correctly. The video of the driving pattern did in fact show the Defendant fail to maintain a lane one time. After being arrested, the Defendant gave a breath sample of a .130 and .121. The firm filed a Motion to Suppress arguing that the Defendant was stopped without probable cause of a traffic infraction and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Firm cross-examined the officer pointing out inconsistencies with his testimony and what the video evidence showed. The Judge granted the motion to suppress which resulted in all physical evidence (including the breath test results) being thrown out. Subsequently, the State dismissed the charges pending against the Defendant for Driving Under the Influence.
The Defendant was observed stopped in a roadway. As the officer approached, the vehicle began driving and not stopping for at least 2 stop signs. Additionally, the Defendant was not turning on his signals when making multiple turns. Upon being stopped, the Officer noticed the Defendant had an odor of alcohol coming from his breath and glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and was acting lethargic. He could not explain why he was driving in circles around this neighborhood. Additionally, he could not determine which piece of paper was his registration. Another Deputy arrived to conduct a DUI investigation. The Defendant told that officer that he was looking for Day Labors for a job the next day (although it was midnight). The Defendant was swaying in a circular motion. After being asked how much he drank, he said “a couple” which then became “four or five.” The Defendant refused to perform roadside exercises and was arrested. Additionally, he refused to give a breath sample while at the breath facility. The firm filed numerous motions to suppress arguing that the Defendant was arrested without probable cause and motions to exclude the refusal to submit to the breath sample. On the date of the motions, the State dismissed the charge for Driving Under the Influence.
On July 14, 2011, a Hillsborough County Sheriff Deputy observed a white Nissan eastbound on Adamo Dr. traveling at 68 mph in a 50 mph zone. The vehicle was also swerving in and out of traffic. The Deputy initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle and made contact with the driver and sole occupant, the Defendant. The Defendant identified himself verbally because he did not have a DL on him. The Deputy observed the Defendant have red, watery eyes, slurred speech, and odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. In the passenger seat were a bottle of wine and a six pack of beer. There was an additional half full bottle spilling onto the floor. The defendant was observed to be unsteady on his feet when exiting the vehicle. The Deputy requested field sobriety exercises, which the Defendant did not consent to do, instead repeatedly asking what he did wrong. The Defendant was arrested and transported to central breath testing. The Defendant refused to submit to a breath test after being explained the implied consent law. The Defendant has also issued citations for speeding, open container, and no proof of DL. Results: The firm convinced the State to drop the DUI charge based on lack of evidence.
The Defendant was stopped for allegedly failing to stop at a steady red light and running a stop sign. Upon being stopped, the Officer observed what he believed to be signs of impairment coming from the driver. After being asked to exit the vehicle, he was asked to submit to roadside tasks. According to the Officer, the Defendant performed poorly and could not recite the alphabet correctly as well. The Defendant was arrested and was asked to submit a sample of his breath which was refused. The Firm aggressively worked on the case from the beginning and listed more than 20 witnesses including seven expert witnesses. After retrieving video surveillance from previous establishments that the Defendant visited prior to being arrested, an in person meeting was set up with the Office of the State Attorney. The State of Florida reviewed all witness statements and the pre-filing packet provided by the firm and declined to file the charges for Driving Under the Influence.
The defendant was charged with Reckless Driving for crashing into several vehicles around her at the parking lot and causing lots of damage. The State refused to drop the charges against the defendant and was asking that she be put on probation and pay all costs of restitution. The Firm obtained witnesses that were able to state that cause of the accident was related to the vehicle’s malfunctioning transmission and set the case for trial. The State dismissed the criminal charges in the case.
The Defendant was charged with DUI after wrecking her car into a ditch. She performed Field sobriety exercises and was then given a breath sample, to which she blew over the limit. At the first pre-trial hearing The Firm set her case for trial. At the day of trial, the firm was able to get the State Attorney to dismiss all charges against the defendant.
The Defendant was pulled over after a police officer observed him swerve over the line multiple times and enter into the bike path. The officer indicated that if anyone had been in the bike lane, they would have been hit. When the officer came into contact with the defendant, he smelled alcohol on his breath and noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and watery. The officer requested that the defendant performs roadside exercises. The defendant performed very poorly on each of the exercises. The defendant also admitted to drinking several beers prior to driving. The attorney for the firm filed and argued a motion to suppress the stop of the vehicle. The judge granted the motion to suppress, and the State dropped the DUI case against the defendant.
The Defendant was pulled over after a police officer observed him swerve over the line multiple times and enter into the bike path. The officer indicated that if anyone had been in the bike lane, they would have been hit. When the officer came into contact with the defendant, he smelled alcohol on his breath and noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and watery. The officer requested that the defendant performs roadside exercises. The defendant performed very poorly on each of the exercises. The defendant also admitted to drinking several beers prior to driving. The attorney for the firm filed and argued a motion to suppress the stop of the vehicle. The judge granted the motion to suppress, and the State dropped the DUI case against the defendant.
On June 10, 2011, the Defendant was stopped on I-75 for speeding. Upon making contact with the driver, the Deputy learned that the Defendant did not have a valid license. The Defendant had been convicted of driving on an expired license in 2007, 2008 and in April of 2011. The Deputy arrested the Defendant for driving while license suspended, canceled or revoked. Results: The case was set for trial and on the day the trial was set to begin, the state dismissed the charge.
On April 11, 2011, a Tampa Police Officer was sitting at the red traffic signal on E. Busch Blvd and N. 30th St in the inside left turn lane. The officer observed a green 4-door Lincoln Navigator traveling west on Busch BLvd. The driver was not wearing a seat belt. The driver of the vehicle produced a FL driver’s license which was suspended. The officer cited the driver with Driving while license suspended with knowledge and failure to wear the seat belt. Results: The case was set for trial and on the day of trial, the officer was shown a picture of the listed Defendant and his brother. The officer was unable to positively identify which of the individuals was driving the vehicle back in April. Based on that, the State dismissed the case before the trial began.
