The Defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence after he was stopped and arrested in a parking lot. He gave a breath sample over a .15 and his license was suspended for 6 months. The Firm requested an administrative review hearing and subpoenaed witnesses to be present. The Firm took testimony from the arresting officer and made a motion to invalidate the suspension due to the fact that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and/or no probable cause that the Defendant had committed a traffic infraction. The DMV sustained the suspension and the Firm appealed to the Circuit Court. After 2 years, the Circuit court, sitting on a 3 judge panel, reversed the decision of the DMV holding that they failed to consider the lawfulness of the stop on a breath case. Additionally, the Firm argued that the stop was, in fact, unlawful and the appellate court agreed. The Suspension will be removed from the Defendant’s driving record.
On July 25th, 2012 at approximately 0146 hours, a Tampa Police Officer saw a red Hyundai Sonata traveling east on Palm Ave. He saw the vehicle was weaving and driving onto the roadway painted lane markers. The vehicle made a wide turn onto 22nd St. N and then turned onto 14th Ave. At that point, the officer initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle to check the condition of the driver. The officer made contact with the driver and saw that his eyes were red, watery and glassy. He had the appearance of being dazed or intoxicated. The officer could smell the moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath and also noticed a red paper wrist band on the driver’s wrist. The Defendant fumbled through his wallet, and then stated his license was in the trunk of the vehicle. The Defendant climbed from his vehicle using the door for leverage. The Defendant was unable to find his license in the trunk. The officer then asked the Defendant where he had been coming from and he stated Gbar, a bar in Ybor City. The Defendant then admitted to drinking 2 whiskeys. The Defendant was swaying as he stood. A DHSMV computer search of the Defendant’s driver’s license showed multiple suspensions for failure to pay traffic fines. The officer then requested the Defendant to perform field sobriety exercises, which he agreed. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment and was unable to satisfactorily complete the exercises. The Defendant was then placed under arrest and agreed to submit to a breath test. The results of the test were .110 and .111. The Defendant was charged with DUI and Driving while license suspended with knowledge. Results: The firm set the case for trial and at the last call hearing before trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On July 25th, 2012 at approximately 0146 hours, a Tampa Police Officer saw a red Hyundai Sonata traveling east on Palm Ave. He saw the vehicle was weaving and driving onto the roadway painted lane markers. The vehicle made a wide turn onto 22nd St. N and then turned onto 14th Ave. At that point, the officer initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle to check the condition of the driver. The officer made contact with the driver and saw that his eyes were red, watery and glassy. He had the appearance of being dazed or intoxicated. The officer could smell the moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath and also noticed a red paper wrist band on the driver’s wrist. The Defendant fumbled through his wallet, and then stated his license was in the trunk of the vehicle. The Defendant climbed from his vehicle using the door for leverage. The Defendant was unable to find his license in the trunk. The officer then asked the Defendant where he had been coming from and he stated Gbar, a bar in Ybor City. The Defendant then admitted to drinking 2 whiskeys. The Defendant was swaying as he stood. A DHSMV computer search of the Defendant’s driver’s license showed multiple suspensions for failure to pay traffic fines. The officer then requested the Defendant to perform field sobriety exercises, which he agreed. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment and was unable to satisfactorily complete the exercises. The Defendant was then placed under arrest and agreed to submit to a breath test. The results of the test were .110 and .111. The Defendant was charged with DUI and Driving while license suspended with knowledge. Results: The firm set the case for trial and at the last call hearing before trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On June 30, 2012, at approximately 10 pm, a Florida Highway Patrol officer was headed southbound on I-75 just south of I-4. He observed a vehicle which he thought was traveling well over the posted speed limit. The vehicle ran up on the back of traffic 2 lanes to the officer’s right and slammed on the brakes. The vehicle then abruptly changed lanes to the left and began to speed up rapidly. The officer was able to get a pace clock on the vehicle. The officer was traveling 106 miles per hour and not gaining or losing any distance on the vehicle. The officer had to travel well over 110 mph to catch up to the vehicle and initiate a traffic stop. The officer made contact with the driver/Defendant and could smell an odor of alcoholic beverage. The driver’s motor skills and reactions seemed slow. The Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his face was flush. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the vehicle. The Defendant had trouble maintaining his balance and his speech was slow and slurred. The Defendant was asked if he would perform field sobriety exercises and he stated he did not understand what the officer was talking about. The Defendant agreed to let the officer look at his eyes. The Defendant could not follow the instructions to follow the pen with his eyes to determine if HGN was present. The Defendant stated he had nothing to drink. The Defendant was then relocated off the interstate for field sobriety exercises. As the Defendant rode with the officer to the field sobriety exercise point, he stated he did not understand what the officer was talking about. During the field sobriety exercises, the Defendant kept telling the officer that he did not know what he was talking about, and that he was from Bulgaria. He stated he would try the exercises but kept having difficulty with the officer’s instructions. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment on the One leg stand, finger to nose, and walk and turn exercises. The officer then read the Defendant his Miranda rights, which he waived and agreed to answer questions. The Defendant again said he had nothing to drink. The Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI. The Defendant refused to provide a breath sample. Result: The case was set for trial and at the last call hearing before the trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
DUI
On June 30, 2012, at approximately 10 pm, a Florida Highway Patrol officer was headed southbound on I-75 just south of I-4. He observed a vehicle which he thought was traveling well over the posted speed limit. The vehicle ran up on the back of traffic 2 lanes to the officer’s right and slammed on the brakes. The vehicle then abruptly changed lanes to the left and began to speed up rapidly. The officer was able to get a pace clock on the vehicle. The officer was traveling 106 miles per hour and not gaining or losing any distance on the vehicle. The officer had to travel well over 110 mph to catch up to the vehicle and initiate a traffic stop. The officer made contact with the driver/Defendant and could smell an odor of alcoholic beverage. The driver’s motor skills and reactions seemed slow. The Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his face was flush. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the vehicle. The Defendant had trouble maintaining his balance and his speech was slow and slurred. The Defendant was asked if he would perform field sobriety exercises and he stated he did not understand what the officer was talking about. The Defendant agreed to let the officer look at his eyes. The Defendant could not follow the instructions to follow the pen with his eyes to determine if HGN was present. The Defendant stated he had nothing to drink. The Defendant was then relocated off the interstate for field sobriety exercises. As the Defendant rode with the officer to the field sobriety exercise point, he stated he did not understand what the officer was talking about. During the field sobriety exercises, the Defendant kept telling the officer that he did not know what he was talking about and that he was from Bulgaria. He stated he would try the exercises but kept having difficulty with the officer’s instructions. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment on the One leg stand, finger to nose, and walk and turn exercises. The officer then read the Defendant his Miranda rights, which he waived and agreed to answer questions. The Defendant again said he had nothing to drink. The Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI. The Defendant refused to provide a breath sample. Result: The case was set for trial and at the last call hearing before the trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On June 30, 2012, at approximately 10 pm, a Florida Highway Patrol officer was headed southbound on I-75 just south of I-4. He observed a vehicle which he thought was traveling well over the posted speed limit. The vehicle ran up on the back of traffic 2 lanes to the officer’s right and slammed on the brakes. The vehicle then abruptly changed lanes to the left and began to speed up rapidly. The officer was able to get a pace clock on the vehicle. The officer was traveling 106 miles per hour and not gaining or losing any distance on the vehicle. The officer had to travel well over 110 mph to catch up to the vehicle and initiate a traffic stop. The officer made contact with the driver/Defendant and could smell an odor of alcoholic beverage. The driver’s motor skills and reactions seemed slow. The Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his face was flush. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the vehicle. The Defendant had trouble maintaining his balance and his speech was slow and slurred. The Defendant was asked if he would perform field sobriety exercises and he stated he did not understand what the officer was talking about. The Defendant agreed to let the officer look at his eyes. The Defendant could not follow the instructions to follow the pen with his eyes to determine if HGN was present. The Defendant stated he had nothing to drink. The Defendant was then relocated off the interstate for field sobriety exercises. As the Defendant rode with the officer to the field sobriety exercise point, he stated he did not understand what the officer was talking about. During the field sobriety exercises, the Defendant kept telling the officer that he did not know what he was talking about, and that he was from Bulgaria. He stated he would try the exercises but kept having difficulty with the officer’s instructions. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment on the One leg stand, finger to nose, and walk and turn exercises. The officer then read the Defendant his Miranda rights, which he waived and agreed to answer questions. The Defendant again said he had nothing to drink. The Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI. The Defendant refused to provide a breath sample. Result: The case was set for trial and at the last call hearing before the trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The defendant was charged with violating the terms of his business purposes only license that was required because he had a five year habitual traffic offender license suspension. The State Attorney in the case was asking for a month in jail. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the case as the defendant was stopped for failing to signal lanes and there was no evidence that traffic was affected by said failing to signal. In addition, the Firm argued that this case could ultimately not be proven as the only evidence against the defendant was his own statement and the doctrine of Corpus Delecti prohibited his statement from being admitted into evidence. On the day of the hearing for the Motion to Suppress in this case the State Attorney agreed with The Firm and dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
The defendant was charged with violating the terms of his business purposes only license that was required because he had a five year habitual traffic offender license suspension. The State Attorney in the case was asking for a month in jail. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the case as the defendant was stopped for failing to signal lanes and there was no evidence that traffic was affected by said failing to signal. In addition, the Firm argued that this case could ultimately not be proven as the only evidence against the defendant was his own statement and the doctrine of Corpus Delecti prohibited his statement from being admitted into evidence. On the day of the hearing for the Motion to Suppress in this case the State Attorney agreed with The Firm and dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
The defendant was charged with violating the terms of his business purposes only license that was required because he had a five year habitual traffic offender license suspension. The State Attorney in the case was asking for a month in jail. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the case as the defendant was stopped for failing to signal lanes and there was no evidence that traffic was affected by said failing to signal. In addition, the Firm argued that this case could ultimately not be proven as the only evidence against the defendant was his own statement and the doctrine of Corpus Delecti prohibited his statement from being admitted into evidence. On the day of the hearing for the Motion to Suppress in this case the State Attorney agreed with The Firm and dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
The Defendant was clocked going 53 in a 35 mile per hour zone. The officer turned on his lights and sirens and the vehicle did not slow down. The Defendant eventually stopped and her speech was slurred and her eyes were bloodshot and glassy. She also smelled like alcohol and stated she had been drinking beer on the beach all day. The Defendant had two 12 packs of bud light in the rear seat. A DUI unit showed up and the Defendant was eating corn chips upon his arrival. She performed poorly on roadsides and was taken back to the jail where she was asked to submit to a breath test and refused. She admitted to drinking 4 beers but could not remember when she had her last drink. When asked if she could feel the effects of the alcohol, she would not answer. The Firm contacted the State Attorney after reviewing all of the initial police reports. After vigorous negotiations, the Firm was able to convince the State to dismiss the charges for Driving Under the Influence.
The Defendant was clocked going 53 in a 35 mile per hour zone. The officer turned on his lights and sirens and the vehicle did not slow down. The Defendant eventually stopped and her speech was slurred and her eyes were bloodshot and glassy. She also smelled like alcohol and stated she had been drinking beer on the beach all day. The Defendant had two 12 packs of bud light in the rear seat. A DUI unit showed up and the Defendant was eating corn chips upon his arrival. She performed poorly on roadsides and was taken back to the jail where she was asked to submit to a breath test and refused. She admitted to drinking 4 beers but could not remember when she had her last drink. When asked if she could feel the effects of the alcohol, she would not answer. The Firm contacted the State Attorney after reviewing all of the initial police reports. After vigorous negotiations, the Firm was able to convince the State to dismiss the charges for Driving Under the Influence.
