On 10/10/09 at approximately 2100 hours, police dispatch was advised of a traffic crash on East Vina Del Mar Blvd. When the officer arrived a 2005 BMW had impacted a parked Kia. The BMW was driven by the Defendant. The passenger in the BMW advised they were coming back from Caddy’s. The Defendant, who had gone into the residence to speak with the owner of the Kia, then came out and explained to the officer that he had injured his shoulder in the accident. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant. He also spoke with a slurred thick tongue. The Defendant was then transported onto a backboard and taken inside an ambulance for an apparent separated shoulder. The Defendant was asked for consent to a blood draw, which he refused. The Defendant was then read Florida’s implied consent law and asked to submit to a blood draw, which he also refused. The officer then had the medic perform an involuntary blood draw. The results of the blood alcohol test were .285 and .288. The Defendant was arrested for DUI on. Results: The firm filed a motion to suppress the blood results, which was granted. After the judge granted the motion, the state dismissed the DUI case against the Defendant.
Facts: The Defendant was driving through a Burger King drive through when he fell asleep at the wheel. The manager of the Burger King called 911 and the Defendant woke up and ordered food and then continually drove around and around the drive through numerous times. The manager of the Burger King told dispatch that the driver was drunk and kept driving through and ordering food. An officer responded from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and the manager pointed to the Defendant’s truck parked in the parking lot. The Officer drove up behind the Defendant and turned on his emergency lights. He made contact with the Defendant who was eating a burger. He immediately turned off the truck and the officer noticed watery eyes and an odor of alcohol. He fumbled for his wallet and said he had not been drinking. He then said in a slurred speech, “I was eating a fu*@#ng burger, get out of here and leave me alone!”. He then said he had one beer and don’t have a DUI unit come. A DUI task force officer arrived on scene and conducted a DUI investigation. The DUI officer noticed that the Defendant was agitated with his presence on scene. When out of the vehicle, he was swaying back and forth. He then told the DUI officer he had just come from his house where he had 2 or 3 Budweiser beers. Then he told the Officer he had been at a Bar for an hour. He begged the Officer to just have someone come pick him up and alleged that the Officer was “ruining his life and making his family homeless.” The Defendant performed very poorly on the videotaped roadside exercises to the point that he just gave up on trying to say the alphabet because he just couldn’t get it right numerous times. He was arrested for DUI and taken the Breath Center where he gave two samples of his breath which were a .173 and .171. He was more than two time the legal limit. The Firm took the depositions of the stopping officer as well as the arresting DUI officer regarding the issues surrounding the stop. After filing a Motion to Suppress arguing that the Defendant was stopped without any legal justification under the Fourth Amendment, the State dropped the DUI on the day of the Motion hearing
The Defendant was stopped for having a tag light out while driving on Walsingham Rd. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the officer noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage. The Defendant was unsteady as he exited the vehicle and his speech appeared slurred. The officer had the Defendant perform field sobriety exercises. The Defendant did not perform them satisfactorily and was arrested for DUI. The Defendant refused to provide a breath sample. The video camera from the officer’s dash recorded the interaction with the Defendant. Upon review of the video, the Defendant was very cooperative with the officer. The officer had a thick accent which caused the Defendant to ask the officer to repeat certain instructions. The officer became quite rude and confrontational with the Defendant during the course of the investigation. Many of the indicators of impairment listed by the officer could be contributed to the officer’s impatience and accent. The firm reviewed the video with the prosecutor and convinced the state to drop the DUI charge.
The defendant was followed by an Orange County Deputy who observed him weaving all over the road. The Deputy activated his lights to stop defendant, when he would not pull over, the deputy engaged his siren and it took client several blocks of slowly creeping along before he stopped his truck. The defendant couldn’t follow the directions of the deputy to turn off his engine, step out of the vehicle, and produce his driver’s license. The defendant smelled of alcohol, had a heavy sway while standing, and couldn’t complete the field sobriety exercises. He was placed under arrest and while being transported to the jail, urinated on himself and then refused to give a breath test. The defendant retained The Ticket Clinic to represent him because a DUI conviction would cost him his job at Disney. The firm filed a series of aggressive motions attacking the States case in chief, and the right the police had to arrest the defendant in the first place. The presiding judge agreed and ordered the total suppression of all evidence against our client. The State, having no evidence to go forward with, had no choice but to drop the charges against our client and he suffered no further consequences.
While leaving a gas station our client hit one of the cement guards that protects the gas pumps. Being that the cement guard was fine and the only damage was to his own vehicle, our client left the scene not knowing that he must legal remain or leave his information behind. Police pulled our client over down the road when they saw his car driving with the bumper hanging off. The officer gave our client a criminal citation for leaving the scene of an accident. After speaking to the prosecutor we were able to successfully convince the state attorney that this was not a case worthy of criminal implications and that the case should be dismissed. The state attorney eventually agreed and dismissed the case that day
The defendant was driving his 2000 Ford Pickup when he lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle flipped multiple times and ended up on its side. The defendant was trapped in the vehicle. Firefighters responded and used the jaws of life to free the defendant from the vehicle. Once free, they noticed a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and bloodshot eyes. He was taken to the hospital where he admitted to drinking too much and told the Trooper that he was drunk. Based on those factors, the Trooper took a sample of blood which indicated an impairment level of twice the legal limit. Our firm advised the State that there were some holes in their case. After reviewing the issues we brought to their attention, the State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was pulled over after a concerned citizen notified the police that they were driving drunk. The officer pulled him over for driving 7 miles an hour over the speed limit. When he approached the defendant, he noticed and odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a cup of tequila in plain view. He asked the driver to perform field sobriety exercises to determine if he was impaired. The defendant complied and was arrested after the officer claimed he performed poorly. He was taken to jail after he refused to take a breath test. Our firm filed a motion to suppress the field sobriety exercises. On the morning the motions were to be heard, the state dropped the DUI.
The defendant got into an accident and left the scene. An officer stopped him after noticing a driving pattern of weaving and going up on a curve. As the officer was talking to the defendant, he heard over the radio about a hit and run and detained the defendant until the other officer arrived and did an accident report. After the accident report was done the police started a Dui investigation. The defendant refused Field Sobriety Exercises and the breath test. The State dropped the leaving the scene of the accident and the DUI property damage. The DUI charge was reduced to a wet reckless driving.
The defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his van, engine running and in gear, at a stop light around midnight. The Police were called by a concerned citizen and when they arrived they could not awaken the defendant and had to open the doors to his vehicle, put the car in park, and turn off the engine for their safety. The defendant smelled of alcohol and didn’t complete the Field Sobriety Exercises. The defendant was then placed under arrest and in a search incident to his arrest; the police found marijuana and empty beer cans in his van. The defendant retained the Ticket Clinic to represent him because a conviction from either a DUI or a Possession of Cannabis would cost him his job. The firm filed a series of aggressive motions attacking the states case in chief, challenging the validity of the breath test machine, and the right the police had to arrest the defendant in the first place. Following many court appearances and hearings the State agreed to drop the Possession of Cannabis case altogether and to lower the DUI to a Reckless Driving. The defendant was extremely happy with the offer and accepted, suffering no loss of employment.
The defendant was placed on felony community control in March of 2009 after having been found in violation of her probation in Seminole County. In May 2009 she was arrested by an Orange County Deputy Sheriff and charged with Felony Driving While License Suspended and Attaching Tag Not Assigned. The defendant retained the Ticket Clinic to represent her for both the new law violations in Orange County and the inevitable Violation of Community Control (VOCC) that would come out of Seminole County. The defendant scored a minimum 8 years in prison in the Seminole case alone. The Ticket Clinic spoke with the State Attorney’s office in Orange County and got both charges dropped. With no law violations to base their VOCC on, Seminole County had no choice but to drop the VOCC and the defendant suffered no further actions.
The Defendant passed a DUI Task Force Deputy traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour on the exit ramp from I-595 on to I-95 Northbound. The Defendant maintained those speeds and made over 8 lane changes within heavy traffic. The Deputy finally caught up to the Defendant’s vehicle on the Sunrise Boulevard exit ramp. The Deputy Stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and noticed the Defendant to have the odor of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot eyes and a flushed face. The Defendant was asked to perform roadside exercises and did so. During the walk and turn exercise, the Defendant lost her balance during the instructional stance, started the exercise to early and missed touching heel to toe on 6 separate steps and used her arms for balance. On the finger to nose, the Defendant repeatedly used the incorrect portion of her finger and missed the portion of her nose that she was instructed to touch on several occasions. The Defendant was arrested for both reckless driving and DUI and submitted to the breath test which resulted in readings of .094/.094 g/210L, well above the legal limit. The Defendant was found not guilty of reckless driving and DUI after a jury trial.
The defendant went shopping in a well known retail store in Port St. Lucie with her husband. After selecting merchandise, the defendant was waiting in the check-out line. Store security confronted her husband and accused him of shoplifting by placing items in his pockets. The husband fled the store. Failing to apprehend the husband, store security turned their attention to the defendant, who voluntarily remained on scene. Security accused her of assisting her husband with his alleged theft and demanded her to walk to a back office to be interrogated. Confused and feeling harassed by security, she attempted to peacefully walk out of the store; but the police were called and arrested the defendant for petit theft and resisting a merchant. After meeting with the Firm’s Treasure Coast Attorney, it became apparent to counsel that she had no knowledge of her husband’s actions and was wrongfully accused based on the unfortunate notion of “guilty by association.” Counsel immediately pulled video from the multiple cameras in the retail store. The video images clearly showed our client was simply shopping. The video images not only failed to show she was in any way assisting her husband commit a crime, it also did not show she even had knowledge of his actions. Furthermore, counsel immediately recognized that the State could not prove the “resisting merchant” charge because there was no allegation that our client intended to prevent the store from retrieving stolen merchandise, a required element to the offense. Armed with multiple defenses, counsel set the case for trial. Recognizing the strong case the Firm’s counsel was prepared to present to a jury, the prosecutor dropped all charges.
