The Client was stopped for running a red light while speeding at 74 mph. After being stopped law enforcement noticed an odor alcohol and thought the Defendant may be impaired. A DUI investigation was then conducted and the officer noted that the Client made several mistakes. The Client was then arrested for DUI and transported to the Breath Alcohol Testing Center where he provided a breath sample that did not indicate a presumption that the Client was not impaired. A urine test was also collected. The Firm immediately took the case and contacted the State Attorney's office and indicated that because the urine test was going to come back clean and the rest of the evidence was not strong for the State, that the charges should be dismissed before the case progressed past arraignment. The State agreed and the case was dismissed.
The Client's vehicle was stopped for speeding and failure to maintain a single lane. Once the law enforcement stopped the vehicle they noticed the Client smelled of alcohol and had a difficult time balancing. A DUI investigation was conducted and the Client did not perform well on all the exercises. The Client was arrested for DUI and transported to jail. Once at the jail the client was asked to give a breath sample, which when given showed a breath sample under the legal limit. The arresting officer then requested the Client to submit to a urine sample to show if the Client had taken any drugs. The Client refused to submit to a urine sample. The Firm was hired to help the Client and immediately began investigating the case. It was discovered that there was no other evidence that the Client was under the influence of any drug or controlled substance and as a result the urine request would be inadmissible. The State Attorney's office agreed but still refused to dismiss the case entirely. The Firm set the case for trial and on the morning of trial the State dismissed all charges against the Client.
Our client was arrested and charged with DUI after he was stopped for passing a FHP Trooper at 100 mph in a 60 mph zone. The Trooper allegedly noticed an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his breath as he talked, red and glassy eyes, pasty and dry lips, and thick tongued speech. Client admitted to having some drinks at a UFC watch party with friends. The Trooper took his keys and asked him out of the vehicle. He refused FSEs and was arrested for DUI. He submitted to a breath test and blew .041. The State offered our client Pre-Trial Diversion or plea to DUI minimums. The client rejected all offers and we set the case for trial. The morning of jury selection the State dismissed the charges and the Judge dismissed all the traffic violations.
Our client was involved in an accident with a motorcycle where the motorcycle operator passed away. Our client was charged with a fatal Careless Driving, which carries a mandatory $1,000 fine and 6 month license suspension. Our attorney set the case for trial. At the trial, the attorney prevented the FHP troopers from entering key evidence against our client and the ticket was dismissed.
Client was involved in an accident where he ran another car off the road. After the accident investigation, the police began a DUI investigation because our clients speech was slurred and he smelled of alcohol. Our client did poorly on the field sobriety exercises and blew a .192.
Our firm filed 3 motions including a motion to exclude the breath test as the police did not perform the 20 minute observation correctly. We won all 3 motions and the breath test was excluded from evidence. After the breath was excluded, the State of Florida dropped the DUI.
Client was involved in a traffic crash where he sideswiped another car. After the crash investigation, the police began a DUI investigation based on witness statements about his driving pattern, his eyes, and the odor of alcohol. Our client showed some balance issues but otherwise did well on field sobriety exercises and blew a .097.
Based on the nature of the crash the State denied all counteroffers for diversion and reckless driving. We set the case for trial and at 4:50 pm the day before jury selection the State offered a reckless driving amendment. Our client accepted and we resolved his case with very favorable conditions including no license suspension.
Our client was asleep, in a parking lot, with music playing. Law enforcement contacted him, woke him up and questioned him as to why he was there. Eventually, they requested he perform Field Sobriety Exercises. Upon the completion of those exercises, our client was arrested and charged with a DUI. He refused to give a breath sample. Upon review of the evidence, our attorney and client agreed that this case was one that needed to go to trial because of how well he performed on the Field Sobriety Exercises. The case was set for trial. Upon reviewing their own evidence prior to trial, the State wound up dismissing the charges as they agreed, our client should never have been arrested.
Our client was charged with DUI. After coming to us after hiring 2 other attorneys, we got her DUI charge dismissed. Our client provided a urine sample which reflected THC in her urine. We presented arguments to the prosecutor on the case citing why the State’s case was weak and why they would have difficulty proving their allegations against our client despite the urine test. The State agreed and dropped the DUI charge.
The client was found sleeping in front of a store in a parking lot, but not in a parking spot. The vehicle was running and in drive. The police began the investigation and determined that the client was impaired by alcohol. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the client gave a breath sample over the legal limit. After several negotiations with the state, the state agreed to dismiss the DUI.
Our client was located, asleep, behind the wheel of a running vehicle, that sat through two green light cycles. Law enforcement woke our client up, and immediately ordered him out of the vehicle, thus detaining him. A second officer arrived on scene and asked our client to submit to Field Sobriety Exercises based on him being asleep and smelling of alcohol. Our client agreed to submit to Field Sobriety Exercises and was placed under arrest for Driving Under the Influence. At the jail, our client agreed to submit a breath sample, which was found to be over the legal limit. Based on the facts, our attorney filed a Motion to Suppress the detention of our client and the request for Field Sobriety Exercises because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to request them. After a hearing on the facts and applicable law, the Court agreed with our attorney, and ruled everything from the moment our client was ordered out of his vehicle as inadmissible evidence that could not be used in trial. As a result, the State dismissed the charge.
Our client was arrested and charged by the police on Count 1-DUI, Count 2- DUI with property damage. Upon receipt of the case, our attorney maintained contact with the client, reviewed the facts. Our client complied with Field Sobriety Exercises as requested by the Officer, based on the Officer's opinion our client was placed under arrest.The affidavit detailed the odor of alcohol, glossy eyes and slurred speech, as well as not being able to stand straight or stop swaying. The body camera video showed the exact opposite, speaking English with a Portuguese accent, no glossy eyes and our client stood straight with no swaying. The request to perform roadside sobriety exercises was not a reasonable inquiry given the objective circumstances known to the officer at the time of the investigation. As a result, our attorney filed a Motion to Suppress which ultimately both counts were dismissed.
Our client was arrested and charged by the police with Possession of Cocaine, and Open Carrying of a Firearm. Upon receipt of the case, our attorney maintained contact with the client, reviewed the facts, and watched the calendar. The State failed to file charges against our client within 175 days, as required under his right to a Speedy Trial. As soon as the Speedy Trial period ran, our attorney immediately filed a Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial and a Motion to Discharge the client, preventing the State from prosecuting him. Both charges were discharged, and the State cannot legally pursue the charges against him.
