The Defendant was stopped at the intersection of I-95 and Sheridan with a cat on her lap. The Defendant proceeded through the green light and the cat jumped out the window of her moving vehicle. The defendant stopped her vehicle and left her vehicle unattended in a lane of traffic with the hazard lights running. A police cruiser then crashed into the rear of her unattended vehicle while she chased her cat. Upon her return from looking for the cat, a DUI investigator noticed that she had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and that she was unsteady on her feet. A DUI investigation ensued and the Defendant performed poorly on roadside exercises on video. The Defendant was arrested for DUI causing property damage and submitted to the breath test resulting in readings of .153g/210L and .152 g/210L. During the Firm’s investigation of this case, the Firm discovered that a video existed reflecting a conspiracy between 5 officers on the scene to unlawfully blame the Defendant for crashing into the officer in order to protect the officer from any civil liability or Departmental discipline. The video the firm found also shows the each of the officers indicating that they would submit false reports, perpetrate a fraud upon the court, suborn perjury and falsify sworn documents. The firm also was able to demonstrate that officers fabricated the entire accident investigation and facts surrounding the initial contact with the client, manufactured false evidence to fit their facts, tampered with evidence and committed perjury. All charges were dismissed after our investigation of this case. This case also garnered national media attention and was featured live on the NBC Today Show, CNN, Inside Edition, Fox News and MSNBC as well as local news outlets
The Defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Controlled Substances Causing or Contributing Injuring to Person or Property. The Defendant was seen driving slowly and speeding up, not letting the victim pass him. The victim then drove around him and into a different parking lot, rounded a curve and the defendant was in the wrong lane in the parking lot. The defendant crashed his vehicle into the defendant’s vehicle according to the victim. The victim testified that the defendant got out of the car yelling and screaming and slurring his words. He seemed impaired and did not have his “wits about him”. A police officer showed up and saw that the defendant’s eyes were glassy and somewhat bloodshot. He seemed uncoordinated and his speech was slurred. He was very slow in his movements and seemed lethargic. He admitted to taking Alprazolam and handed a bottle of the pills to the officer. There were 16 pills in the bottle which had been filled the day before for 30 pills. During the walk and turn exercises, he lost his balance when he started the task, did not walk heel to toe 5 of the steps and had to be reminded what to do halfway through the task. During the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down two times and counted to 19 and then said “30”. During the finger to nose task, the defendant held his finger on his nose for a period of about 13 seconds before the officer told him that he was supposed to return it to his side. He then missed his nose on 4 more occasions. The Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of a controlled substance and was taken to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility where he agreed to a urine test. The Defendant’s urine came back with Alprazolam and Marijuana in it. The State called a forensic toxicologist to testify who made an opinion that what she witnessed on the video was consistent with someone who would be impaired by Alprazolam and marijuana. The Defense called the defendant’s father who testified that the defendant had taken 14 pills out of his prescription bottle because he was going on a camping trip the next day for 2 weeks. Additionally, the defendant took the stand also to not only tell his side of the story, but so the jury could hear the way in which he spoke as it was similar to the way in which he sounded on the video. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of Driving Under the Influence Causing or Contributing injury to person or property.
The Defendant was driving southbound in the left lane on the Florida turnpike going 40 mph in a 70 mph zone. Other vehicles had to go around her in the passing lane due to her speed. Additionally, she was swerving over the marked solid yellow lane line as well. After being stopped, the officer immediately noticed a strong odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage emanating from the vehicle as she spoke. Her eyes were red, bloodshot, glassy and watery. Her speech was thick and slow and her movements were slow and lethargic. She was asked to perform roadside exercises and consented. During the walk and turn, she swayed side to side. She never walked heel to toe on any steps and at the end she turned around two times. Additionally, she walked backwards down the line instead of forwards. During the one leg stand, she started before being told to, and could not keep her leg up. After performing poorly on the finger to nose exercise as well, the Officer placed her under arrest for DUI. An opened, half full 24 ounce beer can was found in the vehicle after she was arrested. She admitted that she had a beer at home as well. She was transported to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility where she was observed by the officer for 20 minutes prior to having giving a breath sample. The Defendant gave a breath sample of .081 and .083. The Firm was successful in getting a court order to enter the Breath Testing Facility with a private investigator to take photographs of the holding cell and room in which the observation period was done. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the breath results alleging that the Officer placed the defendant in the locked holding cell for a substantial portion of the 20 minute observation period and therefore the State of Florida did not substantially comply with the Florida Administrative codes prior to requesting a breath sample because the officer (based upon the pictures taken by the Firm’s private investigator) could not have heard her burp or regurgitate or seen her possibly place something in her mouth. On the day before trial, the State dropped the DUI.
A sheriff deputy noticed a vehicle on River Road approaching the rear of his vehicle at a high rate of speed. As the vehicle closed in on the deputy’s car, the deputy had to swerve his vehicle to the right of the roadway to avoid being struck. As the Deputy swerved, the vehicle swerved into the oncoming lane of traffic, nearly causing a head-on collision. The vehicle then swerved back into the correct lane of travel. The Deputy activated his overhead emergency equipment and attempted to stop the vehicle. The vehicle continued to travel at speeds between 75-85 mph. The vehicle crossed the center line several times almost causing several other accidents. The vehicle finally yielded and came to a stop approximately 7 miles after the deputy activated his lights. As the deputy approached the vehicle, he made contact with the Defendant who was in the driver’s seat. The Defendant had a strong odor of alcoholic beverages on his breath. The Defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. The Defendant attempted to perform the One Legged Stand test 4 times, but could not perform the test for more than three seconds each time. The Defendant also attempted the Finger to Nose test, which indicated clues of impairment. During the alphabet test, the Defendant incorrectly recited the alphabet. The final test was the walk and turn test, which the deputy allowed the Defendant to perform 4 times. During one of the attempts, the Defendant almost fell over causing the deputy to have to catch him. The Defendant was arrested for DUI and requested to take a breath test. The results of the breath test were .228 and .246. The firm raised several issues with the breath test results and the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant was charged with Driving with No Valid DL by a Martin County Deputy Sheriff. After an in-depth consultation, defense counsel learned the Defendant was driving on a private road when he was pulled over by the deputy. Defense counsel prepared legal documents contesting the lawfulness of the charge. Florida Law does not require a driver to be licensed when driving on a private roadway. Upon receiving the legal documents, the Assistant State Attorney immediately dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
A Florida Highway Patrol Trooper observed the Defendant and another vehicle traveling on I-4. Both vehicles then began to rapidly accelerate in an apparent attempt to out-gain one another. The Trooper sped up in attempted to catch up to the vehicles. Once the Trooper closed in on the vehicles, he attempted to pace the speed of the vehicles and estimated it to be 30 mph above the speed limit. The Trooper then initiated a traffic stop on both vehicles and issued them tickets for Racing. The case was set for trial by the firm and on the day of trial, the State dropped the Racing charge.
A Port St. Lucie police officer alleged she saw the Defendant make a wide right turn onto Port St. Lucie Blvd and begin swerving across all three lanes of traffic. The police officer then claimed she observed the Defendant almost hit a curb and guardrail twice. A sergeant, who was traveling the opposite direction of the Defendant, claimed the Defendant was driving “all over the road.” Upon making a traffic stop, the officer said the Defendant appeared confused and disoriented. The Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol and admitted to having “a couple.” The Defendant presented his registration to his boat instead of his car. The Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises. Defense counsel was able to retrieve the officer’s in car video which depicted a driving pattern far different then what the officer alleged in her police report. Defense counsel prepared legal documents to suppress the traffic stop. At the suppression hearing, defense counsel brought to the surface the many inconsistencies in the testimony of the State’s witnesses, thereby persuading the judge to rule that the sergeant “does not have an accurate memory” and the arresting officer “was not credible.” The judge ruled in favor of the Defendant and all charges were dropped.
The Police responded to Walmart after a woman called in claiming the defendant had stolen her son’s cell phone and would not give it back until she gave him $40.00. The officer located the defendant and saw him walking towards the store exit and past the cashier. The defendant appeared very nervous and had a visible bulge in the waste band under his shirt. The officer patted down the defendant for the presence of weapons and found a plastic wrapper hanging out of his right pants pocket. The bulky area around the defendant’s wasteband was three pairs of new boxer shorts. The defendant then stated “I needed some fresh underwear, but didn’t have any money.” He was then placed under arrest for Petit Theft and taken down to the police station. The Firm filed a motion to suppress alleging that the officer’s initial pat down was illegal in that the officer did not have a specific articuable suspicion that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon. Additionally, our Firm argued that even if the Officer did have a right to pat the defendant down for weapons, the Officer could not go and retrieve what was later found to be underwear and boxer shorts because it was not readily apparent that the object was a dangerous weapon. The State Attorney’s Office agreed to the motion to suppress and conceded that the search was illegal. The Court granted the motion and then dismissed the charges against the Defendant.
The defendant was stopped for going 72 in a 45 mph zone. When the officer approached the driver, he noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The officer asked for his driver\'s license, and when he produced it, the officer claimed that it was not him. The defendant became furious and pulled out multiple forms of ID and threw them on the ground. The officers began to argue with him and he said \"I don\'t give a s**t, just take me to jail.\" At that point he was arrested and taken to the breath testing station. He refused to provide a breath sample and was taken to jail. On the way to jail, our client called the officer a fa**ot, loser, and blew kisses at him. The State dismissed the DUI charge.
The Defendant was charged with his second DUI within 5 years of a previous DUI conviction. This type of DUI offense is punishable by a mandatory 10 day jail sentence and a 5 year driver’s license revocation. The Defendant was seen driving erratically in the City of Coconut Creek and continued driving in that manner into the City of Margate. The Defendant was stopped by a Coconut Creek Police Officer and pulled into a shopping center parking lot after being stopped. The officer noticed the Defendant to have the odor of an alcoholic beverage; bloodshot watery eyes; slurred speech; and a slow and lethargic demeanor. The defendant was asked to do roadside sobriety exercises and performed poorly. The defendant then refused to submit to a breath test. The Firm filed several Motions to Suppress the Traffic Stop and the Refusal to Submit to Testing. The State dropped all DUI charges and the Firm’s Motion to Dismiss the criminal charge of Refusal to Submit to testing and was granted, resulting in a dismissal of that Charge.
The Defendant was pulled over and found to be driving without a valid driver’s license. After defense counsel spoke with the Assistant State Attorney, all charges were dropped.
The defendant was stopped by Broward Sheriff’s in the City of Weston. The Defendant was asked to produce her driver’s license. While doing so, the Deputy noticed pills inside the Defendant’s purse that were not in a pill bottle. The pills had just been obtained by the Defendant from her mother for pain relief for a diagnosed medical condition immediately before the traffic stop. The Firm was able to present evidence that the pills were lawfully obtained from the Defendant’s mother and were lawfully prescribed. The State dropped all charges.
