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.
The Defendant was charged with DUI causing injury with a blood alcohol level exceeding .20 g/210L. The Defendant crashed into 2 other vehicles causing one to roll over. The Defendant remained in his vehicle after the crash and the officer noticed that the defendant was confused and dazed. The officer stated he did not notice the odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes or slurred speech. The Defendant was then taken to an ambulance and admitted to consuming three glasses of wine to the EMT in the ambulance. The officer’s ordered that the Defendant’s blood be drawn by the EMT. The blood reading was over 4 times the legal limit, .265g/210L. The firm filed a Motion to Suppress the Blood Sample based on the fact that the officer acted unlawfully in obtaining it and based on the fact the officer had no reasonable suspicion to even ask for a DUI Blood Sample. The State dropped all DUI charges before the hearing and felt that our Motion was well-taken.
A Martin County Deputy observed the Defendant driving his large truck. According to the deputy’s police report, the Defendant vehicle was drifting in its lane causing the tires to touch the center and outside lines. At one point, the deputy stated he witnessed the Defendant’s vehicle nearly hit a guardrail, and then make a wide right turn. The Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol, slurred his speech, appeared dazed, confused and moody and performed poorly on the field sobriety tasks. The Defendant provided a breath sample of 0.111 and 0.103. Defense counsel was able to retrieve the deputy’s in car video which depicted a driving pattern far different then what the deputy alleged in his police report. Defense counsel prepared legal documents to suppress the traffic stop. The DUI charged was dropped.
The defendant was seen by a citizen witness swerving all over the road. The citizen informed a police officer who was assisting a disabled vehicle. That officer then followed the defendant as he swerved all over the road and into the bike lane. The officer activated her emergency lights and the defendant pulled into a McDonalds parking lot and ran a stop sign before stopping the vehicle. The officer approached the car and noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant\'s breath, red bloodshot and glassy eyes as well as his speech being slurred. She asked where he was going and he stated \"she was singing\". A DUI officer arrived on scene and asked the defendant to exit his vehicle. The defendant had to use the door for support and held on the car as he staggered and prevented himself from falling over. The defendant was asked to perform roadside exercises. During the walk and turn he never walked heel to toe, did not walk on the line at all, made an improper turn and used his arms for balance the whole time. During the one leg stand he could not keep his leg up for more than four seconds and could not complete the task. During the finger to nose task, the defendant touched his lip instead of his nose, used the wrong hands when called (used the right when the left was called and use the left when the right was called) and swayed back and forth. During the alphabet task, the defendant sang it even though he was told not to. After being arrested the defendant stated in the patrol car that he \"should not have been driving and it was a slip\". At the breath alcohol testing facility, the defendant admitted on video to having one beer at home and then changed his story to having two beers. He continued to tell the officer that he had very low blood sugar and needed his medicine and food to get his blood sugar up. Our firm argued to a jury that the State could not prove the defendant was under the influence of alcohol but rather that his performance and demeanor related to his medical condition. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty for Driving Under the Influence.
The Defendant was clocked traveling 75 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. The officer noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the Defendant. The Defendant had difficulty in focusing on simple requests by the officer and admitted to consuming alcohol. The Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises almost falling at one point. At the breath alcohol testing facility, a video camera captured the Defendant’s pants falling to his ankles as he was standing. The Defendant’s breath readings showed impairment. Defense counsel demanded a trial. The State dismissed the DUI offense instead of going to trial.
The Defendant was stopped by a Broward Sheriff’s Deputy for speeding and driving with his bright lights on. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Deputy noticed that the Defendant had the odor of an alcoholic beverage, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The Defendant told the officer that he was coming from his house and later from the beach. The Defendant admitted to consuming one beer. The Defendant was asked to do roadside exercises at the time of the traffic stop and at the police station. He performed poorly during all exercises. The Defendant refused the breath test. The firm defended the case by asserting that a reaction to medication coupled with the defendant’s hypertension caused the defendant to appear to be impaired, but not the alcohol. Furthermore, the Firm argued that the officer lacked credibility because he failed to videotape his investigation and the Defendant testified to a different version of events than did the officer. The Defendant was found not guilty of DUI by a jury after trial.
The Defendant was charged with felony driving on a suspended license because she was a habitual traffic offender. Through the firm’s investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s arrest and an investigation into the Defendant’s DHSMV file, it was shown that the defendant had no knowledge or notice that she had been classified as a habitual offender, a required element that must be proven by the State to charge this felony offense. All of this evidence was presented to the State Attorney before trial and the State dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
The Defendant was stopped for racing with another vehicle. He was observed by the police officer driving in speeds over 100 miles per hour on West Okeechobee Blvd. with another vehicle \"racing\" the other car. The State considered amending the charge to a Reckless Driving but our firm pointed to the traffic citation which would not have supported a factual basis for Reckless Driving. The firm filed a motion to dismiss the Racing charge due to the fact that the Racing Statute under Florida law has been declared unconstitutional as it is \"void for vagueness.\" The Judge heard the motion and granted it. The Racing charge was dismissed
