The Client was involved in an accident where he crashed into several vehicles. Law enforcement arrived on the scene and conducted a DUI investigation. During the investigation, because of the language barrier, the Client refused to cooperate with the investigation. The Client was arrested for DUI where he subsequently refused to provide a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and discovered there a was a lack of evidence in the case showing that the Client was impaired. The videos in the case only showed the Client standing with law enforcement. As result the Firm set the case for trial. The day before trial the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
On July 5, 2020 our client was arrested for DUI and Driving While his License was Suspended. After failed negotiations, Ticket Clinic lawyers set the case for a jury trial. According to police, our client was leaving a bar and crashed his car and then tried to leave the scene. Our client said that his ex-girlfriend was driving at the time of the crash. When the police arrived, our client was in the driver's seat. The vehicle had become inoperable after the crash. Ticket Clinic lawyers presented several defenses during the trial. First, we argued that the car was inoperable, so he could not have been "driving it". Next, we argued a "necessity defense" as his girlfriend left the vehicle in an unsafe manner, forcing our client to try to move the car. The trial lasted 2 days and the jury deliberated for less than one hour. When they returned, the jury announced a verdict of NOT GUILTY to all charges. Needless to say, our client was very happy!
The Ticket Client was hired to represent an 18 year old charged with Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia following a 3/31/22 traffic stop. The firms attorney's quickly identified the legal issue that rendered the search that took place to be unlawful. The attorney made quick contact with the Assistant State Attorney assigned to the case and was able to convince him not to file any charges against the client.
The Client was enjoying himself on his boat with friends when he was stopped for having too many people on his boat. During the course of his encounter with law enforcement it was determined that the Client had been drinking and was impaired. The Officer had the Client do several sobriety exercises. The Client performed well on the exercises. Subsequently the Client was asked to submit to a breath sample, which the client also passed. Lastly, the Client was asked to submit to a urine sample, which came back negative for controlled substances. The Firm presented all these facts to the State Attorney’s Office, which refused to dismiss the case because their view was the exercises weren’t performed well enough to dispel impairment. The Firm set the case for trial several times and presented case law to the State as well. Finally the State agreed to dismiss all charges.
Our client, an aspiring firefighter with an offer from a Fire Department in hand, was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence. The only thing the officer indicated prior to arrest was that the client was asleep in the vehicle, in the wrong lane. There was never a mention of any other potential indicator of impairment. After our client's arrest, a breath sample of .04 - half of the legal limit - was provided. Our client also provided a urine sample.
Upon receipt of the evidence, our attorneys set the case for trial and did not waive our client's right to a Speedy Trial. With a breath sample under .05, our client was entitled to a presumption of non-impairment, meaning the State would have to argue that their own science was incorrect and our client, despite a .04 breath sample was impaired beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the eve of trial, the State dismissed the case against our client, knowing they could not prove the charges.
The Client was involved in a severe accident where both vehicles were totaled. Once police arrived they noticed that the Client seemed impaired by alcohol and found an open alcoholic beverage in the vehicle. The Client had injuries he was complaining of and was transported to the hospital for treatment. Once at the hospital law enforcement had the Client complete seated sobriety exercises. Afterwards the Officers asked for a blood sample from the Client. The Client refused to give a sample. The Firm investigated the case, including several hours of body camera footage. It was determined by the Firm that the Officers never actually knew how long the Client was going to be treated in the hospital. As a result the request for a blood sample was unlawful. The Firm filed a Motion to Suppress the refusal to give a blood sample. The case was also set for trial following said motion. Days before the motion was to be heard the State agreed to drop the DUI charge.
Our client was parked in a truck on the side of a dirt road, when an Alachua County Deputy performed an investigatory stop. The Deputy ordered our client out of at gunpoint. Our client was subsequently arrested and charged with DUI.
Upon reviewing the facts of the case, our attorneys filed a Motion to Suppress evidence on the grounds that the deputy who was responding for a call for service for shots fired at a house did not have reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory stop. Therefore, the attorneys argued that everything after the stop including the DUI investigation must be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The State pursued prosecution against our client based on the fact that there was an independent basis for the stop. Our attorneys fought hard and in a motion to suppress hearing convinced the Judge that not only was investigatory stop unconstitutional, but that any independent basis for the stop was not compelling because it was not articulated in the Deputy's arrest report or supplemented to the report at a later date.
The Judge granted our attorney's motion and The State had no choice but to dismiss the case against our client.
Our Client was charged with domestic violence in Marion County. Our client was estranged from family for a very long period due to a no-contact order. The alleged victim told the State that there was no violence and that the evidence the State was relying on was from a previous unrelated incidence. However the State would not drop the charges. The clients hired The Ticket Clinic on 03/28/22 and our attorneys utilizing their relationships with the State Attorneys Office immediately went to work to get the charges dropped. Our attorneys were able to get the case dismissed by 03/29/22 and the Family was able to become Family again.
Our client was attending a birthday party when she was threatened with violence and chased out of the party by a knife wielding assailant. As she was attempting to escape, the assailant blocked her vehicle and threatened to kill her if she did not stop. She tried to drive around him, but was unable to avoid contact with the assailant and several vehicles in the parking lot. The State of Florida charged her with Leaving the Scene of an Accident, a second degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail. The Ticket Clinic Attorney set the case for trial, planning to assert a necessity defense. However, by objecting to the admission of certain testimony and video evidence, our attorney was able to prevent the State from proving that our client was the driver of the vehicle. As a result, our attorney was able to move for a Judgement of Acquittal, resulting in the dismissal of all charges against our client.
Our client was arrested and charged with a DUI after suffering a medical episode while driving and crashing into a tree, then hitting a house. At the hospital, a "Drug Recognition Expert" believed our client was under the influence of marijuana. However, the officer did not complete a Drug Recognition Evaluation in order to determine what, if anything, was actively impairing our client's faculties. Our client, a medical marijuana user, freely admitted that they had legally used marijuana approximately 24 hours prior to driving. Even being a "Drug Recognition Expert", the officer placed our client under arrest for her medical episode.
Upon reviewing the facts of the case, our attorneys filed a Motion to Suppress evidence on the grounds that the "Drug Recognition Expert" officer did not have the requisite suspicion to ask our client to submit to Field Sobriety Exercises, nor the requisite probable cause to arrest our client based on the totality of the circumstances.
The State pursued prosecution against our client. Our attorney, using the relationships that have been cultivated with the State based on reputation and respect, explained, in great detail, why the State legally could not prove the case against our client.
Taking everything into consideration, the State offered to amend our client's DUI charge to a civil Careless Driving citation with no criminal conviction, no civil conviction, no points, and minimal sanctions.
The Client was stopped for swerving and almost hitting other traffic. Once stopped it was discovered that she had her 3 year old son in the vehicle. Upon smelling the odor of alcohol on the Client she was immediately ordered out of the vehicle and asked to complete DUI sobriety exercises. After doing the exercises the Client was arrested for DUI but refused to give a breath sample. The Firm immediately ordered the video for the Client’s DUI stop. The video showed that the Client did exceptionally well on the exercises. The Firm argued to the State Attorney that the Officers likely over-reacted to the fact that there was a child in the vehicle and arrested the Client on very little evidence of DUI. The State refused to drop the DUI charge. The Firm set the case for trial and shortly before trial the State finally agreed to drop the DUI charge.
Our client was involved in a traffic crash on February 12, 2021. When officers arrived, they noted that they observed our client to have slurred speech, an odor of alcohol on her breath, and that she was incoherent. When questioned by officers, our client admitted to consuming a bottle of pink moscato approximately 30 minutes before the accident. During the DUI investigation, officers alleged that our client displayed horizontal gaze nystagmus in both eyes, was unable to keep her balance, swayed while standing, and was unable to follow instructions. After completing the investigation, she was placed under arrest and agreed to provide a sample of her breath to determine the alcohol content of her breath. After the results of this test showed that our client did not have any alcohol in her system, officers requested that she provide a urine sample to test for the presence of controlled substances. The urine test revealed the presence of several controlled substances and our client was charged with DUI causing property damage. The Public Defender assigned to her case filed several motions to suppress, but never attempted to have the result of the urine screening suppressed. After observing, the Ticket Clinic attorney litigate another case while she was waiting for her public defender to address her case, she decided to hire our firm to represent her. Within 2 weeks of hiring our office, the Ticket Clinic attorney was able to convince the state to drop all criminal charges against her because the officers did not have probable cause to request a urine sample, and without the urine sample, the State of Florida had no evidence showing that our client was impaired at the time of the crash.
