Charge: Racing on the Highway
Client, a CDL driver, was arrested for Racing on the Highway and even admitted to the crime. The charge carried criminal penalties, but would also have cost our client his job, and his CDL license. Through our attorney's mitigation efforts, the State was convinced to drop the charges against our client, preserving his criminal record, CDL license status and his job.
On July 5th, the Defendant was stopped after being observed by a Hillsborough County Deputy making a U-turn on Fletcher Ave. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Deputy noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from his breath. His eyes were red and watery. The Defendant had difficulty exiting the vehicle and he appeared unsteady on his feet. The Defendant was sweating profusely and his clothing was wet. The Defendant agreed to perform voluntary field sobriety exercises and performed poorly. The Defendant was then arrested for DUI. He provided breath samples of .058 and .058. Based on the breath test level being inconsistent with the Defendant’s level of impairment, a urine sample was collected to detect the presence of drugs. Results: Based on the urine results, the firm convinced the State to dismiss the DUI charge.
The defendant was observed driving a 2005 Infiniti that pulled out in front of a police officer at a high rate of speed. The car was seen by the officer weaving from right to left “all over the road”. The vehicle made quick turns on different roads. After being stopped, the officer had difficulty understanding anything the defendant was saying. A strong odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage was coming from the defendant and he had slurred speech as well. The defendant submitted to field sobriety exercises where he swayed and flapped his arms during the walk and turn exercise. He also stepped off the line several times and almost fell over on step 6. During the one leg stand the defendant swayed during the entire exercise and put his foot down 3 times and asked several times if he was done. During the finger to nose exercise, the defendant did not close his eyes as instructed, did not tilt his head back as instructed and did not touch tip as instructed. During the alphabet task, the defendant did not close eyes as instructed and at the end of the exercise he fell backwards 2 steps. The defendant admitted on scene to the officer that he had 7-8 drinks. The defendant was taken into custody and refused a breath test. Subsequently, the defendant answered questions by the officer which incriminated him. The defense filed a motion to suppress the refusal as well as a motion to suppress defendant\\\'s statements based on a 5th amendment right to remain silent prior to the trial date. RESULT: The State dropped the DUI charge at trial.
Law enforcement officers observed the client pull into a parking lot around midnight and park in a parking lot roadway. He exited the vehicle, urinated, and got back in the vehicle. He proceeded to leave without turning his headlights on. He was pulled over. Officers saw multiple open cans of beer in the client's vehicle. When officers spoke with the client, they noticed he had bloodshot and watery eyes, dilated pupils, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol coming from his person. While officers conducted field sobriety evaluations, the client swayed back and forth and did not follow the officer's instructions. He was arrested for DUI. The Ticket Clinic defended him, and the DUI charge was dropped.
The Defendant was charged with Aggravated Battery after his father and another co-defendant showed up to a business and were involved in a fight with the business owner. The alleged victim, the business owner, fell to the ground where it was alleged that all the co defendants and the client allegedly kicked the alleged victim in the head causing an injury that caused him to need stitches. The Firm was retained and immediately began the case by deposing all the witnesses that saw the incident occur. Hours of testimony were taken by the Firm, and it was finally established that the State couldn’t show with certainty that the Client himself was the one that caused the serious injury to the victim. In addition, the “serious injury” in question turned out not to be as serious as alleged. As a result of the above information and the Firm’s efforts, the State agreed to dismiss all charges.
The Client was stopped for speeding and driving recklessly. Once stopped the Officer believed the Client was impaired and ordered him out of the vehicle to conduct sobriety exercises. The Client was alleged to have performed poorly on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the case was not as bad factually as the Officer in the case alleged, and because the Client also refused to provide a breath sample the case may be a case that was tried by a jury. This fact along with the fact that the Client had a clean prior history led the State to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Client was stopped for not having his lights on while driving. After he was stopped the Officer noticed the smell of alcohol and that the Client seemed impaired. The Officer had the Client submit to sobriety exercises, which the Officer claimed the Client did poorly on, however there was no video relating to the same. In addition, once arrested, the Client was alleged to have refused to give a breath sample. The Firm was retained to handle the case and discovered that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the Client refused to provide a breath sample and was able to get the refusal removed from his driving record. The Firm then requested the videos in the case. The only video provided to the Firm was a video of a room with a toilet for three hours. The Firm contacted the police station and asked if they had any other videos showing the actual refusal of the breath sample. The Police department informed the Firm that the video might have been deleted. The Firm then filed a motion to dismiss the case based upon a spoliation of evidence issue. Before the motion could be argued the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Defendant was involved in an automobile accident. Officers arrived on scene and noticed that Defendant appeared to be confused and had slurred speech. The Defendant admitted to taking Oxycodone and Xanax. The Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. The Defendant refused to submit to a blood test. DUI charge dropped.
Law enforcement saw the Client’s vehicle run a red light while speeding. They conducted a traffic stop and observed the Client to be impaired by alcohol. The Client was arrested after performing poorly on the sobriety exercises. Once arrested the Client refused to provide a breath sample. The Firm was retained and immediately pointed out to the State that the Client had no prior criminal history and was, with the exception of the refusal, extremely cooperative with law enforcement during their investigation. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge.
The Defendant was stopped for running a red light. Once the Defendant was stopped, he attempted to exit the vehicle without it being in park. He was ordered to get back in his car when he attempted to exit his vehicle another 3 times after already being ordered to get back in his vehicle. The officer approached the Defendant and he was chewing an unknown substance excessively. When asked for his license and registration, he fumbled through his wallet and glove compartment for over a minute when his license was right in the front of the wallet in plain view. A DUI unit was called and the Defendant was asked to exit the vehicle where he had to hold onto it for support. The Officer smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath, his eyes were bloodshot, glassy and watery and his speech was slightly slurred. During the Walk and Turn, the Defendant fell out of the starting position and turned improperly. He did not count out loud as instructed and turned improperly stumbling a bit to the side. He then stepped off the line 2 more times on the way back not counting out loud. During the One Leg Stand, the Defendant hopped when he first picked his foot up and then stumbled backwards. He then put his foot down after 12 seconds and had to be reminded to continue where he mixed up the count at 15 one thousand and instead said 18 one thousand. During the Finger to Nose Exercise, the defendant was swaying back and forth and when the Officer called the right hand twice, the Defendant used his left hand instead of the called right. He also kept opening his eyes contrary to the instructions to keep them closed. When asked to recite the Alphabet from A to Z, the Defendant slurred his speech, said it very quickly and said T, R, X, T, W, X, Y, Z. The Defendant admitted on scene that he had drank a couple of beers and had taken codeine for a cold. After he was placed under arrest, he was taken to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility where he refused to give a sample of his breath after being told his license would be suspended for 12 months for the refusal. He admitted, post Miranda, to drinking 2 - 16 ounce cans of beer 45 minutes before he drove, admitted to taking the codeine just prior to drinking the beers, and admitted that he “could feel the effects of the alcohol”. The State of Florida called an expert forensic toxicologist to testify that he reviewed the arresting officer’s reports and the videos and in his opinion, the actions of the defendant were consistent with someone impaired by the additive effects of codeine and alcohol. The Firm challenged numerous inconsistencies in the Officer’s Testimony and discredited the State’s Expert Witness through cross-examination. After a 2 day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty of Driving Under The Influence.
The defendant was driving his car when he rear ended a vehicle causing a crash. When the officer arrived on scene he noticed that the defendant had slurred speech and he seemed out of it. After letting the defendant go and citing him for the accident, the defendant rear ended another vehicle causing another crash 20 minutes later. The same officer from the first crash arrived on scene where he noticed that the defendant was significantly more out of it. The mother of the defendant was called to the scene where she told the officer that he does not look right and seems like he is impaired by something. The defendant admitted to smoking marijuana that morning and was arrested for driving under the influence of controlled substances. While at the BAT facility, he was asked to submit to a urine test. The toxicology report came back with THC (marijuana) and other controlled substances in his system. On the date of trial, after taking the deposition of the officer, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Police received a BOLO for a reckless driving and described the vehicle. Police found the vehicle driving in Cape Coral. They did a search of the driver's driving record and found out his license was suspended. The video showed his driving pattern was perfect and he refused the roadsides and refused the Breath test. The Firm Filed two motions to suppress, One motion to suppress the BOLO of reckless driving, as case law states it is not admissible and one motion to suppress the client's statements since he was in custody at the time he made the statements and was not read his Miranda rights. And one motion to sever the NVDL charge. State agreed to drop the DUI and NVDL
