The Client was discovered at the scene of a crash where he rear-ended another vehicle with his motorcycle. Law enforcement subsequently arrested the Client for DUI after he refused to perform sobriety exercises and then refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and eventually found a video that law enforcement had failed to produce. The Firm discovered that this video showed law enforcement assuming the Client was impaired before they even observed him or spoke to him. In addition, the Client didn’t look impaired on the video and the biggest negative against the Client was the fact that he was in an accident in the rain. The Firm asked the State to dismiss the DUI charge and the State agreed.
Law enforcement noticed a vehicle blocking a turn lane with its door open. Upon closer inspection the Officer noticed that there was a man dancing next to the vehicle. The Officer turned on his rear facing lights to alert traffic behind him. At this point the man got back into his vehicle and rolled down the window. The Officer made contact with the man and noticed that he appeared impaired by alcohol. The man refused sobriety exercises and was subsequently arrested for DUI. He also refused to do a breath test. The Firm was hired and began an investigation of the Client's case. It was discovered that there was no video of any of this incident. In addition, the Firm filed a motion to suppress the stop of the Client as the Client was detained without probable cause. The Firm argued that because the Officer turned on his lights, even though they were rear facing, the Client submitted to his show of authority by getting back into his car and shutting the door and rolling down the window. This factual pattern demonstrated that the Client was seized by law enforcement before the Officer had actual evidence of a person behind the wheel of a vehicle, one of the necessary elements for DUI. The State refused to dismiss the DUI case. The Firm argued that even if the State won the motion to suppress the evidence, there was still very little evidence in the case establishing impairment, not even a video was present in evidence. Finally, on the day of the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence in the case, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
Law enforcement was called to the scene of what they believed to be a vehicle crash. Once on scene they discovered the Client sitting behind the wheel of a car that had severe tire damage. The Officers assumed the Client had hit the light pole in the parking lot where the vehicle was sitting, even thought the vehicle was not resting upon said pole. The Client was very impaired and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The Client then gave a breath sample that was more than double the legal limit once he arrived at the jail. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the facts of the case were not what they seemed. In fact, the Client had previously been involved in an accident that same day where law enforcement were called, investigated the crash and then let both the Client and the other driver leave with no ticket. This previous accident was only a couple hundred feet from where the officers later discovered the Client. The Firm deposed the Officer from the first crash, who stated that the Client’s vehicle had such bad tire damage that it was inoperable, and thus the Client could not later be guilty of a DUI. The State eventually agreed to this theory and dismissed the DUI.
The Defendant was clocked going 101 mph in a 70 mph zone. The Defendant stopped and fumbled for his wallet and handed the officer a rental agreement for the car instead of the license as requested. He was in a good mood and extremely friendly. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, glassy watery eyes, dry mouth and his speech was thick tongued. He was unsteady on his feet and swayed from side to side. He seemed to be rambling and asked to be let go and to be given a break. He was unable to stand heel to toe and lost his balance during the walk and turn. He could not keep his leg up for more than 7 seconds and used his arms to balance himself on the one leg stand. Additionally, he performed poorly on the finger to nose task. The Defendant was arrested and asked to submit to a sample of his breath at the jail. After multiple attempts, he would not properly blow into the breath machine and the officer declared his inability to give a sample a refusal. He admitted to drinking four beers during the evening when being questioned by the officer. The Firm pointed out numerous problem areas to the State Attorney’s Office including the fact that the video did not depict a person who was impaired in addition to the fact that the roadsides were not captured on video. On the day of trial, the State dismissed the charge for Driving Under the Influence.
The Client was involved in an accident where he was at fault for pulling out in front of another vehicle. Once law enforcement arrived on scene they believed that the Client was impaired and conducted a DUI investigation. During said investigation, the Client made some mistakes on the sobriety exercises and then admitted to drinking and smoking marijuana. The Client was arrested and then gave both a breath and a urine sample. The breath sample showed that the Client was slightly under the .08 limit, however the urine sample showed that the Client had marijuana in his system, which confirmed his previous admission. The Firm began work on the case and soon discovered that the mistakes the Client made on the sobriety exercises were the result of a rookie officer doing a DUI investigation for what had to be his first time ever. In addition, when the Officer asked for the Urine sample from the Client he stated that the purpose for said sample was to determine the Client’s alcohol level, which was incorrect and resulted in the Court suppressing said evidence when the Firm filed a motion to suppress. Lastly there was the issue of the Client’s admission to smoking marijuana, however the Firm used a motion in limine to exclude said statement because there was no other evidence that the Client was under the influence of a controlled substance, except his own statement. Once all the evidence was almost excluded the State then agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The police stopped the Defendant when they saw her rolling a marijuana cigarette in plain view of the officers. She admitted it was marijuana and that she was going to smoke with a friend of hers. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a drug treatment program. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the State to drop the case completely.
Our client was pulled over for driving 60 miles per hour in a 45 zone. He did not immediately stop for the officers and he drove for several minutes before stopping in front of his girlfriend's home. The officer began a DUI investigation but our client refused to do field sobriety exercises. The attorneys at the firm took the case to trial and secured a not guilty verdict for our client.
The defendant was accused, along with another individual, of punching the victim in the chest. Police were called as a result of the disturbance. When police arrived, the defendant was sitting in his car, while two other individuals were engaged in an argument. Based only on the word of the alleged victim and his girlfriend, the police arrested the defendant. The Firm set the case for trial. The State dismissed both counts.
Our client was accused of approaching an undercover cop and soliciting her to engage in a sexual act. The officers involved in a sting investigation attempted to coerce our client into agreeing to pay for prostitution but our client refused. Even though he refused, the undercover officer claimed that our client nodded his head in agreement and he was arrested by other officers. The lawyers at the firm prepared for trial and after a jury was selected all criminal charges were dismissed.
The Client was stopped for having a flat front tire. The stopping officer noticed that she seemed impaired and requested a DUI Officer to investigate. It was also observed that the Client's 12 year old daughter was in the vehicle. The Client was removed from the vehicle, performed poorly on roadside exercises, and refused to provide a breath sample once arrested. In addition to a DUI, the Client was also charged with the Felony charge of Neglect with regard to her child. The Firm was hired and immediately began investigating the facts of the case, beginning with the video. The Firm also immediately informed the State Attorney's office that the felony charge was inappropriate, as there is an enhancement for the same factual situation found in the DUI statutes. The State agreed and dismissed the Felony charge but continued to prosecute the DUI charge. The Firm discovered in the videos for the case that all the officers involved did not smell alcohol, yet requested the Client submit to a breath sample to determine her alcohol levels. The Firm filed several motions to exclude evidence and/or dismiss the case. A hearing was held where all the officers came in and claimed they smelled alcohol in contradiction to the video in the case. Prior to the judge making a ruling on any motions, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The client was charged with driving on a drivers license that had been expired for over 6 months. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the State Attorney and all criminal charges against the client were dropped without the client ever having to come to court.
The client was arrested for driving on a suspended license. Even though the client had previously been convicted for the same thing, The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the State Attorney and all criminal charges against the client were dropped without the client ever having to come to court.
