Law enforcement stopped the Client's vehicle because it was swerving on the roadway. Once stopped they observed that the Client appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. Officers asked the Client to perform sobriety exercises, which the Client performed poorly on. The Client was arrested for DUI and taken to jail where she refused to provide a breath sample. The Firm looked into the legality of the stop, and discovered that the Officer's vehicle camera did capture the alleged driving pattern of the Client. However, the driving pattern didn't match what the Officer stated in his report. The Client's swerving was not as pronounced as the Officer had alleged. The Firm immediately filed a motion to suppress the stop of the Client's vehicle as unconstitutional. The State eventually agreed to dismiss the DUI as a result.
On March 23, 2018 at approximately 2:30am Tampa Police Officers responded to a call of an impaired person sleeping in their car at the Thornton's gas station on Hillsborough Ave. The vehicle was running and the Defendant was asleep in the driver's seat. The officer tapped on the window in an attempt to wake the Defendant. The Defendant took several minutes to wake up. Upon waking the Defendant, the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle. The Defendant had an odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and his speech was slurred. The Defendant was asked to perform field sobriety exercises which he complied. He was arrested after exhibiting multiple clues of impairment. The Defendant then refused to submit to a breath test.
Result: The firm provided information to the prosecutor that the initial interaction with the officer was in violation of the Defendant's constitutional rights. The State then dropped the DUI charge.
Our client pulled into a gas station parking lot and stopped in a space designated as handicap only. As the officer from Orlando Police Department pulled up behind the client, he noticed there was no handicap placard hanging from the rear view mirror and that our client's license plate did not have a handicap tag and that our client's tag was expired. The officer initiated a traffic stop and ordered our client out of his vehicle. Upon running our client's tag, the officer determined it was not assigned to our client's vehicle but to another car. The officer then issued our client a criminal violation for Attaching Tag Not Assigned and two companion civil traffic infractions for parking in a handicap space and expired tag. After hiring our firm the attorney worked in filing a motion to dismiss the criminal charge. After discussing the case with the State Attorney and Judge, the State dismissed the criminal charge against the client and the Judge dismissed the two traffic infractions. All charges were completely dismissed.
Our client holds a CDL and was driving a semi truck through Lake Mary when he was going over railroad tracks. The railroad track arms came down on the back of the client's truck and snapped off. A driver following the truck called 911 and reported our client for leaving the scene of an accident. A member of the local Police Department caught up with our client while he was making a delivery and issued him a criminal citation for leaving the scene of an accident carrying with it 6 points and likely a suspension of his commercial driver's license. The Office also issued him a civil citation for careless driving, carrying with it another potential for 4 points to be issued. After traveling to the scene with the client and taking videos of the malfunctioning railroad cross arms we showed the State the issues and they agreed to drop the criminal charge. The Judge however, refused to dismiss the citation for careless driving and it was set for a hearing. After the hearing, the careless driving charge was finally dismissed.
The Defendant was found to be the driver of a crashed vehicle. She was taken to the hospital where blood was drawn to determine what, if any substance she was under the influence from. Once the blood test came back it was determined that she was under the influence of several controlled substances, many of which were extremely potent intoxicants. The Firm investigated the case and determined that it appeared the blood draw was improper and addressed this issue with the State. The Firm also notified the State that the Client had voluntarily entered in-patient treatment for the substance abuse issues and was doing very well. With all of these factors to consider the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
A Port St. Lucie Police Officer pulled over the defendant while she was driving a moped. The officer claimed the reason for the traffic stop was that the defendant was in violation of Florida law for not wearing protective eye wear. During the traffic stop, the officer began to suspect that the defendant impaired by alcohol. The defendant submitted to the officer’s requests for her to perform field sobriety tasks. The officer claimed that she performed the tasks poorly and therefore charged her with DUI. Our legal team brought forth a legal motion after it was determined the officer did not make a lawful stop. The law requiring persons to wear eye protection applies only to “motorcycles.” However, the defendant was driving a moped that was powered by an engine less than what is defined as a “motorcycle”; therefore the law did not require her to wear protective eye wear. The DUI charge was dismissed.
The Defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and almost causing a collision. Once stopped the Officer believed he saw indicators of impairment and had the Client perform roadside sobriety exercises, which the Client performed poorly on according to the Officer. Once arrested for DUI the Client was transported to the jail and a breath test was requested. The Client allegedly complied and it resulted in a breath sample more than twice the legal limit. Because there was no video of any part of the investigation, the whole case rested upon law enforcement's good word. However, once the Firm began investigating the case it was discovered that the Officer, that was alleged to have given the breath sample, had no memory of the sample or of the Client. The Firm immediately filed a motion to suppress the breath sample. The State refused to concede the motion and drop the case. The Firm argued the motion and won the motion. The State requested a rehearing on the motion, but before the motion was re-argued the State dismissed the DUI.
The client was driving a car that had no motor vehicle registration and was caught by the police, and charged with a criminal offense. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys negotiated with the Office of the State Attorney resulting in all criminal charges being dismissed.
Client was arrested after they were pulled over for speeding, because they were a foreign national visiting the United States and did not have a driver license from their home country or Florida. The client then missed their first court date and a warrant was issued for their arrest. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to have the Judge recall the warrant without the client being arrested again, and negotiated with the State Attorney and the State agreed to drop the criminal charge.
The Client was found asleep at an intersection and the Officer observed signs of impairment. The Client would not do roadside exercises and refused to submit to a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and discovered there was simply not enough evidence to convict the Client of DUI. The State looked into the matter and concluded the same. The State dismissed all charges in the case.
The Client was found asleep at an intersection and the Officer observed signs of impairment. The Client would not do roadside exercises and refused to submit to a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and discovered there was simply not enough evidence to convict the Client of DUI. The State looked into the matter and concluded the same. The State dismissed all charges in the case.
The Client was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The Officer believed the Client was impaired and had him submit to sobriety exercises. The Client stated he had only had one glass of wine. The Officer then arrested the Client for DUI and took him to jail where he refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case, and while it was shown that the stop of the Client was proper, there was not very much evidence to show impairment considering the Client refused to give a breath sample. In addition, there was a language barrier for the Client which could have further complicated matters, mistaking confusion for impairment. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
