The Client was involved in an accident and was identified as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Officer on scene suspected that the Client was impaired by alcohol and had the Client submit to sobriety exercises. The Client performed poorly on the exercises and was subsequently arrested for DUI. Once at the jail he was asked to submit to a breath sample, however, because of his diabetic condition he was having difficulty giving a sample. The officer charged him with a refusal to give a breath sample and DUI. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the Client's diabetic issues could be a defense in the matter and also that the Officer was extremely rude to the Client. The Firm argued to the State that these factors, along with the client's agreeable nature in the case, combined to make for a decent defense trial. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
The Client's vehicle was stopped for speeding. Once stopped the Officer determined that the Client was impaired by alcohol and requested the Client perform sobriety exercises. The Client agreed to comply and did not perform well on the exercises. He was arrested and once at the jail he gave a breath sample over the legal limit. The Firm was retained and investigated the case. It was determined that the breath sample was barely over the legal limit. This fact, combined with the fact that there wasn't a bad driving pattern, allowed the Firm to argue to the State that it wasn't a bad case for trial. In addition, the Firm also argued that the Client was extremely cooperative and did not have a bad prior criminal history. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
Our client made contact with police after losing control of his car and colliding with a telephone box. The police office who responded to the scene began investigating the crash and determined that our client was driving and that his license was suspended. As the officer was arresting our client the officer emptied our client's pockets and found a bag containing a substance that he believed to be cannabis. The officer field tested the substance and it was positive for cannabis. After posting bond our client immediately contacted our office to begin working on the case. We meticulously analyzed all of the State's evidence, Law Enforcement's reports, and our client's driving record. Our office then constructed a defense strategy. Finally, we reviewed each detail of the case with our client. After clearing our client's driving record and much negotiations the prosecution dismissed the Possession of Cannabis charge and reduced the Driving While License Suspended to a No Valid Driver's License.
The Defendant was observed traveling at a high rate of speed and changed lanes to the right and immediately to the center lane. The Defendant then accelerated at a high rate of speed and was clocked going 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. The Defendant was stopped and she admitted that she lived right down the road. After being asked where she was coming from, she said dinner at Bradley's. The Officer noticed an obvious odor of alcohol and she admitted to drinking two drinks. She agreed to participate in roadside tasks after first refusing to submit to them. The Defendant’s husband pulled up on scene and had to be told to leave. The Defendant performed poorly on all of the roadsides and was arrested for DUI. She called the officer vulgar names and used profanity during the ride to the jail and even managed to get her arms in front of her after being handcuffed from behind. While at the jail, she refused to submit to a sample of her breath after being told her license would be suspended for one year. She told the officer she could feel the effects of the alcohol and that she was under the influence. She admitted to drinking wine at Blue Martini’s. The Firm filed a motion to suppress arguing that the Defendant was detained for a DUI investigation without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The State of Florida reviewed the motion and dismissed the charge for Driving Under the Influence on the day of trial.
The Defendant was driving his vehicle at night when a police officer with the Boca Raton Police Department stopped him for failing to stop at a stop bar. The Officer gave the defendant a warning for failing to obey a traffic control device. After running the Defendant’s license, the Officer found that it was suspended for 5 years due to 2 DUI convictions within 5 years. The Defendant’s license was still suspended and he did not have a hardship license nor an interlock on his vehicle. The State of Florida offered the defendant forty-five days in the Palm Beach County Jail in exchange for a guilty plea. The firm took the deposition of the police officer to determine what facts the officer had to support his probable cause. The officer could not recall whether he was behind the defendant or to the side of him. He could not recall how far past the stop bar the defendant was parked. He could not recall whether there was a crosswalk or any pedestrians in the road. The Firm then filed a motion to suppress arguing that the Defendant was stopped without probable cause of a traffic infraction. The Judge granted the motion and the State dropped the charges.
The Client worked at an iPhone repair store. A woman brought in her device to have it repaired. The Client was the employee who then handled the repair. After the phone was repaired and the woman picked up the phone, a man came to the iPhone repair store claiming to be the woman's boyfriend. The man claimed that the Client had texted a video containing sexually explicit images of his girlfriend to another number, presumably the client's own phone. Law enforcement was contacted and the Client was then charged with a felony. The Firm began handling the case and soon discovered that, while what was alleged to have happened may sound like a crime, there was in fact no felony charge that made it a crime. The State, after a deposition of the alleged victim, agreed and the felony charge was dismissed.
The Client was involved in a serious accident where he received a gash to his head and his passenger a broken arm. The Client admitted to drinking and driving and smoking marijuana, when questioned by law enforcement at the hospital. The officer then requested a blood sample from the Client. The Client initially refused but the officer threatened him with an arrest if he didn’t comply and a year and a half of license suspension. The blood draw showed the Client was over three times the legal limit The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the blood draw was requested improperly and coerced. The State would not agree so the Firm argued a motion to suppress with the court. During the hearing it was discovered that the Officer had “mishandled” a key portion of audio recording that was at issue in the case and as a result the recording was unavailable. The Court agreed with The Firm and suppressed the blood draw. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Client was involved in a serious accident where he received a gash to his head and his passenger a broken arm. The Client admitted to drinking and driving and smoking marijuana, when questioned by law enforcement at the hospital. The officer then requested a blood sample from the Client. The Client initially refused but the officer threatened him with an arrest if he didn’t comply and a year and a half of license suspension. The blood draw showed the Client was over three times the legal limit The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the blood draw was requested improperly and coerced. The State would not agree so the Firm argued a motion to suppress with the court. During the hearing it was discovered that the Officer had “mishandled” a key portion of audio recording that was at issue in the case and as a result the recording was unavailable. The Court agreed with The Firm and suppressed the blood draw. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Client was involved in a single vehicle motorcycle accident. The Client also had a rider with him at the time of the crash. The Client was then transported to the hospital where he gave a blood sample after an improper request by law enforcement. The Client hired the Firm who went to Court and spoke with the Assistant State Attorney regarding the issues in the case. The State agreed to dismiss all criminal charges against the Client.
The Client was charged with a DUI after being stopped for failing to maintain a lane and also based upon several calls to dispatch for the same traffic pattern. The Client did not perform well on his field sobriety exercises and was arrested and transported to the breath alcohol testing facility. The Client was then requested to give a breath sample. The Client attempted to give a breath sample but was unable to meet the machine's requirements within the time frame required. Two samples, which were outside the time limit allowed by law, indicated a breath sample almost three times the legal limit. The Firm began representing the Client and challenged the State on the admissibility of the breath samples that were not properly taken. It was also argued by the Firm that there was the possibility that the stop of the vehicle was unlawful. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
The Client was stopped because his vehicle was swerving all over the roadway and almost struck a light pole. Once he was stopped the Officer noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage and that the Client seemed extremely impaired. After performing poorly on the sobriety exercises, the Client was arrested and taken to jail. Once at the jail the client provided a breath sample that was three times over the legal limit. The Firm began investigating the case and working with the State Attorney's office on getting rid of the DUI charge. The State would not agree to dismiss the Client's DUI charge,even though he had no prior history and was extremely cooperative. The Firm then attended the formal review hearing regarding the Client's license suspension. At the hearing the firm learned that the Officer that took the breath sample could not remember doing so without looking at her paperwork. The Firm then filed a motion to suppress the evidence regarding the breath sample based upon the Officer's failure to recall taking the sample. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Defendant was facing east on Okeechobee Blvd when an officer who was on the other side of the street heard the vehicle’s stereo blasting. The officer could hear it from approximately 75 feet away. The officer activated his overhead emergency lights and the defendant slammed on his brakes and then continued slowly eastbound. The officer had to hit the siren to stop the car. The vehicle pulled over and the officer noticed the Defendant had bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech and an odor of alcohol coming from his person. When he got out of the car, he was unsteady on his feet. When asked where he was coming from, he said from his friends house where they had a “celebration”. He told the officer that he had 2 beers while in the car, and once out of the car he said he had 5 beers. During the walk and turn he could not keep his balance, stepped off the line numerous times and paused forgetting what the instructions were. During the one leg stand task he started too soon and did not count as he was told. He was told to count one one thousand all the way to 30 and instead he got to 8 and started saying 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and got to 100. He then was asked if he could do the task and he said: “No.” He performed poorly on the finger to nose task and alphabet task and was arrested for Driving Under the Influence. When at the breath facility, he gave a breath sample of .077 and .074. The firm sent a letter to the State Attorney’s Office citing new case law which deemed the Stereo Statute unconstitutional and therefore the stop would have been a violation of the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights. The State Attorney agreed and declined to file the charges in addition to their agreement that they could not prove the case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt due to the low breath samples.
