The Defendant crashed her car into a median and scraped the underside of her car and popped her tire. The car was not drivable. An officer arrived on scene and noticed that she had an odor of alcohol coming from her. She told the officer she was texting her boyfriend and crashed into the median. A DUI unit was called and arrived on scene to conduct an investigation. He noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that her speech was slurred. She performed poorly on roadside exercises and had admitted on the video at the jail to drinking and taking controlled substances which impaired her. The Firm took a deposition of the stopping officer and secured testimony under oath that he did not notice any other factors of impairment when he contacted a DUI unit other than an odor of alcohol. The Firm then filed a motion to suppress arguing that the defendant was detained without a “reasonable suspicion” for driving under the influence. The State Attorneys Office would not offer a reduced charge for reckless driving before the hearing. At the hearing, the officer who called for the DUI unit was impeached multiple times with his sworn depositions testimony. The court granted the motion to suppress and signed a three page order holding that a minor crash coupled with a simple odor of alcohol was not enough to detain the defendant. After the State Attorneys Office brought it to their appellate department, they dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
Our clients were boyfriend and girlfriend who were charged with racing their motorcycles at over 100 mph against each other. A portion of the event was captured on the police dash-cam. Prior to retaining The Ticket Clinic, a law firm, they each faced a case resolution that included a conviction, probation, a license suspension and a substantial fine. Our lawyer was able to intervene in the case and point out serious holes in the State's case. The state agreed to reduce the criminal charge.
On February 11, 2018, The Driver was operating a pickup truck and attempted to leave the Pelican Point Garage without paying. The garage attendant called for police assistance. The Officer walked over and saw the truck stopped in one of the exit lanes, behind the gate that was down. The Driver had bloodshot eyes and appeared confused. The officer detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath and his speech was slurred. A DUI investigation was conducted and the Driver was arrested. The Driver provided the breath results of .192/.202. The case was set for a formal review hearing and the firm's motion to invalidate the suspension based on issues with the evidence was granted.
A concerned citizen contacted police when our client, a delivery driver, was found behind the wheel of a car in a parking lot with an empty bottle of whiskey laying near the driver door. Police reported our client had slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol, admitted to consuming the entire bottle of alcohol, was mumbling and hard understand, almost fell down, and performed poorly on the roadside tests. The attorney for the firm set the case for trial. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to resolve the case favorably for the client by amending the charge to Reckless driving with no conviction, fine or license suspension.
The client was arrested on suspicion of DUI after the officer observed him pulling out of a Circle K into the outermost lane at 12:30 am and then "continously swerving" over a period of 3/4 mile. Another officer arrived to perform Field Sobriety Exercises to which the officer made two separate reports. The law enforcement officers indicated they smelled marijuana in Mcbride's vehicle but did not find any upon a search. Upon completion of the exercises, the client was arrested and taken to the jail where he provided two breath samples of .057 and .059. The breath test operator made observations of Mcbride and included those observations in her report, along with statements that the client allegedly made about consuming alcohol. The client was then asked to provide a urine sample, which he refused. At trial, we impeached each officer on inconsistencies among their courtroom testimony and their police report. Each officer included different descriptions of the clients eyes, speech pattern and balance. Then we emphasized that the client provided a breath test below the legal limit and that he performed the FSE's very well. We were also able to exclude any testimony of a refusal to take the urine test based on a lack of testimony to informed consent being provided. The jury deliberated for 15 minutes and provided a not guilty verdict.
The Defendant left the Key Lime House at about 11:45 p.m. on November 9th, 2009 when the officer witnessed him throw a cup of beer in the parking lot. The officer requested that the defendant pick up the cup and throw it out. The Defendant was mumbling and almost fell over. The officer asked if someone was picking him up and he said he had a friend coming. The officer then followed the defendant to his car where she saw him jump in and proceed to drive. She attempted to open the door and flash her flashlight at him and told him to stop. He then hit the gas and accelerated a high rate of speed onto Ocean Blvd. The Officer then called dispatch and advised the tag number of the vehicle through a BOLO. Another officer in the area then saw the defendant’s vehicle which almost struck his vehicle. The officer had to break to avoid a collision. This officer contacted the Officer from the Key Lime House and she arrived on scene to conduct a DUI investigation. During the walk and turn, the defendant had to be instructed 3 times how to perform the task and never touched heel to toe. He did not count his steps out loud and was stumbling on the video. The Defendant could not complete the one leg stand after numerous attempts to explain it. During the finger to nose task, the defendant kept lifting his foot and legs as if he was instructed to walk even though he was never told to do that. The Defendant was not able to get past the letter G on the alphabet task and had to terminate that task. He was arrested for DUI and taken to the Breath Facility where he refused a breath test. The Firm spoke to the State about the possible problems with the case, including the fact that there was no audio on the roadside tape and the breath testing video did not depict a person who was impaired as the Officer explained in her reports. Result: The State agreed on the day of trial to drop the DUI charge.
The client was alerted to the fact that his 23 year old daughter was being arrested for DWLS. When the client arrived on the scene of a strip mall plaza he observed his daughter in the back of the police car already in handcuffs. the client approached the officers and asked what was going on. The officers told the client that his daughter was being arrested and her vehicle was being towed. the client informed the officers that there were children's school supplies in the back of his daughters vehicle and pleaded with the officers not to tow the vehicle. The officers refused and the client began to videotape the encounter on his cell phone. The officers told the client to back up, which he did. Then the client states that he wanted to speak with his daughter and takes 3 diagonal steps toward the open front passenger seat of the police car in an attempt to speak to his daughter at which point the officers arrest him. The judge included our proposed jury instruction on the definition of oppose to be described as an offensive action. We argued that the three diagnol steps were not an offensive action as his movement was not directed at the officers, but rather to communicate with his daughter regarding the children's school supplies. Then we argued that there was no obstruction of an investigation because the daughter was already in the custody of the police and all three officers were standing outside the police car when the client arrived, further, there was no tow truck on the scene to allow for an inventory search. We also argued that Mr Neal did not resist arrest and never pulled away when the handcuffs were placed on him and then placed in the patrol car. The jury deliberated for 20 minutes and returned a not guilty verdict.
Client was pulled over when a routine license plate check revealed that the tag on his car didn't belong on the car. During the stop it was clearly just a mix up, the newly assigned tag was in the car with our client. Nonetheless, the client was charged criminally with attaching a tag that didn't belong to his vehicle. After explaining the situation and showing proof to the prosecuting attorney they dismissed the criminal charge.
The defendant was arrested by Port St. Lucie Police for leaving the scene of a crash after a witness claimed the defendant backed her truck into an unoccupied car in the parking lot of a pharmacy. Upon research and investigation into the alleged facts by the firm’s attorney, it was established the State of Florida would be unable to prove that a crash had occurred as there was no damage to our client’s vehicle. Furthermore, even if a crash did occur, the State of Florida would not be able to prove that our client had knowledge of the crash. The firm’s attorney immediately set the case for trial. The State of Florida dismissed all charges on the day of trial.
The client was pulled over for almost causing a traffic crash with a car in her blind spot on I4. When the trooper hit the lights the client stopped in the middle of the travel lane before being directed to the shoulder. The trooper indicated that she had slurred speech, sluggish movements, and was disoriented. The trooper transported her in the back of the car to the next exit and administered sobriety tests in the parking lot of a gas station. The client performed well on the sobriety tests but was arrested and blew .16. After attempting negotiations with the State the Ticket Clinic attorney was not happy with the offer and filed a motion to suppress the arrest. On the day of the hearing the prosecutor reached out to the Ticket Clinic and a result was reached that included dismissal of the DUI charge.
The Client was arrested and charged with DUI. The Client was found in his vehicle in the left hand turn lane of the road. The Officer observed signs of impairment and requested the Defendant perform field sobriety exercises. The Client complied, did poorly, and stated that he was "just drunk." Once arrested the Defendant refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the client was cooperative and had a lack of prior criminal history. In addition, the Firm pointed out that the Client being passed out would be a question for the jury as to whether he was actually driving. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge.
The Defendant was charged with Driving While License Suspended. Because of the numerous convictions for the same type of charge on his record the State was asking for jail time. The firm filed a motion to suppress the stop of defendant's vehicle. At the motion to suppress, the police officer who made the stop claimed that he stopped the defendant because he was obstructing traffic at a green light. The defendant took the stand and stated that there were pedestrians in the cross walk and he was waiting for them to cross and that is why he was not moving through the green light. Faced with the defendant’s word versus the police officer’s word, the Firm argued that it was quite possible the officer didn’t see the pedestrians because he was looking up the defendant’s license plate at the time on his computer and therefore not looking at the scene in front of him. The Court ruled in favor of the defendant and all charges were dismissed by the State.
