The Client was involved in a crash. Once police arrived on scene witnesses pointed out that the Client was the driver of the vehicle that caused the crash. While the Client did not perform the exercises well, the Officer was extremely rude and mean spirited to the Client during the course of the investigation, to the point that it was detrimental to the State's case. This combined with the fact that the Client was elderly and still had a completely clean record allowed the Firm to convince the State to drop the DUI charges.
The client was arrested for driving on a suspended license and subsequently missed a court date and had a warrant issued for their arrest. Four years later, the client contacted The Ticket Clinic for help. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to have the warrant recalled without the client being arrested and negotiated with the State Attorney to have the charge amended to a civil citation, resulting in no criminal conviction.
The Client was charged with DUI after he was involved in a vehicle accident, performed poorly on roadside exercises, and subsequently gave a breath sample that was over twice the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the one of the State's witnesses, with respect to the driving pattern, was missing. In addition, the one witness the State had left could not identify the Client as the driver of the vehicle after the Firm deposed him. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Deputies observed a a GMC pickup traveling on US41 in Sarasota county traveling 77 mph in a 55 mph zone. The pickup was stopped and the Deputy observed an odor of an alcoholic beverage on the Defendant's breath. There was also an open Model beer can on the floorboard. The Defendant initially admitted to drinking one beer, then later admitted to having 3 beers. The Defendant submitted to field sobriety exercises and showed indicators of impairment. He was then arrested and submitted to a breath test. The results of the breath test were .084 and .083.
Result: the firm presented evidence regarding the breath test to the State and they dropped the DUI charge.
The Client was involved in an accident. When police arrived on scene they did an accident investigation and determined the Client was the at fault driver. The police also believed the Client was impaired and had him submit to roadside sobriety exercises, which he did not perform well on. The Client was arrested and gave a breath sample of a .270, more than three times the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and deposed the actual witnesses to the crash. The Firm discovered that the main witness that could identify the Client as the driver of the vehicle, was difficult to locate. As result the Firm filed a motion to strike said witness from the State's case, which would have been a significant loss to the State. Before the motion could be heard, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Defendant’s daughter’s friend did not have a valid license and was stopped driving the defendant's car. After the Officer stopped the vehicle, he cited the defendant for permitting his daughter’s friend to drive the car. The Firm was able to convince the State Attorney that they could not prove that the Defendant knew that the daughter’s friend did not have a valid license. The State dropped the criminal charges against the defendant.
The Client was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. During the stop the officer recognized that the client’s driver’s license was expired. The officer mistakenly believed that having an expired driver’s license greater than four months was a criminal violation – this is not the case. The criminal charge should’ve never been brought. After pointing out the discrepancy to the prosecutor she dropped the charges.
The Client was pulled over after running a red light directly in front of a police officer. During the stop the police officer recognized several indicators of impairment and requested that the client perform roadside sobriety exercises. During the stop a second officer arrived on scene and an ‘off the record’ conversation took place between the two officers. The officers initially decided to let the client go home, but then changed their mind a short time later. The client was arrested and charged with DUI (2nd DUI outside of 5 years) and with second or subsequent refusal to submit. After investigating the case and sitting down with the prosecutor the Assistant State Attorney assigned to the case elected to dismiss the charges.
Officers stopped our client after observing him driving without lights and with the rear bumper of his car dragging along the street. The officers claimed that they could smell the odor of alcohol on our client and conducted a DUI investigation. The client was arrested and charged with DUI after refusing to submit to a breath sample. The attorneys at the firm prepared the case and on the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop all DUI related charges.
Our client was involved in an accident and allegedly left the scene without reporting the accident or exchanging information with the other driver. The driver of the other vehicle declined medical service and drove his own car home, but later claimed that he suffered serious injuries in the crash. As a result our client was charged with Felony Leaving the Scene of a Crash with Injuries. The attorneys at the firm investigated the case and convinced the prosecutors that the alleged injuries could not be proven. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop all felony charges.
The Client was charged with DUI after crashing into two other vehicles at an intersection. The Officer alleged that the Client's speech was slurred and that he had urinated on a building after the accident. The Officer then arrested the Client for DUI without asking the Defendant to complete Field Sobriety Exercises. Once at the jail the client gave a breath sample over twice the legal limit. This was the Client's third DUI charge. The Firm looked into the case and discovered that while there was no video of the client at the scene, there was video of the Client at the jail. The jail video demonstrated that the Client looked completely sober and not impaired. The Firm also discovered that the Client was diabetic and this could be the reason why the breath sample was so high, but the client did not seem impaired. The Firm found an expert witness to testify on the Client's behalf that the breath machine improperly gave a high breath sample result because the Defendant had diabetes. The expert witness was extremely costly and the Client could not afford said witness. The Firm then argued to the Court that the State should pay for the exert witness. The Court agreed with the Firm that the State should pay for the Client's expert witness. After over a year of work on the case, the week before trial, the State agreed to dismiss the Client's DUI charge.
The client was stopped by law enforcement and the officer had the client conduct sobriety exercises, which the client completed. However the officer still arrested him for DUI and upon searching the clients vehicle discovered marijuana. The client did not admit to or know the marijuana was in the vehicle. After discussing the law on the issue as well as the clients background and the facts of the case, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI and the Possession of Marijuana charge.
