The client was driving her vehicle on Alico road and, while adjusting the radio, she struck a vehicle which was stopped at a red light. The officer issued the client a citation for reckless driving. In the report, the officer indicated that the client was driving the speed limit and that the cause of the accident was due to her being distracted by the radio. We filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the State did not have the facts necessary to convict under the reckless driving statute.
In our argument we pointed out that the crime of Reckless Driving is defined under Section 316.192, Florida Statutes. Under the statute, Reckless Driving consists of two factual elements:
The defendant drove a motor vehicle, and
The defendant did so with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Determining whether behavior is reckless is a factual inquiry. In this case, all that we have is a rear end collision with no tire marks and a confession of playing with the radio which is most likely excluded from trial under the accident report privilege.
As indicated in the statute, neither carelessness nor ordinary negligence in the operation of a vehicle are sufficient to support a conviction for reckless driving. See State v. Lebron, 954 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); D.E. v. State, 904 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The defendant’s actions must be knowing and purposeful, or carried out with a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences and while knowing that harm was likely to be done to persons or property. W.E.B. v. State, 553 So.2d 323, 325-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We presented the argument that the actions of the client were merely negligent and did not constitute a blatant disregard for the safety of others and therefore were not sufficient to satisfy a conviction. The State agreed and dismissed the case on 1/23 before the motion was heard.
Client was arrested for the first time ever while driving on a suspended license. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the Office of the State Attorney, resulting in no criminal conviction, keeping the client’s record clean, all without the client ever having to appear in court.
Client was arrested for the first time ever while driving on a suspended license. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the Office of the State Attorney, resulting in no criminal conviction, keeping the client’s record clean, all without the client ever having to appear in court.
A Manatee County Sheriff Deputy noticed a vehicle drifting within its lane. The vehicle would touch the white has mark on the right and the solid white line on the left. The Deputy then noticed the driver was not wearing his seat belt. A traffic stop was conducted. The Deputy then made contact with the Defendant who had droopy eye lids, a flushed face and bloodshot, glassy eyes. The Defendant spoke with a slur and appeared off balance when he exited his vehicle. The Deputy requested the Defendant to perform field sobriety exercises, which he agreed. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment. The Deputy then read the Defendant his Miranda warnings, which the Defendant waived. The Defendant admitted to drinking throughout the day and smoking two bowls of marijuana. The Defendant was then arrested for DUI. A search of his vehicle resulted in the Deputy finding a pipe with marijuana residue. The Defendant admitted this was the pipe he used to smoke earlier in the day. The Defendant provided 2 breath samples of .000. He also provided a urine sample which was positive for marijuana.
Result: Based on discussions with the firm regarding the evidence in the case, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On July 23, 2017, the Defendant was involved in a crash. The Defendant violated the right of way of another vehicle while pulling away from a stop sign. After the initial traffic crash investigator noticed a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant's breath and other indicators of impairment, a DUI investigator was called to the scene. The DUI officer requested the Defendant to perform field sobriety exercise, which he refused. The Officer then placed the Defendant under arrest for DUI involving property damage. The Defendant refused to provided a breath sample.
Result: the firm filed a motion for discharge and prior to the motion being heard, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant was stopped after he was observed traveling westbound on Kennedy Blvd and running the red light at Howard Ave. The Defendant also drifted in and out of his lane prior to coming to a stop. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer noticed a blank/dazed stare and watery/bloodshot eyes. The Defendant also had an odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath and was unsteady on his feet when he exited the vehicle. The Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. The Defendant provided two breath samples of .087 and .092.
Result: Based on discussions with the firm, the State dropped the DUI charge.
Defendant was stopped for speeding. The Officer claims to smell the odor of alcohol as he was approaching the vehicle. The Defendant refused all field sobriety and breath exercises. A Jury found the Defendant not guilty
Our client met up with several friends at the Seminole Casino. Because her friends had had a few too many drinks, our client offered to drive their car home. Once on the road, the client was stopped by Davie Police and issued a criminal ticket for failing to register a vehicle, even though she was not the owner of the car. The lawyers at the firm set the case for trial after the prosecutor refused to drop the case. At trial, the Judge found our client not guilty of all charges.
Our client was stopped for speeding in Hollywood by an off-duty Miami Dade Police Officer. After stopping our client, the officer believed him to be under the influence of alcohol. Deputies from the Broward Sheriff's Office arrived, conducted a DUI investigation and arrested the client. Our client provided a breath sample and blew .141, almost double the legal limit. The lawyers at the firm filed a motion to suppress arguing that the Miami Dade officer lacked probable cause and jurisdiction to stop our client. On the date of the hearing, the prosecutor dropped all charges.
Client was driving over the speed limit and took a turn recklessly. Once out of his vehicle the client performed poorly on the roadside exercises and was arrested for DUI. Once arrested the client got into an argument with the officers and refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the arresting officer had an open investigation against him within the Police Department for a separate matter that affected his availability for the client's case. The new information together with the fact that the client's case was scheduled for trial within a week was enough to convince the state to dismiss the DUI charges
The Client was found trying to change his tire after a witness reported that the Client had struck a tree, severely damaged his vehicle, and then kept driving. The Client did not seem to realize that his car had been in an accident and when the officers questioned him further he didn't even seem to know where he was located. After the crash investigation the Officers performed a DUI investigation and determined that he was impaired, and asked him to submit to alcohol and drug testing. The Client complied and the alcohol sample was negative, however the drug sample turned up many different controlled substances. Once the Firm was hired to handle the case it was discovered that most of the damaging statements and evidence came during the crash investigation based on the Client's testimony. The Firm filed a motion to throw out those damaging statements based upon the accident privilege rule. Before the motion could be heard the State dismissed the DUI charge.
The client was driving to pick up her daughter from her ex-husband's house. When she arrived, the ex-husband smelled alcohol and believed the client to be extremely impaired so he refused to allow his daughter to leave in the vehicle with the client. She became irate and the ex called the police and stated that the client was drunk and that he just wanted her to leave the residence. The officer arrived on the scene and activated his lights for the stop while the client's vehicle remained in the driveway with the engine running and the client behind the wheel. After a brief encounter with the client, the officer began his DUI investigation and arrested the client for suspicion of DUI. In the police report, the officer stated that he stopped the client for fear that she was fleeing the scene. We filed a Motion to Suppress arguing that the officer did not have a legal basis for the stop of our client. At the hearing, the officer admitted that he was dispatched to the scene of a verbal dispute and not a physical dispute, the difference being that the allegations of a verbal dispute did not constitute a crime which would justify the stop. The officer also admitted that he did not observe any other criminal activity which would justify the stop. Based on the officer's testimony and the supporting case law, the Judge agreed with our position and granted the Motion to Suppress. The State dismissed the case
