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
Officers were dispatched to a residence regarding a physical altercation between residents of shared household. The officers located the alleged victim outside of the reported residence. The victim stated that our client attacked him and that he wished to press charges. The officers approached our client, who was in the front yard and upon observing the officers approaching, locked the front gate to his residence and ran inside his house, closing the door behind him. An officer then jumped over the locked gate and kicked open the door, arresting our client in the kitchen of his residence and charging him with battery and resisting without violence. After the arrest, our client experienced chest pains and was taken to the hospital where he engaged in a loud verbal argument with police in the privacy of his Emergency Room treatment room which resulted in a Public Intoxication charge, which was subsequently dismissed after filing a c-4 motion that the facts of the case did not support a conviction (specifically that our client was not in a public area and there was no threat to the safety of others). We filed a c-4 motion to dismiss the Resisting Without Violence charge as well claiming that the officer was not in the execution of a legal duty since he did not obtain a warrant prior to arresting our client. We also argued that the Hot Pursuit doctine did not apply because this is a misdemeanor offense and there was no threat to the safety of others because the victim was outside of the residence, in the custody of the police and there was no evidence which could possibly be destroyed in the residence. The state never filed a traverse or demurrer and on the day of the hearing, we requested that the Judge take this inactivity as an acknowledgment that the State was in agreement with our motion and we requested a dismissal. The Judge agreed and dismissed the Resisting Without Violence on 12/13. Our client was thrilled to have his Public Intoxication and his Resisting Without Violence dismissed.
The client was arrested for violating the restrictions on his driver's license. After speaking with the client and reviewing the evidence the Ticket Clinic Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss. Once the motion was filed the State Attorney’s office elected to dismiss the charge without a hearing and without the client ever having to go to court.
The client was arrested in Orlando for driving without a valid license. The case became lost in the court system which resulted in the no court date being assigned. The Ticket Clinic Attorney advised the client of the situation and after waiting the proper period of time, filed a Motion to Dismiss. The State dismissed the case before the motion could be heard.
Client was arrested for the first time ever after being caught shoplifting from Wal-Mart. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the Office of the State Attorney, securing the client’s ability to enter a diversion program, resulting in all charges being dismissed.
Client was arrested while driving to visit his family and was criminally charged for using his restricted license for a non-employment purpose. This arrest also violated the client’s probation in another county. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss the criminal charge. The State Attorney’s Office conceded and all criminal charges were dismissed.
Client was attacked by her boyfriend and defended herself. Her boyfriend subsequently called the police and stated that he was attacked and the client was arrested. Within one day of hiring the Ticket Clinic, the State Attorney’s Office dropped all charges.
The Client was involved in an accident with her 14 year old grandchild in the car. The Officers on scene suspected that the Client was impaired by alcohol, and requested that she perform roadside sobriety exercises. The Client performed poorly on said exercises and once she was arrested she refused to give a breath sample. She was charged with felony child neglect and DUI. The Firm immediately contacted the State Attorney's Office and argued that the Felony charge for Child Neglect was overcharged. The State agreed and dismissed the felony charge, which left only the DUI. The Firm argued to the State that the Defendant was extremely elderly and the exercises were not meant for someone of her age. In addition, there was no breath sample, so there was a lack of evidence. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
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.
Our client was charged with racing on a highway when a police officer observed him speeding down a main road at 66 miles per hour with another car. The prosecutor refused to negotiate or drop the case and claimed that they could easily prove the case. The lawyers at the firm prepared the case and set it for trial. During a two day jury trial, the lawyers at the firm picked apart the officer's testimony and presented evidence that proved our client could not have been involved in a race. The jury quickly returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts.
