The facts are as follows: The client was operating her motor vehicle on her way home when she came across an accident scene where there were police directing traffic in the middle of the 2-lane road she was travelling on. In slow moving, bumper to bumper traffic, the client was attempting to make a left turn onto a road which her residence is located. A policeman who was directing traffic and was in the middle of the road, told the client not to make that turn because that road was blocked off. The client started to make the turn but stopped. The officer became irate and told the client to pull into a nearby business parking lot. The client complied and was charged with disobeying a police order. We sent an email to the State outlining the statute and the facts of the case, specifically:
Citing to FS 316.072, the crime of disobeying an officer occurs when:
1. An individual is operating a vehicle on a public road.
2. An individual is given a lawful order by a police officer.
3. An individual wilfully fails or refuses to comply with a lawful order.
The client is 72 years old and did not hear the initial lawful command from the officer, therefore there was no wilfull disregard of the lawful order as indicated by FS 316.072. Further, the pca corraborates, that the officer then stepped out and stopped The client vehicle, which indicates that she did, at this point, hear and complied with the order when she became aware of it. Further, the PCA states that the client also complied with the officers orders to pull into a parking lot. The client also complies with the officers request to provide dl, registration and insurance and answers all other questions posed by the officer.
This case seems to be a situation where the client, due to her age and hearing difficulties, was not aware of the initial order from the officer and did not wilfully disregard the order. This position is reinforced by Moyer's subsequent complliance to all other orders issued by this officer.
The State agreed with us and NP'd the case on 10-23.
While on patrol in his marked HCSO patrol vehicle a HCSO Deputy was dispatched
to a reckless driver call. The call stated that the red Dodge sedan,
pulled into the driveway and the driver did not get out of the vehicle. The Deputy located the listed vehicle and parked his patrol vehicle in front of the mailbox so that he
was not blocking it in. He did not activate any emergency equipment. He
approached the vehicle on the driver side and noticed that the front
windows were down, key was in the ignition, engine on and music blaring. He
was able to wake up the driver, the Defendant, who was by himself sleeping
in the listed vehicle. After he was able to have the Defendant
turn off the music, he asked him to turn off the engine, which he did.
While talking with the Defendant, he saw that " his eyes were glossy
and bloodshot. His manual dexterity was poor while attempting to find his
drivers license. The Defendant handed the Deputy his wallet when I asked for his license and then he fumbled with it. The Deputy could smell the strong and distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and person. Defendant was slurring his words. The Deputy asked him if he had been drinking tonight and he replied that he has not had any alcohol in two days, then later changed his story to a couple of hours ago then finally stated that he was drinking in his car while
driving". The Deputy thought that the Defendant was impaired and called
for a DUI Investigator to respond to the scene.
The DUI investigator approached the driver' s side of the vehicle and made contact with the Defendant, who was sitting in the driver' s seat of his vehicle.
The investigator immediately observed indicators
of impairment and an open, half full, cold to the
touch 16fl oz Budweiser beer can sitting in the front middle cup holder. Investigator
removed the beer can from within the vehicle and poured it out onto the
grass. The Investigator explained the observations to the Defendant and requested him to perform some sobriety exercises, which he agreed to perform. During the
exercises, he showed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI.
The Defendant was transported to Central Breath Testing where he
refused to provide his two lawful breath samples.The Investigator then
advised the Defendant of the Miranda warning. The Defendant made the following statements Post Miranda:
He was convicted of a DUI in 1995. He got caught again. He is guilty. He
does not believe his arrest is valid because Law Enforcement was
trespassing on his property. He hopes he gets a female judge to throw out
the case. He understand that the Investigator is doing his job and he is thankful that he is protecting the streets from drunks like him that could cause an accident
and hurt somebody. He is not that impaired. He understands that he was
wrong and should not have been drinking and driving but he got pulled over
in his driveway. He had at least two beers to drink, but would not say
where.
Result:
The firm filed a motion to suppress and on the morning teh motion was to be heard, the State dropped the DUI charge.
Osceola County. Client is a foreign national, who does not possess a license from the United States. He was pulled over for a tail light violation and subsequently arrested. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to secure his foreign license and other documents, establishing to the State Attorney’s Office that no crime had been committed. All charges were dropped.
The defendant was stopped for swerving. After completing the roadside exercises he was arrested and refused breath testing. DUI charge dropped
The defendant was involved in an argument with the male passenger in her car. The officer following the defendant’s vehicle initiated his emergency lights when it appeared the two may be involved in a struggle inside the car. The defendant continued approximately ¼ of a mile before stopping. The officer asked the defendant to exit her vehicle and speak to him regarding the possible domestic disturbance. During this time, the officer noticed the defendant to have watery eyes and was having trouble maintaining her balance. He also notice the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath. The defendant explained that she and her passenger were not having a domestic dispute. She also told the officer that the two of them had just come from the Casino. While the defendant was explaining this to the officer, he noticed that she could not stand without using the car for support. A DUI investigator was called to the scene. When the DUI officer arrived, he noted the defendant had trouble standing and her speech was slurred. The defendant was requested to perform field sobriety exercises, which she agreed. The defendant fell down as she attempted to remove her shoes before beginning the exercises. The defendant displayed multiple signs of impairment during the exercises and was arrested. The defendant provided 2 breath samples which indicated a BAC of .185 and .189. The firm filed a motion to suppress evidence in the case. Based on the probability of the motion\'s success, the State dropped the DUI charge.
Osceola County. Client was pulled over for having a headlight out while his driving license was suspended, and was cited for a criminal charge. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys negotiated on the client’s behalf with the State Attorney’s Office resulting in no criminal convictions, all without the client ever having to attend court.
The Client was stopped by law enforcement for making an illegal U-Turn. Once Stopped the Officer noticed that she seemed impaired by alcohol. The Officer asked the Client to conduct sobriety exercises and after a poor performance, the Officer arrested the Client and transported her to the jail. While at the jail she gave a breath sample that was twice the legal limit. The Firm spoke with the State Attorney's Office and was able to convince them to dismiss the Client's DUI charge based upon the Client being extremely cooperative and having no prior criminal history for her entire life.
The Defendant was stopped for going 47 mph in a 30 mph zone. The Defendant was removed from the car. He ignored the commands of the officer and attempted to push his way back into his vehicle. The officer found cannabis inside of the vehicle. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a drug treatment program. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the State to drop the case completely.
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 Client was stopped because he had passed out with his vehicle in the roadway. Police were called to the scene where they were able to determine that the Client seemed impaired. They ordered the Client to perform filed sobriety exercises and then arrested him based upon the same. Once at the jail the client refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that law enforcement improperly ordered the Client to do the sobriety exercises. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the sobriety exercises from evidence. However, before the motion could be argued the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge against the Client.
Client rear ended another vehicle on a desolate stretch of roadway. The investigating officer suspected that the driver was under the influence and had the client perform roadside sobriety tests. Despite performing well on the sobriety exercises the client was arrested and charged with DUI. After the arrest the client was transported to the DUI Center and requested to submit to a breath test, he blew .117 / .130. The Ticket Clinic attorney reviewed the case and discovered inconsistencies in the video and the police report. Based upon the inconsistencies the Ticket Clinic attorney filed a motion to suppress. The matter was set for a hearing, the State called two witnesses, both were officers. The testimony was very favorable to the client, the judge reserved ruling on the motion because he wanted to review the videos in chambers. After the hearing, but before the judge ruled on the motion, the State dropped the DUI charge.
Client rear ended another vehicle on a desolate stretch of roadway. The investigating officer suspected that the driver was under the influence and had the client perform roadside sobriety tests. Despite performing well on the sobriety exercises the client was arrested and charged with DUI. After the arrest the client was transported to the DUI Center and requested to submit to a breath test, he blew .117 / .130. The Ticket Clinic attorney reviewed the case and discovered inconsistencies in the video and the police report. Based upon the inconsistencies the Ticket Clinic attorney filed a motion to suppress. The matter was set for a hearing, the State called two witnesses, both were officers. The testimony was very favorable to the client, the judge reserved ruling on the motion because he wanted to review the videos in chambers. After the hearing, but before the judge ruled on the motion, the State dropped the DUI charge.
