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.
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.
Client was arrested in 2012 and missed their first court date. For over five years, the client had an active warrant. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were not only able to have the warrant recalled, but also had the criminal charge dismissed, all without the client having to appear in court.
The Client was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane by the officer who believed that the Client may have been impaired. Once stopped the Officer noticed that the Client seemed impaired and then had the Client complete roadside sobriety exercises. The Client did extremely poorly on the exercises and was then arrested for DUI. Once at the jail the Client provided a breath sample that was almost twice the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the Officer that stopped the Client was unable to be served but apparently still worked for the department. The Firm questioned the State Attorney's office about this issue and sought the Officer for a deposition in the case. Once the Officer was again unavailable the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Client was stopped by law enforcement after a tipster called in information indicating that the person driving a silver Volvo with their license plate number was intoxicated. The Officer then stopped the Client's silver Volvo and determined that the driver was impaired, and after performing poorly on sobriety exercises, transported him to the jail. At the jail the Client gave a breath sample that was over 4 times that legal limit. Because this was the Client's second DUI within 3 years the State was seeking a significant amount of jail. The Firm was retained by the Client to handle the case. The Firm deposed the officer in the case and was able to get the officer to testify that the only information he had about the Client's vehicle was that it was a silver Volvo, and nothing else, not even a license plate number. The Firm filed a motion to suppress all the evidence in the case based upon a bad stop of the Client's vehicle. However, before the motion could be heard the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
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.
