Our client was on probation for an original charge of fleeing and eluding a police officer. While on probation, the Defendant was accused of a DUI and speeding. In that DUI, our client refused a breath test, but did comply with roadside exercises, per the officer's request. During our representation, we discovered some inconsistencies with the officer's report. We researched the model of our client's car, and pointed out inconsistencies with the officer's report due to the information that we learned during our investigation of the car. After pointing out these problems with the officer's report, the State agreed to drop the DUI charge and dismiss the speeding ticket.
Our client was involved in a traffic accident where his car jumped a curb and crashed into a police car. The police suspected our client had been drinking and began a DUI investigation. The officers had him perform field sobriety exercises and requested a breath sample. The breath sample results showed that the client's breath alcohol level was .097, over the legal limit. Our lawyers discovered some issues with the breath test procedure in this case and pointed out the problems to the prosecutor. On the day of trial the prosecutor dropped the DUI charge.
Polk County. Our client was stopped on the side of a major roadway when an officer approached the vehicle. The client was honest and admitted that there was marijuana in the vehicle along with a few bongs. Despite the lack of criminal history and the small amount of marijuana the officer arrested the client and booked him into the Polk County jail. The State failed to provide the required discovery materials in a timely manner, Ticket Clinic attorneys used this as leverage to convince the prosecutor and the judge to allow the client into a program. Once completed both charges were completely dismissed.
The Client was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident after it was alleged by another driver that the Client hit the other driver and then fled to a nearby parking lot. The Client's statement was that the other driver side swiped him and that he got in front of her so that she would follow him to the parking lot. The Firm spoke to the State Attorney in the matter and discussed the fact that it would be difficult to establish that the Client actually intended to flee with the evidence at hand. The State agreed and dismissed the case.
The client was stopped for swerving all over the road. Once stopped the officer saw a bottle of vodka and two cups full of vodka in the vehicle and an odor of alcohol on the clients breath. The officer investigated the case and had the client do roadside exercises and then arrested the client on the charge of DUI. The firm reviewed the evidence and determined it was a good case for trial based upon the video evidence obtained. The video showed how well the client performed on his sobriety exercises. At the day of trial the State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge.
Our client was traveling on the Florida Turnpike. Our client was driving 60 mph on the left lane. The speed limit in this area of the Florida Turnpike varies from 65 mph to 70 mph. The State Trooper observed our client driving and observed several cars catch up to our client and pass our client on the right lane. The State Trooper then turned on his emergency lights and initiated a traffic stop. The State Trooper then asked our client for her license, registration, and insurance. Our client provided the registration and insurance to the vehicle but could not provide a driver's license because our client has never been issued one. The State Trooper then observed that our client is not wearing a seat belt. The State Trooper issues two traffic tickets for impeding traffic and no seat belt. The State Trooper also issues a criminal infraction for no valid driver's license. Within a few days of getting the citations our client contacted our office to begin working on her case. We reviewed the State Trooper's reports and the citations issued. Our office quickly noticed that the State Trooper had failed to note how he calculated our client's speed. The State Trooper had also forgotten to calculate the speed of those cars that were passing our client on the right. Lastly, we noticed that the State Trooper had only observed the alleged impeding traffic infraction and had no other reason to initiate a traffic stop. Using the State Trooper's own statements we crafted a defense. We argued that the State Trooper never had sufficient probable cause to stop our client and that all the other citations and infractions were observed after this improper stop. Finally, we argued that since the State Trooper lacked the authority to stop our client not only should the impeding traffic citation be dismissed but all of the citations and infractions should be dismissed. Soon after our argument the State dropped all charges.
The Client went through the drive thru at a local McDonalds when the workers there noticed that he seemed to be impaired. The workers flagged down a local Deputy who stopped the Client. Once stopped the Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Client, that he had slurred speech, and empty bottles of Jim Beam in his vehicle. When the Officer's made contact with the Client it took him three tries to get his keys out of the ignition. Before he began to do the roadside sobriety exercises the client stated his chest hurt and that he was having trouble breathing. The Client was then transported to the hospital. While at the hospital the Client was asked to submit to a blood test, which he consented to. Once the blood sample was tested it was discovered that the Client had a blood alcohol content of .294. The Client was charged with a second offense DUI with enhanced blood alcohol levels. The Firm immediately noticed that the blood sample was taken illegally and deposed the officer in question. The Firm then showed the State Attorney's office what it had discovered with regards to the illegal blood draw and, after extensive negotiating, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
Defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officers noticed that the defendant was impaired and had the defendant perform field sobriety exercises on video. Afterwards the defendant submitted to a breath test, and blew .120 twice. DUI charge dropped during jury trial.
The Defendant was walking away from Bayshore Ave on Rome Street during the Gasparilla parade carrying a plastic cup. The Defendant, along with 3 other individuals, was stopped by a Tampa Police officer to determine the contents of their cups. After this stop, the officer asked the Defendant about the contents of the cup, which he replied was an alcoholic beverage. The Defendant was cited for possession of an open container of alcohol. Results: The firm filed a motion to suppress the evidence. After the judge granted the motion, the State dismissed the charge against the Defendant.
The client was pulled over after speeding 30 mph over the speed limit. Upon being pulled over, the officer noticed the client had an open can of beer that was cold to the touch, had slurred speech, an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and blood shot eyes. The officer claimed our client performed poorly on the field exercises and refused to provide a breath sample. Once hired, the attorney investigated the case and located a video that captured the client requesting for a Spanish speaking officer on numerous occasions. The officer ignored his requests. The Firm set the case for trial. On the day of trial, the State agreed to resolve the case to a Reckless Driving and dismiss the speeding ticket.
The client was charged with DUI after she sideswiped another vehicle and then totaled her own vehicle. The client then hired the Firm to represent her with respect to her case. The firm investigated the case and discovered that the officers drew blood that revealed various intoxicants in her system, including controlled substances. The firm also discovered, after extensive investigation, that the officer improperly requested the blood of the client. After discussions with the State Attorney, and after filing a motion to suppress the evidence, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The client was stopped by the officer for speeding. The officer noticed a smell of marijuana in the vehicle. The officer searched the vehicle and found marijuana. The Officer then issued the client a notice to appear in court. The client hired the firm to go to court for his upcoming court date. However, no court date was held within the time-frame of speedy trial. The firm investigated the matter, and discovered that pursuant to the law, the case should be dismissed right away. A motion was filed with the court and within a week the case was dismissed.
