Miami-Dade County. Police claimed to have been dispatched to assist on a possible reckless driver. According to the police report, by the time the officers arrived on scene our client was already out of his vehicle. The police report further states that passing motorists had flagged down nearby police officers reference reckless driving regarding our client and that that was why our client had been pulled over. Upon interacting with out client, the police claim to have detected the typical signs of impairment and proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation which ultimately lead to the arrest of our client. On the day of trial, Ticket Clinic attorneys argued there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the stop. Upon hearing this argument, the police promptly changed their entire story in contradiction of their already sworn to police report. Having been made uncomfortable by this change in position by the police, the prosecutor dismissed all charges.
Miami-Dade County. Our client was pulled over for swerving on the highway and having almost crashed into the median wall on multiple occasions. Upon interacting with our client, the police claimed to have detected bloodshot watery eyes and the strong odor of alcohol as he spoke. Our client agreed to perform the field sobriety exercises and according to the police he failed to perform them to their satisfaction. After having been arrested our client refused to provide a breath sample. During the investigation of this case, Ticket Clinic attorneys were made aware of the existence of video footage of our client performing the field sobriety exercises. After having watched the video with the prosecutor it was apparent that our client did not perform as badly on the exercises as the police made it seem in their reports. Ticket Clinic attorneys were able to negotiate a reduction of the DUI to reckless driving.
Orange County. Our client was involved in a traffic crash after leaving a local bar. During the crash investigation the officer observed the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, swaying, and that the client had a prior DUI. The officer requested that the client perform sobriety tests, the client politely refused. The officer arrested the client and charged him with DUI. The client was then requested to take a breath test – he refused. While the Ticket Clinic attorney was investigating the case it was discovered that the officer had turned off his body camera to have an “off the record” conversation with his supervisor. During that off the record conversation it was discovered that the supervisor suggested the officer not arrest our client. At the first court date the state offered enhanced penalties including 12 months of probation, interlock device (breath test machine) on his car, community service hours, and a $2000 fine. The Ticket Clinic attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence and set the matter for a hearing. The day before the motion the prosecutor contacted the Ticket Clinic to speak with the attorney. After pointing out the weaknesses in the State’s case the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to Reckless Driving. The client was given a withheld adjudication, a $750 fine, and a class. No conviction on his record, no probation, no interlock device on his car, no community service.
The Client was stopped by law enforcement because he passed the stop bar on a red light and came close to striking the officer's patrol car. The Client then admitted that he was drunk and that he took various controlled substances regularly. He performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. Once at the jail he provided a breath sample that was more than twice the legal limit. The Firm spoke with the State about the case and pointed out that the stop of the Defendant's vehicle seemed suspicious and the Defendant did have an otherwise clean criminal record. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge before trial.
The Defendant was involved in a serious accident and was detained for a dui investigation by law enforcement. Law enforcement had the Client do field sobriety exercises, which the Client performed poorly on, and then arrested the Client. Once at the jail the Client gave a breath sample over the legal limit. While the State had a strong case against the Client the Firm discovered a large mitigating factor that could lead to the case resolving in the clients favor. The Firm discussed the issue with the State that hours before the Client was in the accident, the Client's child passed away. Once the Firm provided proof of this occurrence the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The client was pulled over on his motorcycle for driving on US1 in the wrong direction. The officer noted that he had slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and an odor of alcohol emitting from his breath. Our client admitted to drinking 3 beers and 2 margaritas. The officer claimed our client performed poorly on the roadside tasks by failing to follow instructions, having balance problems, and being unable to lift his leg. After his arrest, our client provided a breath result of 0.175, over twice the legal limit. After hiring The Ticket Clinic, the attorney investigated the case and determined the exercises performed by the officer were unreliable based on the conditions on scene and the conditions of the client. Additionally, the attorney located evidence that suggested the breathalyzer result was unreliable. The attorney took the case to trial, cross examining the State’s witnesses and arguing to the jury why they should find reasonable doubt in the State’s case. After 45 minutes of deliberation, the jury found our client NOT GUILTY on all counts.
The Client was having a medical issue in his car that was parked in his doctor's office driveway. The Officer stated he made contact with the Client because he was improperly parked and blocking the driveway. Once the Officer made contact he noticed that the Client seemed impaired. The Client admitted to inhaling the contents of a nearby aerosol can and taking barbiturates. He performed sobriety exercises and was then transported to the hospital for a blood test. After giving the blood test he was charged with DUI and inhaling a chemical substance. The Firm thoroughly investigated the case and ultimately discovered that the detention of the Client may have been improper as well as the blood draw that showed he had chemical and controlled substances in his system. The Firm filed a motion to suppress the stop as well as the blood test. Before the motion could be argued the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge and the inhalation charge.
The Client was stopped by police because she had passed out in a turn lane on the road. She smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech. The officer requested her to do roadside exercises and she refused. The client was then arrested and transported to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility. While there she was asked to do a breath test, which she also refused. There was limited evidence in the case against the client, however because she had made false accusations that she was assaulted at the jail by police, the State initially refused to dismiss the DUI charge. The Firm approached the State and argued that the State should reconsider dropping the DUI charge because of the combined factors of no roadside exercises, no breath sample, and no prior record. The State and The Firm came to an agreement to have part of the deal require the Client to simply write letters of apology to the officers and the State would dismiss the DUI charge
The client's vehcile was stopped for swerving multipe times. After he was stopped the Officer smelled an odor of alcohol and the Client admitted to having a couple drinks. The Officer then requested the Client submit to roadside exercises, which he did. After doing poorly on said exercises the Client gave a breath sample over the legal limit. The Firm reviewed the video that was associated with the case and determined that the video did not appear to show as bad of a driving pattern as the Officer described. The Firm contacted the State and informed them that a motion could be filed on the legality of the stop. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Client was visiting a local area bar and was observed leaving said establishment having difficulty walking. Employees of the bar informed law enforcement that they believed the Client was impaired. The Client then entered his vehicle and attempted to leave the parking lot. The Officer stopped the Client by flagging him down. Once stopped the Officer then detained him for a DUI investigation. During the DUI investigation the Client performed poorly on the sobriety exercises, and was then transported to the Palm Beach County Jail, where he gave a breath sample that was more than twice the legal limit of .08. The Firm was retained to help and discussed the case with the Assistant State Attorney. The Firm addressed the issue of the way the Client was stopped and also the fact that the Client had an impeccably clean criminal history. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Deputy was on patrol in his marked HCSO patrol vehicle when he 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, who was by himself in the listed vehicle. After he was able to have the Driver turn off the music, he asked him to turn off the engine, which he did. While talking with the Driver, he saw that " his eyes were glossy and bloodshot. His manual dexterity was poor while attempting to find his drivers license. He handed me his wallet when I asked for his license and then he fumbled with it. I could smell the strong and distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and person. He was slurring his words. I asked him if he was medically okay and he replied that he was. I 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". He thought that the Driver was impaired and called for a DUI Investigator to respond to the scene.
A DUI investigator arrived and performed field sobriety exercises. During the exercises, the Driver showed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. The Driver was transported to Central Breath Testing where he refused to provide his two lawful breath samples. The DUI investigator advised the Driver of the Implied Consent warning in CB - 01 room in CBT ( see video), which he stated that he understood and was still going to " Refuse" to give his breath samples.
Result:
The administrative suspension for Refusing to Provide a breath sample was set aside by the Hearing Officer due to insufficient evidence to support the suspension because the stop was determined to be invalid.
This defendant was charged with Driving While License Suspended. He had an extremely extensive driving record replete with numerous violations and suspensions. The State was unwilling to dismiss the case. After proving the State with mitigation, the case was completely dismissed on June 16, 2017.
