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.
The defendant was stopped for driving off the roadway, on two occasions. After completing the roadside exercises she was arrested for DUI. She refused a breath test. Acquitted by jury of DUI.
Client was speeding down I4 at 3:30 in the afternoon. He was clocked doing 85 in a 50mph zone. He was also weaving in and out of traffic and cutting other motorists off. The officer described his driving as extremely erratic. On the day of trial, the State dropped the charge.
Officer testified in trial that he was alerted to our client because he had peeled out of a parking lot. The officer further testified he witnessed our client driving at a high rate of speed and running through three stop signs in a residential neighborhood. The officer said that given the driving pattern he witnessed, he had no choice but to ticket our client for reckless driving. On cross examination, Ticket Clinic attorneys established that the incident occurred at approximately 3:00AM, that there were no other cars on the road and that there were no pedestrians on the road. Ticket Clinic attorneys argued there was no way these facts amounted to a reckless driving. The reckless driving charge was dropped.
The defendant was stopped for unlawfully avoiding a red light. The stopping deputy approached the vehicle and noticed the defendant to have glassy eyes and stated he was coming from a gentleman’s club. The deputy also noticed the defendant had the odor of an alcoholic beverage and his speech was slurred. The defendant also admitted to consuming a few beers. The defendant performed poorly on roadside sobriety exercises and refused all testing. The State dropped all DUI charges
