Our client was alleged to have sped through traffic striking two vehicles and leaving the scene without having provided his information. Later that evening, police respond to a call regarding a crash and possible injuries. Upon arriving, the police claim that our client was passed out behind the wheel. The police further claim that the car was still on, in drive, but that his foot was on the break. According to the police, attempts to wake our client failed and they were forced to smash the back window of our clients car, crawl in and manually put the car in park and turn off the ignition. After waking our client, the police conduct a DUI investigation and arrest our client. During the arrest, the police claim that our client admitted to taking several drugs recently including prescription medication. During our investigation of the case, Ticket Clinic attorneys discovered that Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) was involved in the investigation of the accident. Witnesses stated that our client was permitted to drive back to the scene of the accident in order for the police to complete their investigation. However, those same witnesses stated that they were not able to identify our client with any degree of certainty. Further investigation revealed that the Police Department investigated the DUI and we inquired from the police officers whether they were aware that FHP ticketed our client for leaving the scene of the accident within an hour of their DUI, including letting him drive. To everyone's surprise, police admitted that they were aware of that and that in their opinion, FHP committed a serious error in allowing our client to drive in the condition he was in. The state attorney was so appalled at the facts of this case that they dismissed the leaving the scene of an accident charge and allowed our client to enter into a program whereby his DUI will be reduced to a reckless driving.
Law enforcement noticed that the Client's vehicle was swerving from the fog line to the center line multiple times and as a result conducted a traffic stop of the Client's vehicle. Once stopped the Client was observed to have an odor of an alcoholic beverage and had slurred speech. The Client then performed field sobriety exercises and did poorly. The Officer then arrested the Client and requested a breath sample, which the Client refused to give. The Firm spoke with the Assistant State Attorney on the case and highlighted the fact that the Client had a clean record and there was not a breath sample from the Client in the case. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charges.
Law enforcement observed the Client drifting all over the road and almost collided with three separate Semi trucks. Then the Client stopped his vehicle at an intersection and fell asleep before the light could turn green. The Officer made contact with the Client and observed an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The Officer then conducted a DUI investigation. The Client did not perform well on the roadside sobriety exercises and was then arrested for DUI. At the jail the Client refused to provide a breath sample. The Firm spoke with the State Attorney's office regarding the client's lack of a prior record and the fact that there was not a breath sample in the case. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Client was stopped for speeding on the interstate. Once the Client was stopped the officer observed the driver to have bloodshot and glassy eyes and observed the odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The Client then conducted field sobriety exercises and performed poorly on them. The Officer then arrested the Client and took him to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility. The Client then gave a breath sample more than double the legal limit. The firm reviewed the case and requested that his DUI charge be dismissed based upon the Clients lack of a prior record and the fact that the Client checked himself into treatment voluntarily before his case was even finished. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charges.
The Client was found at a local park while he was semi-conscious in his vehicle by a park official. The Client was then asked out of the vehicle once law enforcement arrived to conduct field sobriety exercises. The Client was extremely impaired and later gave a breath sample that was nearly 3 times the legal limit. The Firm set the case for trial and let the State know that the defense was that the Client wasn't actually in control of the vehicle, as he was not conscious. The week before the trial the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Our client was pulled over for making a u-turn in a manner which almost cased an accident. Upon engaging our client the police allegedly detected the odor of alcohol on his breath and accused him of having bloodshot and watery eyes. The police further stated that our client admitted to drinking that evening at the Miccosukee Resort. The police began a DUI investigation and our client is said to have failed the field sobriety exercises which caused him to be arrested. At the police station, our client refused to provide a breath sample and allegedly stated to the police that the reason he was refusing was because he would likely fail the test. Our client was also driving on a suspended license. Our attorneys immediately set the case for trial and the assistant state attorney was forced to dismiss all charges for insufficient and conflicting evidence.
Our client was arrested after his vehicle matched the description given by a caller. According to the caller the vehicle was speeding, was not maintaining a single lane, and the caller believed the driver might be impaired. Law enforcement observed our client drive for just over a mile and then decided to make contact. Law enforcement then asked our client to exit his vehicle and perform exercises. After completing the exercises Law enforcement took our client into custody. After bonding out of jail our client contacted our office to begin working on his case. We thoroughly reviewed all of the State's evidence and Law Enforcement's reports. We requested a copy of the audio recording of the informant caller. Our office then prepared a defense strategy. After several discussions with the State prosecutor reviewing the weaknesses in the case they decided to drop all charges.
According to the police, they saw the Defendant speeding side by side with another vehicle. Once the police stopped the Defendant, he told them that the other car had revved its engines while at a red light, and he did not want to back down. He told them it was a mistake, but that he was trying to beat the other car. The Defendant was charged with Racing on the Highway. If convicted, the Defendant would have faced a mandatory 1 year license suspension. The attorney for the firm was able to get the case dismissed.
The Client was stopped because he was having difficulties getting into the gate to an apartment complex. The Officer noticed that the client smelled of alcohol and that his speech was slurred. At this point the Officer reqeusted the Client conduct field sobriety exercises. The Client began to do the exercises, but half way through just said "I'm drunk." The Client then refused to give a breath sample. The Firm discussed the case with the Assisntant State Attorney and asked the State to consider the Client's lack of a prior record and the fact that he cooperated with the State's investigation. The State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Police responded to a three vehicle traffic accident. During their investigation the police were unable to determine who was at fault for the accident given the conflicting stories they received. However, our client was ticketed for driving without a valid drivers license. On the day of trial, the other drivers were demanding restitution for the damage their vehicles had sustained. Our attorneys emphasized the conflicting nature of the accounts surrounding the accident and were also able to show that the other drivers had difficulty identifying our client. As a result, the assistant state attorney was forced to dismiss the case and our client did not have to pay any criminal restitution.
On March 12, 2016, the Defendant was observed traveling westbound on Kennedy Boulevard. The Defendant's vehicle was drifting side to side. The Defendant then turned on Howard Avenue in front of the Officer and continued to drift in his lane. The Defendant then turned onto I-275 and continued to drift over the lane markers. The Defendant would accelerate to 80 mph, then reduce speed to around 60 mph. The Defendant was stopped for suspicion of DUI after continuing to drive outside of his lane on the interstate.
The Defendant was requested to perform field sobriety exercises which he agreed. The Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment on the walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. The Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI. A search of the vehicle revealed a marijuana grinder in the center console. Marijuana buds were found on the vehicle floor in the space between the right side of the driver's seat and left side of the center console.
The Defendant was charged with DUI, possession of Marijuana and possession of paraphernalia.
Results: The State abandoned the marijuana and paraphernalia charges after case law was provided by the firm. The DUI charge was set for trial. On the morning the trial was set to begin, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant was arrested on an outstanding warrant on an unrelated charge. When he was arrested, he was asked if he had anything on him that he should not. He did not disclose that he was in possession of Hydrocodone and Alprazolam. When a secondary search was conducted at the jail for booking, he attempted to hide the pills in his sock. The police found them and he was given the two new charges. The attorney for the firm took over the case and conducted a thorough investigation. On the day of trial, the State dismissed all charges against the Defendant.
