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.
A FHP Tropper was following our client's car as he was driving but not maintining his lane of travel. Upon stopping the vehicle and approaching the driver's side, the Trooper noticed that our client had passed out and was non responsive. Fire Rescue arrived and transported our client to the hospital. Inside the car was a prescription bottle with several open capules containing a brown substance. The substance was determined to be Heroin, based on the chemical test performed by the Trooper. At the hospital, after Miranda Warnings, the Defendant admittted that the substance was Heroin. After being retained, our office contacted the State Attorney's office, pointing out some deficiencies with their case. After their review, the State decided to drop the Possession of Heroin charge.
On May 13, 2016 at 11 pm, a Tampa Police officer observed a red Nissan Versa driving on Howard Avenue at a very high rate of speed. The vehicle was also weaving in and out of traffic. The vehicle was paced at 70 mph in a 40 mph zone. The Officer then initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle. The Defendant immediately stated to the Officer that she knew she was speeding and was coming from the Outpost. The Defendant stated that she did not have anything to drink while at the Outpost. The Officer noticed a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath as they spoke and her eyes were glassy/red/bloodshot. The Defendant agreed to allow the Officer to check her eyes which displayed multiple clues on the HGN test. The Defendant then refused to perform any further field sobriety exercises. The Defendant was then placed under arrest for DUI. During search of the Defendant a single, small yellow round pill was located in her wallet. The pill was marked 'TEVA 832', which was found to be Clonazepam 0.5 mg. The Defendant did not have a prescription attached. The Defendant was then transported to Central Breath Testing and provided a breath sample of .096/.098.
Results: The State dismissed the possession of prescription drug charge and dropped the DUI charge.
Our client was stopped for failure to utilize his vehicle's lights, and subsequently charged with a DUI. We prepared a Motion arguing that the police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion needed to detain our client for the DUI investigation. In our opinion, the video did not support the officer's conclusion that our client showed visible signs of impairment. Our second argument was that the driving pattern was not indicative of an impaired driver. Further, we argued that the police failed to obtain the proper consent to perform the roadside exercises, and made our client feel that the exercises were mandatory. Based on the numerous arguments that we presented, the State agreed to drop the DUI charge.
Our office represented co-defendants who were pulled over by Florida Highway Patrol for allegedly weaving through lanes of traffic at speeds exceeding 100MPH on Florida's Turnpike. The police officer stated that he gave our clients a break and only ticketed them for reckless driving when he could have ticketed them for racing. Our attorneys were able to show the police officer and the assistant state attorney that they didn't have sufficient evidence for either criminal charge and the cases were closed as careless driving infractions with a fine.
On February 13, 2016 at approximately 5:20 am, a Florida Highway Patrol Trooper was traveling on I-4 eastbound when he paced a vehicle traveling approximately 78 mph in a 65 mph zone. The vehicle was also unable to maintain a single lane as it would partially enter the outside shoulder from the outside lane. The vehicle would also enter the center lane from the outside lane halfway and then back to the outside lane. The erratic driving was observed for about 1 mile. The vehicle was then stopped for speeding and suspicion of DUI. When the Trooper made contact with the Defendant, his speech was slurred and there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. The Defendant admitted to a couple beers earlier. The Defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises and performed poorly displaying multiple indicators of impairment. The Defendant was arrested for DUI and provided a breath sample of .111/.111.
Results: The case was set for trial, but before the trial began, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant was involved in a 2 car accident. The Defendant stopped and spoke with the other driver after they pulled into a parking lot. The Defendant provided his business card to the other party and left the scene. When an officer arrived to the scene and spoke to the driver of the second vehicle, she relayed this information to the officer. The officer then called the Defendant and spoke to him about the details of the crash. The officer then ran the Defendant’s driver’s license and found it was suspended. The Defendant was charged with driving while license suspended with knowledge and leaving the scene of an accident without providing proper information. Result: The State dropped both the driving while license suspended with knowledge and leaving the scene of an accident charges.
The Client was traveling slower than the posted speed limit and kept crossing over the left and right solid white lines. At this point the Client was stopped by law enforcement who immediately noticed an odor of alcohoic beverages, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The Client then completed field sobriety exercises, somewhat poorly, although he had just gotten off work and was exhausted. The Client was then arrested and transferred to the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility. The Officer requested the Client to give a breath sample, without a spanish interpreter for the Client. The Client refused the breath sample. The Firm spoke to the Assitatnt State Attorney about the issues regarding the improper breath sample request and the fact that the Defendant was very exhausted when he completed the sobriety exercises. The Assitant State Attorney agreed that there were problems with the case for the State and agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Our client is a commercial bus driver. During a shift the bus he was driving was struck by a car. Our client and his passengers waited at the scene of the accident until law enforcement arrived. Law enforcement first spoke to the driver of the car and then approached our client. Law enforcement, who speaks both English and Spanish fluently, noticed that our client was having trouble communicating in English but continued his investigation in English. Our client's employer arrived at the scene and was able to observe the investigation and questioning of our client. Law enforcement failed to take a statement from any of the passengers. Law enforcement focused in on a single detail from our client's entire statement, in which they claim our client was intentionally lying to them about. Our client was arrested at the scene despite having no prior criminal history. After our client bonded out of jail he contacted our office. After our office took the case we thoroughly reviewed all of the State's evidence, Law enforcement's reports, and witness testimony. Our office presented substantial legal arguments to the court and after several hearings the prosecution dismissed the charge.
The Defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence after he was stopped and arrested in a parking lot. He gave a breath sample over a .15 and his license was suspended for 6 months. The Firm requested an administrative review hearing and subpoenaed witnesses to be present. The Firm took testimony from the arresting officer and made a motion to invalidate the suspension due to the fact that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and/or no probable cause that the Defendant had committed a traffic infraction. The DMV sustained the suspension and the Firm appealed to the Circuit Court. After 2 years, the Circuit court, sitting on a 3 judge panel, reversed the decision of the DMV holding that they failed to consider the lawfulness of the stop on a breath case. Additionally, the Firm argued that the stop was, in fact, unlawful and the appellate court agreed. The Suspension will be removed from the Defendant’s driving record.
