Our client was seen driving in the wrong lane. He almost hit the officer head on. He was pulled over and asked for his paperwork. Our client had trouble locating and understanding what documents the officer wanted. He was asked to exit the vehicle. The officer then noticed he was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred. During the investigation, the officer also smelled alcohol on his breath, noticed he was blinking very slow, and his eyes were red. Our clients refused to perform field sobriety exercises when asked and he was arrested. He also refused to provide a breath sample at the jail. After lengthy negotiations, our firm convinced the State to drop the DUI.
Our client was stopped by a police officer for cutting off the officer and making an improper turn at a traffic light. Next, our client allegedly changed lanes, again impeding the officer's ability to maneuver his car. After being stopped, our client admitted to drinking 5 beers and said that "he shouldn't be driving". Initially, our client refused do perform the roadside exercises as he suffered from COPD. The officer explained that he may be subject to arrest and our client asked that if he performed the exercises, "if it could help him". The officer replied "maybe". We filed a Motion to Suppress based on this dialogue between our client and te officer. Our research found Florida case law, with similar facts, finding that this dialogue made the exercises forced as opposed to conentual. During the hearing, the officer's testimony conflicted with his police report. The Judge granted our Motion to Suppress, after hearing all of the evidence. The DUI was then dropped.
Our client was driving a rental truck commonly used for moving in the parking lot of a busy retail store. Hours after leaving the store, a member of the Florida Highway Patrol arrived at his residence to investigate an allegation that he hit a vehicle in the parking lot and left without exchanging information. The Trooper cited him with a criminal offense and a careless driving ticket. Our client hired us and before we got to court, we were able to request and gain access to the video camera footage from the retail store showing the alleged accident. The high quality video surveillance showed our client's entire driving pattern in the parking lot and at no point could an actual "accident" or "crash" be viewed. We argued first that our client never actually hit any vehicle and in the alternative that if he did, he did not know he hit any vehicle and therefore could not be charged with leaving the scene of an accident he never knew he was in. After reviewing the video, the State Attorney agreed and dismissed the criminal charge against our client and the Court dismissed the careless driving charge.
Our client was on his way home from a birthday party when he pulled over on the 417 in Seminole County. A member of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office found our client sleeping at the wheel of his car with the car in drive on the shoulder of the road. No complaints were made by any citizens in regards to his driving. Upon awaking, our client complied with all of the Deputy's commands. Our client politely refused to participate in any field sobriety tests and also declined to submit to a breath sample. The Deputy arrested our client based on the odor of alcohol, him sleeping behind the wheel, his admission to drinking alcohol, and other visual observations. We argued that without performing any field sobriety tests, no breath sample, and no poor driving, there was insufficient evidence to prove that our client was in fact Driving Under the Influence. The State Attorney agreed and dropped the DUI charge.
The Client was stopped for speeding and after the stop the Officer noticed that the Client smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech and according to the Officer had trouble balancing. The Officer requested that the Client perform Field Sobriety Exercises,which the Client declined to do. The Officer then arrested the Client for DUI and transported him to the Breath Alcohol Testing facility and requested a breath sample of the Client. The Client refused to give a breath sample. The Firm obtained the evidence in the case, including the videos, and determined that the Officer in the case did not accurately describe the Client's condition. In the video the Client did not have trouble balancing or have slurred speech as alleged by the Officer in his report. After discussions with the Assistant State Attorney the DUI charge was dismissed.
The Client was charged with DUI accident involving injury after he crashed his motorcycle with his wife on the back. The Client was seriously injured in the crash and had to be transported to the hospital immediately. Once at the hospital law enforcement did a blood draw without the Client's consent. The blood draw revealed that the Client had a blood alcohol level that was over the legal limit. The Firm argued that new and recent caselaw on the national level effected the validity of the blood draw. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge against the Client.
The Client was stopped for driving 61mph in a 35mph zone. Once stopped the Officer observed that the Client was collecting her belongings and exiting her vehicle. The Officer heard her say that she had drank too much. The Officer had her complete field sobriety exercises and her performance on the same was poor. Once arrested the Client gave a breath sample that was almost twice the legal limit. The Firm discussed the Client's lack of a prior conviction record and her cooperation with the State's investigation with the Assistant State Attorney assigned to the case. After the meeting the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Deputy observed our client swerving in and out of his lane on more than three occassions, nearly striking other vehicles. The Deputy approached our client and as a result of the interaction noted that our client had red, glassy eyes and difficulty with his fine motor skills. This caused the Deputy to intiate FSE's. Our client admitted to drinking three beers and did not perform well on the FSE's. As a result, our client was arrested and charged with DUI.
In this case, the argument was that the Deputy lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to initiate the FSE's. Also, the credibility of the Deputy and the validity of the interaction were all questioned, due to the refusal of the Deputy to call for a Spanish speaking officer when one was repeatedly requested by our Spanish speaking client.
After his initial stop, the Deputy indicates in his initial observation that Mrj has glassy bloodshot eyes and had difficulty retrieving requested items. This would fall short of comprising the reasonable suspicion necessary to initiate FSE's (important that there is no mention of the smell of alcohol, nor slurred speech, etc) In addition, our client indicated that he repeatedly requested a Spanish translator and was not provided one. Our client speaks very broken English and required a translator during my meeting with him.
As a result of the above-mentioned actions, the DUI was reduced to a reckless.
After a minor traffic accident, our 73 year-old Client was arrested and charged with his 2nd DUI. As part of the arrest, Client blew .144. Investigation by defense counsel revealed that Client had been clean & sober for many years before his most recent arrest. Investigation also revealed that Defendant had been diagnosed with cancer and his wife had been placed in hospice shortly before his arrest, and that is what led to his relapse with alcohol. State attorney agreed to drop DUI charges in humanitarian grounds.
Client was initially stopped and removed from his car at gunpoint on suspicion of fleeing & eluding after a brief pursuit by police led to the Client running a stop sign at a high rate of speed, almost hitting a marked police car, and then crashing into a curb (damaging his wheel and flattening his tire). Further investigation led to the Client's arrest for DUI, and he provided breath samples of .149/.142. Review of police video revealed errors in the investigating officers' administration of field sobriety exercises, and demonstrated extreme cooperation on the part of the Client. Investigation by defense counsel revealed that the Client, who worked at a car dealership, would lose his job if he were convicted of DUI. State attorney was convinced to drop all DUI charges based on the cumulative effect of the investigative errors, the Clients cooperation with investigating officers, and mitigation regarding the impact of a DUI conviction on the Client's employment status and ability to provide for his family.
The Client was on probation for felony drug possession when he was arrested for DUI. The DUI charge caused him to be violated on his felony probation and he was facing a maximum of five years in Florida State Prison. The firm investigated the reason for the violation, the DUI charge, and discovered that the client did not appear impaired at all. The firm discussed this issue with the State Attorney's office and they agreed to dismiss the DUI and reinstate the client on probation with no jail time and allow the Client remain free of a felony conviction on his record.
Our client was charged with reckless driving for allegedly driving at an excessive speed during a rush hour traffic on Interstate 4 while weaving in and out of traffic in a construction zone. We worked with our client to point out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Trooper's report. We set the case for trial and presented our argument to the Assistant State Attorney prior to jury selection. After hearing our version of events and how it would play out in trial, the State agreed to drop the criminal charge.
