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.
The defendant was charged with DUI. The Officer’s stated that the defendant was speeding and slammed on his brakes in front of them. In addition they also alleged that he did poorly on the roadside sobriety exercises and gave a breath sample over the limit. The Firm attended pre-trial hearings regarding the officer’s testimony in this case and was able to get one of the officer’s to state that he did not specifically know what normal faculties were impaired with respect to the defendant on the night in question. The Firm set the case for trial and on the day of Trial the State dismissed all charges.
Miami-Dade County. Police respond to a traffic crash where they claim to have seen our client stumble out of his car and hold onto his door for balance. Upon approaching, police further claim to have detected the typical signs of impairment and that our client had urinated on himself. Police state that our client admitted to drinking that evening and that he failed his field sobriety exercises. When placed in the back of the police car, our client is said to have fallen asleep and to have drooled all over his shirt. After having been read his rights, our client is said to have admitted to having used various types of illegal drugs that day. Our client's urine sample came back positive for said drugs. Our attorneys were able to point out several weaknesses in the case and all the charges were dropped.
Miami-Dade County. A vehicle was traveling east on NW 7th Street approaching NW 17th Avenue in the left turn lane when it struck our client who was crossing the street on foot with the aid of a walking stick. Our client, who suffered injuries to his face, was accused of causing minor damages to the vehicle. When the police arrived, because they saw a nearby crosswalk, decided to ticket our client for illegal use of a walking stick. Our attorneys expressed outrage at the issuing of such a ticket and pointed out errors in the ticket itself. As a result, and with the support of the Judge, the State Attorney reluctantly dismissed the charges.
