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.
Miami-Dade County. Our client was accused of pulling out of a private drive onto US-1 and striking a vehicle heading north and then fleeing from that accident scene. The driver of the second vehicle followed and wrote down the license plate number of the vehicle which hit his and provided it to the police. Our client was ticketed for improper lane change and for leaving the scene of an accident and accused of causing property damage in excess of $3000. Our attorneys successfully argued for the case to be dismissed on grounds that the State Attorney did not have sufficient evidence to proceed with the case.
Miami-Dade County. Our client was accused of swearing off the road and striking a mailbox and leaving the scene of that accident. In addition, our client was further accused of being involved in a separate crash rendering his vehicle immobile. As a result of the second crash, our client needed to be transported to the hospital to treat his injuries. Unfortunately for our client, there was evidence tying him to first accident and the police claimed to have witnessed the second crash. Our client was ticketed for leaving the scene of an accident and for several other infractions relating to the two incidents. Our attorneys were able to argue that the entire chain of events could not be properly established because there were no witnesses to the first accident (notwithstanding the "evidence" tying our client to it) and there were doubts as to whether our client was at fault for the second crash. As a result, the State Attorney was forced to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
Miami-Dade County. Our client was accused of rear-ending another driver on SR 826 and leaving the scene of that accident. According to the other driver, our client sped away after the accident and the other driver followed long enough to write down the license plate number of the car that hit hers. That license plate number was given to the police and the police eventually tracked down and ticketed our client for leaving the scene of an accident. On the day of trial, the other driver stated that she was "pretty sure" the driver that hit her was in the court room. Our attorneys argued that the case still had significant weaknesses and should be dismissed. The State Attorney reluctantly agreed.
Miami-Dade County. Our client was accused of causing an accident while driving on a suspended license. According to eye witnesses, our client was driving at a high rate of speed and side swiped one car in an effort to avoid hitting another. Our clients car flipped several times before coming to a stop. When the police arrived they took statements from multiple witnesses (some of whom needed medical treatment) and ticketed our client for the accident and for driving while his license was suspended. On the day of trial, our attorneys argued that neither the the eye witnesses nor the police could properly identify our client as the man who was involved in the accident or the man driving on a suspended license because when everyone saw him his face was covered in blood and therefore obscured. The State Attorney was forced to drop the charges.
Police officers noticed our client speeding in his Gray Honda. The car was paced at 70PMH in a 45 MPH zone. Police noticed a smell of aocohol coming from the driver, glossy eyes, and slow/slurred speech. Roadside exercises were requested, but refused. Based on the observation noticed, a DUI arrest was made. A breath test was requested, but also refused. Ticket Clinic lawyers began defending the case, noting the lack of evidence. The State Attorney's office ultimately agreed to drop the DUI charge.
On May, 13, 2016, the Defendant was stopped in the area of Sunset Point Road and North Belcher Road after making an improper left turn from a through lane. As the officer spoke to the Defendant, he immediately detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage. Her eyes appeared bloodshot and watery. The Defendant's speech appeared mumbled and she admitted to consuming 2 bottles of beer before driving. The Defendant then submitted to field sobriety exercises which indicated impairment. The Defendant was arrested and provided a breath alcohol level of .089 and .092.
Results: the firm provided the prosecutors with information regarding the breath test results which indicated a possibility of the breath level being below .08 at the time of driving. The State then dropped the DUI charge.
Our client was charged with Reckless Driving. According to the officer, our client was driving 70 MPH in a 35 MPH zone and weaving in and out of traffic causing other drivers to slam on their breaks. The officer claimed he was chasing our client for approximately five blocks and that our client was "lucky" he wasn't charged with fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer. After stopping our client, the officer stated he detected the odor of alcohol coming from our clients breath and conducted field sobriety exercises. The officer again stated our client was "lucky" he passed the field sobriety exercises and "only" ticketed him for reckless driving. At the end of the officer's interview, our attorneys asked the officer if he would be able to identify our client and the officer stated "of course". Upon entering back into the courtroom, our attorneys asked the officer to identify the person he ticketed. The officer was unable to do so and the State Attorney was forced to dismiss the charges.
The Client was stopped by law enforcement because the Officer had received notice from dispatch that she was driving impaired. Once stopped the Client informed the Officer that she was simply lost and was trying to use her phone and call her son to get directions. The video evidence demonstrated that not only might there be a problem with the stop of the vehicle, but the Client also did not appear to be impaired. Additionally, The Firm discovered a possible motion to suppress the roadside exercises based upon the fact that the Officer involved improperly coerced her to do them. After discussing these facts with the State Attorney's Office, along with other mitigating factors, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Facts: Officers reported to the scene of an alleged altercation between a male and female. One of the officers made contact with the female who he saw was driving a blue Mazda 4 door vehicle. She was backing the vehicle out of a parking space as the officers arrived on scene. The Defendant opened the door immediately and started screaming and cursing at the officer before he even introduced himself or explain why they were there. The Defendant stated she was looking for a phone battery and wanted him to “leave her the f@** alone.” The officer noticed the defendant had red/bloodshot eyes, slightly slurred speech and an odor of alcohol coming from her breath. The Defendant’s boyfriend stated that the Defendant was driving in an out of control manner going more than twice the speed limit, swerving in and out of traffic and casing him to fear for his safety. He was finally able to convince her to pull over and let him drive but she then threatened to leap out of the car if he kept driving. They pulled over again and she got back into the driver seat where she was seen by officers attempting to leave. The Defendant’s boyfriend told the officers that the Defendant consumed several glasses of wine prior to driving and that she had some hard liquor. He gave a sworn statement to that effect. The Defendant was asked to perform roadsides which she hesitantly agreed to do. She answered every questioned posed by the officer by saying “I have a medical condition for that.” After performing poorly on the exercises, the Defendant was taken back to the jail where she gave a breath sample of .120 and .116. The Firm filed a motion to suppress arguing that the Defendant was misadvised when she was requested to submit to the breath test and therefore coerced into giving her breath samples. The State of Florida agreed to the motion and agreed to exclude the breath. Subsequently, because of the loss of that evidence, the State agreed to drop the charge for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
The defendant had Alprazolam in her pocket when she had been stopped by police. She was not legally prescribed the medication and was looking at up to 5 years in prison. The firm was able to convince the state to allow her into a program to address her drug abuse issues. After completion of the program, the firm was able to get the charge dismissed.
After her boyfriend was arrested for driving her car on a suspended license our client was called to the scene to pick up her car. Before releasing her car to her, law enforcement officers asked our client several questions. As our client was about to leave in her car, law enforcement accused her of allowing an unauthorized person to drive her car. According to law enforcement our client knew that her boyfriend's driver's license was suspended and allowed him to drive anyway. Our client was ordered to appear in court on this criminal offense. Our client immediately contacted our office to begin working on her case. We reviewed all of the State's evidence and Law Enforcement's reports. Together with our client our office then prepared a defense strategy. Our plan was to block key pieces of evidence from being introduced based on law enforcement's flawed Miranda warnings. After reviewing the details of the case with the State our office began preparing a motion to suppress. However, soon after our discussions with the State detailing these flaws the State dismissed the charge.
