The police responded to an accident scene on I-95 involving a flipped over tractor trailer and three other vehicles. The driver of the tractor trailer was taken to the hospital as a result of the accident and the other drivers complained of minor injuries. Our client was charged with driving without a valid drivers license and being the cause of the accident. Our attorneys interviewed all 5 of the state witnesses (which included a police officer and the 4 other drivers) who gave varying accounts of what happened. As a result, our attorneys were able to show that no one could actually prove our client was the cause of the accident much less that he was driving without a valid license. Notwithstanding that all 4 of the accident "victims" were demanding financial compensation for their medical bills, our attorneys were able to convince the state attorney to dismiss the charges.
Link to the news article regarding this case:
http://wsvn.com/news/tractor-trailer-flips-spilling-plywood-onto-i-95/
Sheriff's Deputies were called to the scene of a car facing westbound in the eastbound lane with two flat tires. When deputies approached the car our client was asleep, when asked if everything was okay our client told them that he blew out a tire and was waiting for AAA for roadside assistance. The deputies noticed the smell of alcohol on our client's breath, that he had bloodshot glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The deputies asked our client to perform field sobriety exercises which he voluntarily did. Our client allegedly performed badly on the exercises, and was arrested for DUI. There was no video taken by the deputies in this case to confirm or deny these allegations.
Our client admitted to the officers that he had two drinks with dinner, but asserted that he performed badly on field sobriety exercises because of the effects of his Type II Diabetes. Our client was asked to take a breathalyzer which he voluntarily did, and blew twice the legal limit at .161.
Our firm prepared for trial. We prepared to challenge the reliability of Breathalyzers on subjects with Type II Diabetes, and assert that any signs of impairment indicated were from the effects of Type II Diabetes.
Charged with violation of community control for burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. Client scored for 34 months in prison & faced a maximum of 30 years. The probation officer was recommending 24 months in prison. Our attorney convinced the judge that the violations were not substantial, and that the client was not a threat to the community. Judge agreed and reinstated the client's community control with no jail or prison time.
Originally arrested on charges of aggravated assault after an incident at a convenience store where he was accused of brandishing a knife at the cashier. Our attorney convinced the state that assault charges were inappropriate because the cashier was behind the counter, and therefore there was no threat of imminent violence. Aggravated assault charges were dropped.
On January 17, 2016, a Pinellas County Deputy observed a suspicious vehicle parked in the parking lot of Countryside Mall. The white Jeep was stopped halfway in the parking space and halfway in the bushes. The vehicle was not parked normally so the Deputy positioned his car behind the vehicle. The Driver was asleep in the driver seat of the vehicle with the keys in the ignition. The ignition was off and lights on. The Deputy attempted to wake the driver by banging several times on the front window. When the driver did not respond, the Deputy attempted to yell through a crack in the window as he continued to bang on the window threatening to break it. The driver then woke up and the Deputy instructed him to exit the vehicle.
A DUI investigator was called to the scene. He observed the driver to have bloodshot eyes, and a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. The DUI investigator requested the driver to complete field sobriety exercises to which the driver agreed. The driver performed poorly on the exercises was arrested for DUI. The driver then provided a breath sample of .160 and .159.
Results: The firm provided an information packet to the prosecutors dealing with the initial contact by the Deputy and the breath test results. Based on the review of these documents and information, the State dropped the DUI charge.
Our client was pulled over for speeding when the officer detected signs of impairment. The officer asked whether our client had been drinking and our client admitted to having drank beer earlier that evening. The officer asked our client to step out of his vehicle and perform field sobriety exercises. Our client agreed and in the officer's opinion our client failed to perform the exercises to his satisfaction. Our client was arrested and taken to the police station where he was asked to give a breath sample. Our client refused the breath sample and was charged with DUI (his 3rd such offense), Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample (his 2nd such offense) and Driving While License Suspended. Through our investigation and trial preparation, we were able to detect several problems with the police's investigation and as a result rejected all attempts by the State to resolve this case prior to trial. However, the Sunday before Monday's trial the State contacted us and again attempted to negotiate a plea bargain. We informed the State that we would only accept a reduction from DUI to Reckless Driving and a dismissal of both the Refusal and Driving While License Suspended charges based on the problems we had identified. The State agreed to our offer.
Client was arrested for a second DUI and refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Due to that being the client’s second refusal, the DHSMV suspended their license for a year, without the ability to get a hardship license. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were hired on the case and contested the suspension by the DHSMV at a formal review hearing. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys argued that there was insufficient information provided by law enforcement to uphold a license suspension and won, causing the suspension to be invalidated.
The defendant was charged with violating his business purposes only license while he was visiting a relative. Once stopped for speeding the officer asked the driver whether he was driving for a business purpose. The defendant then confessed that he was not driving for a business purpose. He was then charged with the crime of violating a Business Purposes Only License. The Government’s offer to resolve the case was 35 days in jail. The Firm set the case for trial and when the day of trial came The Firm argued that the defendant's statement was inadmissible until further evidence to prove the crime was presented. At this point the government dropped the criminal charge to a non moving traffic violation and the speeding charge was also dismissed.
The Officer involved in the case received a call that there was a possible drunk driver that was in a white Ford pickup truck. When the Officer arrived he noticed the vehicle still at the designated location. The Officer attempted to have the Client exit his vehicle but he did not and drove around the Officer. The Officer was able to conduct a traffic stop shortly down the road. The Officer requested the Client to submit to roadside sobriety exercises. The Client did not do poorly on the exercises and then later refused to give a breath sample when he was arrested for DUI. The Firm reviewed the video in the matter, which showed that the Client did not seem as impaired as initially indicated by the officer. This fact combined with the facts that the Client did not give a breath sample and that he had a complete lack of a criminal record led the State Attorneys Office to agree to dismiss the DUI charge.
The Client was stopped for driving his vehicle past the stop bar at a red light and for swerving his vehicle on the roadway. After the Client was stopped the Officer noticied an odor of alcohol and that the Client had difficulty giving the Officer his license and registration. The Officer requested the Client submit to roadside exercises, which the Client did poorly on. The Client was then arrested for DUI and gave a breath sample over the legal limit. The Firm discussed the case with the State Attorney's Office, including the issues that the Client did not have a high breath sample, did not cause an accident or danger to others of any kind, and did not have a prior criminal background. The State was in agreement and dismissed the DUI charges.
Our client was accused of failing to yield to oncoming traffic, causing an accident and leaving the scene of that accident. The driver of the other vehicle was able to photograph the license plate of the car that hit hers as it fled. Using that photograph the police were able to track that vehicle to our clients home and he was eventually charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Through our conversation with the woman who was hit, we were able to show that she never got a good look at our client and her "description" of our client actually described any number of a dozen people sitting in court that day. We argued to the State that they would not be able to prove this charge at trial and they agreed and dismissed the charge.
The police stated that our client, while in a turning lane, cut off a police offier's car and "gunned it" down the road. The officer said that the client then began racing other cars, traveling in excess of 80 mph and weaving in/out of lanes of travel. Our client was stopped by the officer, but then the officer pursued the other driver to stop him as well. While doing this, the officer stated that our client re-entered the road, and attempted to flee the scene. Our client disputed virtually every allegation. We told the judge that we were "ready for trial". As the jury waited in the hallway to begin the trial, the State heard our version of the case. The State then agreed to dismiss the criminal charge and the trial was cancelled.
