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.
The Client was stopped for speeding. While stopped the Officer noticed signs of impairment and saw 2 empty beer cans in the backseat of the Defendant's vehicle. The Officer requested the Client to perform roadside exercises and the Client performed poorly. The Defendant then blew a breath sample that was slightly over the legal limit. The Firm discussed the issues of the case with the State, including the fact that the Client lived out of state, and the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charges.
On December 26, 2015, the Defendant was stopped based on a 911 call regarding a domestic violence incident. After making contact with the driver, the Deputy noticed a strong odor of alcohol and his eyes were bloodshot and watery. The officer then requested assistance from a DUI investigator. The Defendant was requested to perform field sobriety exercises with he agreed. During the exercises, the Defendant exhibited multiple clues of impairment and subsequently arrested for DUI. The Defendant provided two breath samples of .115 and .122.
Results: The firm provided a copy of the original 911 call and notes to the prosecutors along with a motion to suppress the stop. Before the firm filed the motion to suppress, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On August 8, 2015, the Defendant was was involved in a serious traffic crash at 5th Ave S. and 31st St. The Defendant was found to not be at fault in the accident. The Defendant and the other driver were both transported to the hospital for medical attention. A St. Petersburg Police Officer met with the Defendant at the hospital. The officer indicated to the Defendant that he was investigating a separate criminal charge from the accident. He felt that she may be impaired while driving and read the Miranda rights to her. The Defendant waived her rights and spoke to the Officer. The Defendant also voluntarily submitted to a blood test to determine her blood alcohol level. Her blood was tested twice and the results were .088 and .064 respectfully. The Defendant was then criminally charged with DUI with property damage.
Results: the firm provided the State with several documents related to the crash and the Defendant's blood alcohol level. After review of this information, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On Saturday, January 2, 2016, at approximately 1:47 am a driver was traveling westbound on Busch Blvd, preparing to enter the Dale Mabry ramp, when the defendant walked up and asked him to help with his motorcycle that had just crashed. The witness then did a U-turn and got behind the Defendant who was standing over his motorcycle on the outside lane of Busch Blvd. As another vehicle was passing by the Defendant, the Defendant stumbled and fell onto the hood of the vehicle's car. The first witness then took the keys to the motorcycle because he felt the Defendant was "three sheets to the wind". The two witnesses would not return the keys to the Defendant since they felt he was too drunk to drive. The Defendant then started trying to walk his motorcycle away from the scene when the Hillsborough County Deputy arrived. The Defendant refused to perform field sobriety exercises and was then arrested for DUI. The Defendant also refused to provide a breath sample.
Result: The state dropped the DUI charge after discussion with the firm about the sufficiency of the evidence.
The police responded to a "suspicious vehicle call". Upon arrival, they found our client alseep in his car, with the engine running, and the client had recently vomitted on himself. Upon being awoken, the client stated that he had "just come from a club". Roadside exercises were requested and performed poorly according to the officer. Our client was arrested and refused to provide a breath sample. We took this case to trial. During cross-examination we were able to point out many inconsistencies and the lack of credible evidence. We were able to establish that the investigation was performed very poorly by the police. Our client was found NOT GUILTY.
The client was charged with causing a fatality after she was hit by a motorcycle while turning on a rural road. The victim's riding partner had taped the entire incident on a GoPro camera and this was introduced at trial. The firm argued that the motorcycle driver started to pass the client after the client had already began to make her turn. In addition, the Firm also pointed out that the speedometer on the motorcycle at the time of the crash was about 20 miles an hour over the posted speed limit. As a result the judge found the client not guilty.
