Our client was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for drag racing. The officer was hiding behind a wall on the side of the road with no lights on in an area known for illegal street racing conducting traffic enforcement. The officer wrote in his report that he witnessed two vehicles approaching him at an extremely high rate of speed revving their engines in a speed competition. The officer was not able to stop the first vehicle but stopped the second. The video however, showed one vehicle turn onto the road and proceed passed the officer. The video then showed a second vehicle do the same. The officer's report did not provide an estimated speed that the vehicles were traveling. Additionally, the video showed the vehicles were traveling less than 1/8 a mile from the time they turned onto the road to the time they passed his position. We first argued that the driver of the vehicle was not involved in any sort of drag race. We then argued that even if he was, there's no evidence or admissions from our client showing he actively participated or knew what the driver was doing or going to do. The Judge went as far as to tell the State that they'd have a better chance finding Jimmy Hoffa than a guilty verdict at trial. All charges dismissed.
Our client was driving a new vehicle her purchased but had yet to properly register when an officer ran the tag of his vehicle. The tag came up as not being registered so the officer pulled him over. Our client is new to this country and did not know there was not a grace period from the time you purchase a vehicle until it must be registered like in his home country and many other states. We worked with our client to get all of his documentation properly done and provided that proof to the Assistant State Attorney assigned to his case. Based on all of the work done, the State agreed to dismiss the case.
Our client was transporting a new truck he purchased earlier that week when a FHP Trooper stopped him for improper use of a Transporter Tag. The Trooper towed the truck, seized the tag, and cited our client with a criminal charge of No Motor Vehicle Registration. After thorough research of transporter tag statutes and case law, we were able to discuss the case directly with the Trooper, the Assistant State Attorney handling the case, and the Judge. After a long debate, the State agreed to drop the criminal charge.
Our client holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License. While traveling on I-75, he stopped at a weigh station. While going through inspection, the FHP Trooper informed him that his license was suspended for financial responsibility (insurance), and cited our client for criminally driving while license suspended with knowledge. Our client was adamant that he was unaware of any problems and fixed his license. Even with a valid driver's license and no prior criminal history, the State Attorney wanted a conviction for a criminal charge. In reviewing our client's discovery packet from the State, his driver's license record failed to show he was properly given notice of his suspension at the time the ticket was issued. We made the decision to push the case forward to trial and reject the State's offer. At the time the Judge asked the State if they were prepared to proceed to trial, the State dismissed all charges against our client.
Our client was pulled over for having an expired tag. During the stop it was discovered our client's license was suspended. Although our client told the officer she didn't know about it, he charged her with a criminal violation for driving while license suspended with knowledge. Our client called us shortly after the stop and we were able to direct her on how to correct her license issue and get it reinstated. Our client was able to provide us a copy of her valid driver's license the very next day. At her first court date, we showed the State and the Judge her valid driver's license and they agreed to drop the criminal charge.
The client was charged with DUI. The Client was stopped for weaving between his lanes and varying his speed by 20 miles per hour. Once stopped the client did poorly on the roadside exercises and then gave a breath sample over the legal limit. The State Attorney and the Firm negotiated the issues involved in the matter and after said discussions the State agreed to drop the DUI charge.
Client skidded past a stop sign into the Halifax River and was charged with DUI. At trial, state witnesses agreed that no one actually witnessed the Client driving & that the physical symptoms displayed by the Client could have come from multiple causes aside from alcohol impairment. After the close of evidence and prior to closing arguments all DUI charges were dismissed.
The Defendant ran a stop sign in the presence of an officer. The officer initiated his lights and sirens and the defendant continued at a high rate of speed blowing through additional stop signs until he pulled up to his house. The officer jumped out of the car and ordered the defendant onto the ground. He was immediately arrested for fleeing and eluding an officer. The Defendant smelled like alcohol and a DUI unit arrived on scene. That officer asked the Defendant if he had anything to drink and he stated “I can’t get in trouble, I want to apologize, can I speak with all of you?” His eyes were glassy and bloodshot and his speech was slurred. The Defendant was asked to perform roadside exercises and he refused. After being taken to the jail he was placed on camera where he was seen wearing only jeans and no shirt. He was asked to submit to a sample of his breath and he refused. The Firm spoke to the State Attorney’s office pre-filing to inform them of numerous problems with the case involving officer conduct. The State of Florida agreed and declined to file charges for Driving Under the Influence.
Defendant was found asleep at the wheel with the vehicle running and in drive. Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. Defendant provided breath and urine samples. Urine sample revealed Cocaine and GHB in their system. DUI charge dropped
The defendant was pulled over for weaving back and forth from the center lane to the right lane. The officer also stated that she was driving at 3 AM without her headlights on. When the officer approached, he noticed that her eyes were bloodshot, her speech was thick tounged and she had an odor of alcohol coming from her breath. He requested that she step out of the vehicle. When she did, according to him, she was unsteady. He also stated that she was unsteady when she walked. The officer requested that she perform field sobriety execises and she stated that she wanted to speak with her attorney first. He then requested the she supply a breath sample and once again, she asked for her attorney. She was arrested based on her condition and her refusal to perform field sobriety exercises and/or a breath test. On the day of trial, the state dropped the DUI.
Our client purchased a new car and was told by the dealership that they were transferring title to her existing tag and instructed her to attach the tag to her new car. Our client was pulled over a few days later. The trooper stated her tag was not registered and arrested her for Attaching a Tag not Assigned. Our client attempted to contact the dealership, but learned it was out of business. The Firm’s attorney set the case for trial. In turn, the prosecutor dropped all charges.
Our client's husband was involved in a car accident while traveling to the pharmacy to pick up her pain medication. When she received word of the crash, she rushed to the hospital to visit him. Upon her arrival she was immediately questioned by a member of FHP. After allegedly admitting to the Trooper that she knew about her husband's suspended license, the Trooper cited her with a criminal charge for allowing an unauthorized person to drive. Upon receipt of the case, we immediately questioned why the Trooper was interrogating our client in a hospital room where her injured husband was receiving medical care, and how a confession could be taken without properly advising our client of her constitutional rights, and without a Spanish translator present. We confirmed the statements she made to the Trooper were in fact only in agreement with the Trooper's statements and that she did not actually make any statements admitting a crime occurred. Based on this new information and the fact that the Trooper's probable cause affidavit was extremely misleading, the State dismissed the case against out client.
