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.
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.
After a 3 month joint investigation by the DEA and the Orange County Sheriff's Office, our client was arrested for (1) Conspiracy to Traffic in More than 400 Kilograms of Cocaine, (2) Attempted Trafficking of 400 kilograms of Cocaine or More, (3) Attempted Sale of a Counterfeit Substance, and (4) Possession of Less than 20 Grams of Marijuana. The charges carried a maximum of 50 years in prison plus 1 year in jail and over $250,000 in fines. The highest charge also carried a minimum mandatory sentence of at least 15 years in prison with no early release possible. It was alleged that our client traveled from Miami to Orlando carrying 2 kilograms of cocaine brought in from the Bahamas to sell to an FBI confidential informant at the Florida Mall. Our client was originally booked in on a $500,000 bond and a pre-trial detention hold. Once our client's family hired our firm, our attorney first began by filing a motion to reduce the bond amount and life the pre-trial detention hold. The Judge agreed with our motions and reduced the bond to $25,000 and lifted the hold. Next our attorneys began investigating the DEA's evidence including surveillance video, recorded phone calls, text messages, and confidential informant testimony. Over 15 depositions were conducted in this case leading to evidence that our client's co-defendant and another man were the actual targets of the initial investigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the charges against our client and argued that motion before the Judge a week prior to trial. Prior to the Judge issuing a ruling the State agreed to dismiss all felony charges against our client.
Our client was driving 80/40 mph and ran multiple flashing red lights. As the police officer pursed our client, the client lost control of his car, jumped the curb and blew out his tire. After being asked, the client admitted that he was "coming from a club". During our conversations with the police, we were able to get him to admit that there was very little traffic on the road, and that our client's driving did not effect other drivers. We argued to the State that they would not be able to prove a reckless driving charge at trial. They ultimately agreed, and dismissed the charge.
According to police, the Defendant and a female were parked in a vehicle. They were acting suspicious, so the officer made contact with the individuals. Upon making contact with the female, he saw in plain view a baggie containing pills. Upon further search of the car, more pills were found. The Defendant eventually admitted that some of the pills were his and that he was meeting someone in the parking lot to sell them to. He was arrested and charged with a second degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The attorney for the firm investigated the case and filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence that was obtained. On the day that the motion was set to be heard, the State agreed to reduce the charge to a 3rd degree felony and to allow the Defendant to enter into a program for first time offenders who have minor charges. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the prosecutor to drop the case completely.
