Client charged with grand theft. He was an employee at a rent a car business and was on video stealing items from car. He was facing citizenship issues if convicted of a felony. Was able to get him pre-trial diversion before official charges could be filed. Completed - charges dropped.
The Defendant was observed by loss prevention failing to scan several items in a self checkout area at Walmart. The state was in possession of video evidence allegedly showing the same. The attorney filed a motion to suppress and presented evidence showing that the Defendant was trying to process a gift card and seek assistance at the self checkout. After reviewing the motion the state dropped all criminal charges.
The Defendant was observed by loss prevention failing to scan several items in a self checkout area at Walmart. The state was in possession of video evidence allegedly showing the same. The attorney filed a motion to suppress and presented evidence showing that the Defendant was trying to process a gift card and seek assistance at the self checkout. After reviewing the motion the state dropped all criminal charges.
On December 16, 2014, an officer was traveling southbound on MacDill Ave from Swann Ave and observed traveling in the same direction a black Nissan 350z. The Nissan had made a left turn on to MacDill Ave and then drove down the middle of the two southbound lanes for approximately 2 blocks. A traffic stop was conducted. When the driver was asked why he was driving in 2 lanes, he stated that he was coming back from MacDill and was headed to his house on Dale Mabry. The Driver exhibited a strong odor of alcohol and admitted to having two glasses of wine. A DUI investigator was called to the scene. When the DUI investigator arrived, he noted a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on the driver’s breath. He also had glassy, bloodshot eyes and his speech was slurred. The driver stated he took a Xanax earlier in the afternoon. Field sobriety exercises were conducted and evidence of impairment was observed. The Driver was then arrested and agreed to provide a breath sample. The results were .103/.110. Results: The firm filed a motion to suppress and on the date of the motion, the DUI charge was dropped.
Clients was allegedly street racing with another vehicle. The firm reviewed his case and determined he was not street racing, but only driving faster than the speed limit. We convinced the prosecutor of this and the criminal charge was dropped.
Our client was involved in an accident with a City of Mount Dora vehicle. This vehicle had a recording device which captured the entire incident. Our client is 16 years old and was a young, inexperienced driver. She panicked and drove straight home to tell her parents. She was found in her home by the police and charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Our firm convinced the prosecutor to drop the criminal charge.
The client was charged with leaving the scene of a crash that he was responsible for causing. He was driving approximately 75 miles per hour and collied with a vehicle. The witnesses then said that the Client tried to drive on a broken rim for almost half a mile once the accident occurred. The Firm argued to the State that there was no real evidence that the Client had left the scene and the State’s entire case was circumstantial and offered no real proof of the charge. The State refused to drop the charge. The Firm took the case to a jury trial and the jury returned with a verdict of Not Guilty.
The client had his license suspended for driving a vehicle with a breath alcohol level over a .02 and being under the age of 21. The Firm attended the formal hearing for the Client and argued that the Officer involved in the case had not properly laid the foundation for the introduction of evidence in the case. The DMV agreed and the client’s license suspension was dismissed.
The defendant was stopped for traveling well below the speed limit and continuously weaving and drifting between lanes causing other traffic to take evasive action. The defendant also executed a u-turn almost striking the median. Upon making contact with the defendant, officers noticed him to have slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes, unsteadiness on his feet and had a constant sway. The defendant submitted to roadside sobriety exercises and performed poorly to the extent that the defendant could maintain his balance during simple instructions. The defendant admitted to taking two oxycodone pills prior to driving and had a bottle full of an alcoholic beverage in the cup holder of his vehicle. The defendant submitted to a breath test and blood test that were positive for oxycodone. All DUI charges were dismissed.
The client had his license suspended for refusing to take a breath test for his second DUI arrest. He was looking at a mandatory 18 month license suspension. The Firm attended a hearing to contest the validity of suspending the client’s license. At said hearing the Firm argued that the Officer in the case, who had been placed on administrative leave and was thus unserviceable, placed the client in an unfair position and thus the client’s license suspension should be dismissed. The DMV agreed and reinstated the client’s license.
Our client was involved in an altercation in a sports bar with an off-duty police officer after our client was speaking with a female patron. The off-duty police officer claimed the female patron was his girlfriend. A drink was spilled on our client during the altercation. Our client left the establishment and noticed the off-duty officer was following him into the parking lot while on his cell phone. After departing in his car, our client was pulled over by three police officers within a few blocks of the establishment. The investigating officer claimed our client was speeding and ran into the curb. Upon the officer’s contact with our client, the officer claimed our client had blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, had vomit on his arm and urinated his pants. The client was arrested after allegedly completing the road-side exercises poorly; however, no video existed of the tasks. At the jail, the investigating officer claimed our client was “sucking” instead of “blowing” into the breath machine. The officer considered it a “refusal.” Once our law firm was hired, counsel launched an investigation to prove our client’s innocence. First, counsel demanded a copy of the video from inside the jail. However, the records custodian for the police department claimed the video had been erased. The client filed an internal affairs complaint and was ultimately supplied with the video. Among other things, the video depicted our client walking in the jail without issue of balance. Counsel also determined the investigating officer failed to place the mouthpiece to the breath machine into evidence. Counsel obtained the booking photo of the client which depicted eyes that were not blood shot. Additionally, counsel obtained photos of the clients car depicting no damage to the wheels, contradicting the officer’s claims of running into a curb. During trial, counsel attempted to place the video brought forth into evidence. Despite the video being in police custody, the prosecutor stated he had no knowledge of its existence. The judge declared a mistrial. Counsel for the firm was able to successfully recuse the presiding judge on the notion that the mistrial and other rulings from the judge were biased against the client and counsel. The case was transferred to a new judge where counsel for the firm filed a Motion for Double Jeopardy. The new judge granted the motion and all charges were dismissed.
Our Client was charged with DUI after a FHP trooper responded to a crash that our client was involved in. The trooper stated that our client was "hysterical and unable to maintain her balance" and had a "strong odor of an unknown alcoholic substance". Our client agreed to participate in the field sobriety exercises administered by the trooper and was placed under arrest after the trooper said our client did not meet the required satisfactory levels in the exercises. Our client was offered the breath test and refused. After examining the case further, our lawyers were able to plan and execute a defense. Ultimately, after multiple negotiations with the state attorney's office, they agreed to drop the DUI charge.
