Defendant was stopped for failing to maintain lane of travel and almost striking the curb. Once stopped, the officers noticed signs of impairment. The defendant performed poorly on roadside exercises and was arrested. The defendant blew .157. D.U.I. charge was dropped.
The Defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer made contact with the defendant who noticed that the defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy and he smelled an odor of alcohol coming from him. The officer asked the defendant to perform roadsides exercises which he agreed to. The defendant had numerous clues of impairment on the walk and turn and put his foot down during the one leg stand while using his arms to balance himself. The defendant admitted to drinking 4 beers one hour before he drove his car. After arresting the Defendant, he gave two valid samples of his breath which yielded results of .067 and .068. A urine was not requested from the Defendant. The State of Florida originally filed the charges of Reckless Driving and offered the Defendant a conviction for the crime with numerous special conditions including DUI school, community service and fines and court costs over $500.00. The Defendant rejected the plea offer when the State of Florida then amended the charges to Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Result: After showing up at the final court date to announce ready for trial, the State of Florida dismissed all the criminal charges against the Defendant.
Defendant was stopped for turning left into oncoming traffic. The defendant performed roadside exercises, and was unable to properly count from 1-20. The defendant admitted to "having quite a bit to drink." The defendant's license was suspended 13 times. Aquitted by jury of DUI.
The Defendant was clocked traveling 45 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone with her brake light out. After making an abrupt turn into a gas station, she was stopped by the officer. The defendant smelled of a strong odor of alcohol and had glassy eyes. She said she was working until 11 p.m. and had a glass of wine at work. She then said she went to the Key-Lime House where she had 3 vodka and orange juice drinks. She pulled into the gas station to buy wine coolers to bring to her friends house. During the walk and turn, the defendant did not walk heel to toe at all. During the Finger To Nose exercise, she continually held her hand on her nose after being told numerous times to put it right back down to her side after each command. During the alphabet task, she skipped around and missed some letters. She was taken into custody and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. While at the Breath Alcohol Testing Facility, the Defendant told the officer that “she knew she should not be driving, but she had to pick up another friend at home who was more impaired. She was asked to submit to a breath test and continually asked the officer what she should do. She asked the officer what would happen if she blew over the legal limit versus if she refused the test. After the officer told her she had to make a decision, she finally refused. The Firm was able to get certain evidence excluded and convinced the Assistant State Attorney on the day of trial to dismiss the charge of Driving Under the Influence.
On 9/13/2014, at approximately 2:51am, a Hillsborough county Deputy responded to a traffic crash at Bridgeport Dr. Upon arriving, the Deputy observed a white Ford Expedition which appeared to be totaled after making front to rear collision with a gray Mitsubishi. The Mitsubishi had been parked on the street curb and not occupied at the time of the crash. The Deputy then made contact with a white male who was driving the Ford. The Defendant was seen exiting the driver’s side door of the Ford immediately after the accident. As the Deputy spoke to the Defendant, he observed watery eyes with constricted pupils. The Defendant also had slurred, slow or delayed speech. The Deputy then requested the Defendant to perform field sobriety exercises. The Defendant explained that he suffered from chronic lower back pain for which he took medication. The exercises were then performed on a safe, well lit, flat portion of the roadway. During the exercises, the Defendant showed several clues of impairment. The Deputy then read the Defendant his Miranda rights, which he waived. Post-Miranda, the Defendant admitted to driving the car involved in the accident and having taken his prescribed medication earlier in the day. The Defendant claimed to have not had any alcohol to drink. After the interview, the Defendant was arrested for DUI. At the jail, the Defendant was examined by a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) who determined the Defendant was most likely under the influence of oxycodone and xanex. The Defendant provided a breath sample of .000/.000 and was then requested to provide a urine sample. The Defendant complied and provided urine to determine if he was under the influence of a controlled substance. Results: The case was set for trial but before the trial date, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On September 5, 2014, a DUI investigator was called to the scene of a single vehicle crash. A motorcycle had been traveling westbound on Waters AVe at approximately 40 mph. The motorcycle driver stated an suv pulled out in front of him and he was forced to lay the bike down to avoid a collision. The crash investigator found no other vehicles at the scene. The driver of the motorcycle then changed his story to say it was a sedan that pulled out in front of him. The crash investigator could only find a single skid mark the size of the motorcycle tire. There were scrapes on the motorcycle and on the pavement consistent with an accident. There was no physical evidence or witnesses indicating any other vehicle was involved. When the DUI officer arrived he noted a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage and bloodshot, glassy eyes on the driver of the motorcycle. The Driver also displayed a noticeable sway while standing. The Driver allowed the DUI investigator to check his eyes for HGN, and the investigator noted all 6 possible clues of impairment were present. the investigator then requested the driver perform field sobriety exercises. The driver refused to submit to the exercises. The driver was read his miranda rights, which he waived. The driver then stated he takes an anti-depressant and had 1 beer earlier in the night. The driver also stated the combination could be messing him up. The DUI investigator again requested the driver to perform field sobriety exercises, which were again refused. The Driver was placed under arrest for DUI. The driver had a previous DUI conviction in 2011 and refused to provide a breath sample after being placed under arrest. Result: The case was set for trial, before trial the state dropped the DUI charge.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed that he had an odor of alcohol on his breath, his eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. She asked him to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety exercises. He did exit the vehicle, but refused to perform the exercises. Instead, he requested an opportunity to give a blood sample. The officer declined his request and arrested him. They asked him at that point to provide a breath sample. He refused that as well and again offered to give a blood sample. His request was denied again. On the day of trial, just before the jury was called, the state dropped the DUI.
According to the police, the Defendant approached a female detective posing as a prostitute and asked her how much it would cost to have sex with him. She agreed to have sex with him in exchange for $40. When he was arrested, the police discovered that he possessed a small amount of marijuana. The attorney for the firm investigated the case and was able to demonstrate to the State some key weaknesses in the officer’s testimony. All criminal charges were dismissed against the Defendant.
According to police, the Defendant entered into a store and stole some merchandise. He was observed by store security who stopped him as he tried to leave the store with the stolen merchandise. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a program for first time offenders. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the prosecutor to drop the case completely.
An officer from the Fort Lauderdale Police Department witnessed the defendant make a left turn at a steady red signal. The officer made contact with the defendant and noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage, glassy eyes and the defendant admitted that he consumed several beers. The DUI investigator arrived and noticed the same observations as the stopping officer. The defendant participated in roadside sobriety exercises and performed poorly. The defendant refused to the breath test. The Firm filed a Motion to Suppress the DUI charge based upon lack of probable cause to arrest. Prior to the motion being heard, the State dropped the DUI charges.
According to the police, they stopped the Defendant for having one headlight out while driving at night. When the made contact, the officer noticed the odor of alcohol, red bloodshot eyes, and the Defendant had slurred speech. The officer requested that the Defendant submit to roadside exercises and he refused. He was placed under arrest for DUI. The officer then asked the Defendant to provide a breath sample. The Defendant also refused to do this. The attorney for the firm prepared the case for trial. The State dropped the DUI case.
According to the police, the Defendant was driving at a high rate of speed in the turn lane, approaching them from behind. The Defendant never turned and the officer had to take evasive action to avoid a collision. The officer conducted a traffic stop and noticed signs of impairment. He asked the Defendant to perform roadside exercises and he did poorly on each. He was arrested, but refused to submit to a test of his breath. If he had been convicted of the DUI, it would have carried mandatory jail time because it was a second offense within 5 years. If he had been convicted of either the DUI or the DWLS, he would be declared a habitual traffic offender and lost his license for 5 years. The attorney prepared the case for trial. On the day of trial, both the DUI and the DWLS were dropped. The defendant is able to drive and was not required to serve any time in jail.
