The defendant was involved in a fender bender in a mall parking lot. According to the defendant the victim was intimidating her, and felt fear for her safety. She left the parking lot and called her boyfriend and father. The victim remained at the scene and called the police. When she got in touch with them they informed her she should not have left the scene and she should call the police immediately. Defendant called the police and informed them what happened and that she was now about 15 miles from the accident site. The police advised her to return to the scene, which she did. She met with the officer on scene and exchanged information, the officer gave the defendant a criminal citation for leaving the scene of an accident, and a civil infraction for careless driving. After extended negotiations with the prosecutor on the case, we eventually reached an agreement of dropping the criminal charge and a complete dismissal of the civil infraction.
The defendant was involved in a fender bender in a mall parking lot. According to the defendant the victim was intimidating her, and felt fear for her safety. She left the parking lot and called her boyfriend and father. The victim remained at the scene and called the police. When she got in touch with them they informed her she should not have left the scene and she should call the police immediately. Defendant called the police and informed them what happened and that she was now about 15 miles from the accident site. The police advised her to return to the scene, which she did. She met with the officer on scene and exchanged information, the officer gave the defendant a criminal citation for leaving the scene of an accident, and a civil infraction for careless driving. After extended negotiations with the prosecutor on the case, we eventually reached an agreement of dropping the criminal charge and a complete dismissal of the civil infraction.
On February 26, 2014 at approximately 2 am, a Pinellas County Deputy conducted a traffic stop due to several BOLOs of a vehicle harassing and yelling at pedestrians. After the stop, the Deputy noticed a passenger in the front seat and 3 children in the back seat. The three children were determined to be runaways. All three children were released to their legal guardians at the scene. The Driver was then placed under arrest and charged with three counts of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. During the course of the arrest, a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage was noticed on the breath of the driver of the vehicle. His eyes were also glassy. The driver agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. During those exercises, the driver exhibited clues of impairment. The driver admitted post-Miranda warnings that he had consumed one 12 ounce beer at around 11pm. The driver was taken into custody and also charged with DUI. The driver was transported to Central Breath Testing where he submitted to a breath test. The results of the tests were .058 and .065. The Defendant also submitted to a urine test based on his level of impairment and low breath test results. Results: All criminal charges were dropped by the State Attorney’s Office.
Defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer gave the defendant a criminal citation for attaching a tag not assigned to the vehicle. The defendant works for a car dealership, and was using his work vehicle. The tag on the car at the time was a dealer plate which was properly registered and valid. At day of trial we presented the registration paperwork to the Judge and successfully convinced the Judge to dismiss the case.
The defendant was pulled over for speeding. He was traveling 60/45. When stopped, the officer noticed that he smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant claimed that his medication causes his speech to sound slurred. The officer administered field sobriety exercises and claimed that the defendant did not do well on them. The defendant was arrested and gave a breath sample of .094 at the station. The state dropped the DUI after negotiations.
Defendant was charged with racing. The defendant was adamant that he was only speeding and the car next to him was also speeding. The defendant had his brother and mother in the car with him. The police report was very similar to the defendant’s story, he noticed two cars speeding next to each other very late at night, and decided to charge both with racing. With the facts of the case not appearing to be in doubt, we negotiated with the prosecutors to drop this charge from criminal racing which carries with it a mandatory minimum 500$ fine, and a 1 year driver’s license suspension.
On October 11, 2014, our client was pulled over for a routine traffic infraction. Upon arriving at the door, the officer noticed open alcoholic containers inside the vehicle and charged our client with Possession of Alcohol by a minor. Our firm was able to convince the Judge and the State Attorney not to proceed to trial but to allow our client into a program for first time offenders. After getting in to and completing the program successfully, the State dismissed the criminal charges against our client.
A Florida Highway Patrol Trooper pulled our client over for speeding 77/45. Upon making contact with our client, the trooper claimed our client was confused, had difficulty following simple instructions, slurred his speech, had red eyes and smelled strongly of alcohol. The client was reported to have done poorly on the field sobriety exercises and refused the breathalyzer. The Firm brought the case to trial and was able to obtain receipts from a restaurant offering evidence of non-consumption of alcohol. Additionally the firm argued bias on behalf of the troopers on scene after the Firm viewed a portion of the video where one particular trooper aggressively lectured the client about placing a “thin blue line” sticker, which symbolizes fallen police officers, on his tag. Lastly, the Firm argued the exercises were actually completed well despite the client’s poor shoes, intimidating atmosphere and confusing instructions by the trooper. The jury found the Firm’s client NOT GUILTY.
The Client had previously resolved his DUI case and was on probation. He subsequently tested positive for cocaine while on probation, which resulted in his probation being violated. The State's offer to resolve the violation was a jail offer, however the Firm was able to negotiate with the Court to place the Client back on probation without any jail sentence.
On April 20, 2014, a driver was stopped for running a red light. When the officer made contact with the driver, she noticed an odor of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. A DUI investigator was called to the scene to conduct field sobriety exercises. When the DUI investigator arrived, the driver was still seated in the driver seat of the vehicle. The driver stated she was coming from the Jimmy Buffett concert. The driver stated she had a couple beers prior to the concert but nothing since the show started. The driver consented to a field sobriety test. She completed the follow the pen, the walk and turn, the one leg stand and the finger to nose exercises. The driver exhibited multiple clues of impairment on each of the exercises. At the conclusion of the exercises, the driver was placed under arrest for DUI. The driver refused to submit to a breath test when they arrived at Central Breath Testing at the jail. Results: The firm set the case for trial, but before the trial date, the DUI charge was dropped.
Client was stopped for attempting to enter through an exit gate by security personnel. The Client was then asked to do field sobriety exercises once law enforcement arrived. The officers determined he was DUI and arrested him for DUI for the fourth time. Once at the station the Client refused to give a breath sample. The State's initial offer to the client was over half a year in jail. The Firm deposed some of the officers involved and determined that there was an improper arrest of the defendant because no one, other than the private security officers, could place the client behind the wheel. The firm filed a motion to suppress the arrest of the client. The Court agreed and granted the motion, which led to the State agreeing to dismiss all charges.
The defendant was charged with Possession of Marijuana. The defendant was attempting to gain his citizenship and this one charge was standing in his way. After the defendant was able to get his plea pulled, the State again proceeded to prosecute him for the possession charge. The firm filed a motion to suppress the consent to search the defendant’s vehicle in this case as there was a lack of evidence that a proper consent was obtained from the defendant. The State agreed and dismissed all charges.
