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.
The alleged victim had entered into a financial agreement with the Defendant and believed that he was still owed a substantial amount of money. He filed a civil lawsuit against the Defendant. The Defendant runs an entertainment company, and promotes concerts at various venues throughout the world. The alleged victim found out that the Defendant was promoting an event at a local nightclub. The alleged victim purchased a ticket for himself and a friend, entered into the venue, and approached the Defendant while he was working in a DJ booth. According to the alleged victim, he asked the Defendant when he would pay the money he was owed. At that point, the Defendant punched the alleged victim 3 times in the face, causing some minor injuries. The Defendant was charged with Battery. The attorney for the firm prepared the case for trial. After a hotly contested trial, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Client was speeding on an on ramp. He straddled 2 lanes as he passed vehicles including a marked police vehicle. He then proceeded to cut the police officer off and was pulled over. The officer placed our client under arrest for reckless driving. On the day of trial, the State dropped the criminal case.
Client was involved in an accident. He lost control and hit a curb. When the officer arrived he noticed our client had bloodshot eyes, trouble with balance, flushed face, and an odor of alcohol. The officer requested that he perform field sobriety exercises. According to the officer, our client did not do well. He was arrested and provided a breath sample of .139. On the day of trial, the State dropped the case.
On 10/22/2014, at about 10: 49pm, a Tampa Police Officer was waiting to turn left on Kennedy Blvd. The officer then heard vehicles honking their horns on Westshore Blvd. The vehicles were honking and driving around a car that sat first in line at the green light. The Officer then turned and positioned himself behind the vehicle with his overhead lights activated. The Officer approached the driver and observed him to be sleeping at the wheel. After the Officer knocked repeatedly on the window, the driver woke up. The driver was very slow to respond to the Officer’s requests so a DUI unit was called to the scene. When the DUI investigator arrived at the scene he observed the Defendant seated in the driver’s seat. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The Defendant’s speech was severely slurred and had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage. The Defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises, but did very poorly. The Defendant exhibited a high level of impairment on the HGN, Walk and turn, One leg stand and Finger to Nose exercises. The Defendant was then placed under arrest for DUI. The Defendant was read his Miranda rights and agreed to answer questions. The Defendant claimed to not have been drinking that night, then refused to answer any further questions. The Defendant also refused to provide a breath sample. Result: The firm filed a motion to suppress and before the motion could be heard, the State dropped the DUI charge
