On March 11, at approximately 1:31am, a Tampa Police officer saw a white ford explorer traveling south on N. Florida Ave. The Ford’s right side tires were on the outer painted fog line. As the ford travelled, the tires continued to touch the right side fog line. The Ford then began to follow very closely behind a vehicle in front of it. The Ford then changed lanes several times and was paced traveling 62mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer activated his emergency equipment once the Ford’s right rear tire struck the curb. The driver was slow to respond and did not pull over until the emergency siren was used. Once the officer made contact with the driver, he noticed a distinct odor of alcohol on his breath. The driver also fumbled and dropped his documents while trying to hand them to the officer. The driver said he was coming from Channelside with his brother. The driver also had bloodshot eyes and his face was flushed. The driver’s speech was slurred and he admitted to about 3 beers. The driver agreed to perform field sobriety exercises, which indicated impairment. He was placed under arrest for DUI and refused to provide a breath sample. During inventory of the vehicle, an open vodka bottle and 2 empty red SOLO coups were found in the back floor board. Result: the case was set for trial but before the trial began, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation and charged with the criminal offense of driving with a suspended license with knowledge. The Defendant was a probation officer and would lose her job unless the criminal charge was dropped. The attorney aggressively challenged the legality of the traffic stop forcing the state to drop all criminal charges and the court the dismiss the traffic violation.
On July 7, 2014, at approximately 4:06 am, the Defendant was stopped for traveling 65mph in a 50mph zone. The Deputy upon making contact with the Defendant noticed him to have a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech and bloodshot, watery eyes. As the Defendant opened the glove box to retrieve his insurance and registration, 2 empty beer bottles fell out. A DUI investigator was called to the scene. The DUI investigator arrived at the scene and immediately could detect a distinct odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Defendant was also unsteady on his feet. The defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises on the flat, level portion of the roadway. During the exercises, several indicators of impairment were observed. The Defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to be interviewed. During the interview, the Defendant admitted to drinking 2 beers at Winghouse. The Defendant stated he did not feel impaired at all. The Defendant was arrested for DUI and refused to provide a breath sample. Result: Based on the firm’s negotiation with the State Attorney, the DUI charge was dropped.
Our client was pulled over for allegedly “swerving all over the roadway.” She admitted to drinking beers and allegedly performed poorly on her roadside exercises. The State alleged our client refused to comply with the breath test as she knew she was under the influence. After hiring The Ticket Clinic, the Firm’s attorney learned our client suffered a severe brain injury years past. The attorney convinced the State not to pursue charges of DUI or face a trial where the Firm would release competent evidence that officers used standardized exercises without any modification to test a partially paralyzed subject. The State agreed to drop the DUI and offered a Reckless Driving charge. This action saved the client’s driver’s license allowing her to continue to drive and work.
Defendant was stopped for failing to maintain his lane of travel. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside exercises and was arrested for DUI. Defendant took a breath test and the results were .203 and .213 both twice the legal limit. DUI charge was dropped.
The defendant was pulled over for speeding and driving without headlights. The defendant refused breath testing. Found not guilty by jury.
Defendant was stopped for going 10 miles over the speed limit (30 in a 40). After the traffic stop, the Defendant handed the officer an Illinois drivers license and upon questioning, stated he had lived in Florida for over a year. The Defendant was subsequently issued a speeding citation and charged with crime of Violation of Non-Resident DL Requirement. The attorney filed a motion to suppress the stop causing the prosecutor to drop all charges
Defendant was stopped while driving and given a criminal citation for having an expired driver’s license. We were able to convince the judge to extend the case allowing the defendant a sufficient amount of time to reinstate his driver’s license. Defendant was able to successfully reinstate his driver’s license, and the prosecutor dropped the case at that point.
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.
