The Defendant had a restricted drivers license as a result of a previous DUI conviction. Law enforcement observed the Defendant getting our of his car at a shopping plaza. After giving an unsatisfactory (to the officer) explanation of the reason he was driving, the Defendant was arrested for violation of a business purposes only license. The Attorney challenged the legal sufficiency of the charge causing the state to drop all criminal charges against the Defendant.
The police pulled the Defendant over for careless driving due to his erratic and high speed driving. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the officer noticed the odor of alcohol on his breath. They requested that he perform roadside exercises, to which he agreed. According to the officer, he performed poorly on all of them. He was arrested for DUI and provided a breath sample of .08. The attorney for the firm did a preliminary investigation of the case, and contacted the State Attorney’s office prior to the case being filed. He was able to convince them that they would not have a strong likelihood of conviction, and the State agreed not to file the DUI.
According to the police, they came into contact with the Defendant and smelled the odor of cannabis. They eventually arrested the Defendant for Possession of Cannabis and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. 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.
The police stopped a vehicle for excessive speed. Upon making contact with the driver and passenger, the officer requested permission to search the vehicle as well as their persons. Both subjects agreed. The Defendant who was the passenger in the car originally was arrested for possession of heroin and paraphernalia. The possession of heroin charge is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The lawyer investigated the case and got the heroin charge dropped. The case was then filed as a misdemeanor. The attorney for the firm was able to get the Defendant enrolled in 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.
Officers were dispatched to a single car crash. A bystander had called in a report that a car had crashed into a tree and then drove away. The witness gave a description of the car as well as a tag number. Officers in the area spotted a car matching the description and conducted a traffic stop. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The officer asked the Defendant to get out of his car to perform roadside exercises. The Defendant had trouble getting out of his car. He admitted to drinking earlier and also taking ambien, a prescription sleeping pill. The Defendant performed poorly on all of the roadside exercises. The Defendant agreed to give a breath and urine sample which was consistent with the Defendant’s admission that he consumed alcohol and took prescription sleeping pills. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and after communications with the State Attorney, all charges were dropped.
According to the police, a DUI taskforce officer witnessed the Defendant make a left turn down the wrong side of a divided road with a median. The officer stopped the Defendant. Upon making contact with her, the officer noticed the odor of alcohol on her breath. She had watery eyes and a flushed face. The officer asked her to perform roadside exercises and she agreed. She performed all 3 exercises poorly. The officer then spoke to the 2 passengers of the car who indicated that they had just met the Defendant an hour prior and got a ride from her. They indicated that her driving had scared them. The officer arrested the Defendant and requested that she submit to a breathalyzer. The Defendant refused. The attorney for the firm investigated the case and prepared for trial. On the day of trial, the State Attorney dropped the DUI charge.
The Defendant was solicited for services from an internet ad for escorts. The solicitation was part of a coordinated law enforcement prostitution sting. The Defendant met an undercover officer at hotel in Osceola County and was given $250.00 of investigative funds to perform unnamed "acts". After taking the money the Defendant began a strip tease/lap dance. Approximately forty seconds into her performance the "take down" team arrived and arrested the Defendant for Prostitution and Entering or Remaining in a Place for Prostitution. The attorney filed and argued a motion to dismiss alleging the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant. The judge granted the motion and all charges against the defendant were dismissed.
Client was seen by an officer stopped at a green light, with the car door open and vomiting into the street. The officer stopped the vehicle and had the client perform roadside exercises, which the client performed poorly. In addition, the client gave a breath sample over the legal limit. Based upon the firm's conversations with the State in this matter and the fact that the client's prior record was virtually non-existent, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI and the charge was dropped.
The Defendant crashed into the back of a vehicle, and then proceeded to drive his car into the front yard of a residence. According to the police, the Defendant appeared to be impaired. The officer noticed that the Defendant smelled like alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot and his face was flushed. The officer requested that the Defendant perform roadside exercises. According to the officer, the Defendant performed poorly on all 5 exercises. He was arrested for DUI and asked to submit to a test of his breath. The Defendant agreed, and one of the samples was a .086. The attorney for the firm prepared the case, and the State dismissed the DUI charge.
The defendant was charged for failing to use due care after he rear-ended another driver. Once the officers were on the scene, they noticed the defendant throw a bag of marijuana on the groung. The officers noticed signs of impairment and asked the defendant for permission to take his blood, which he agreed to. the blood results were .240, .243. DUI charge dropped.
The Defendant was pulled over for his tag light being out. When the officer approached, she noticed that the defendant's eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and his breath smelled of alcohol. He was asked to exit the vehicle and stumbled while stepping out. According to the report, he was unsteady on his feet. After performing field sobriety exercises poorly, he was arrested and provided a .230 breath sample. Our attorneys filed motions questioning the validity of the breath results and the State dropped the DUI.
The Defendant pulled into a gas station at approximately 25 mph and crashed into a legally parked vehicle. After stepping out of the car and going inside the gas station, the police were called. The officer noticed that the defendant had red, glossy, droopy eyes and was unsteady on her feet. She had an odor of alcohol coming from her breath and admitted to drinking 2 vodka tonics hours ago. Her speech was slow and slurred. During roadside tasks the defendant stepped off the line, missed heel to toe several times and stopped to steady her self. Additionally, during the one leg stand task, she used her arms to balance and her legs were trembling to try to keep her balance. She could not recite the alphabet correctly and had to pause 5 times during the task. The officer arrested the defendant and took her to the Palm Beach County Breath Alcohol Testing Facility. She was asked to submit to a breath sample and she refused. She admitted that she was out during the evening drinking vodka. During the discovery process, the Firm found out that there was a video of the accident through the gas station that was destroyed. Additionally, the Firm pointed out to the State Attorneys Office that the Police Department knew about the video but did nothing to try and preserve it. Furthermore, the firm pointed out that the roadside exercises, on their face, were actually performed pretty well and that the defendant did not seem impaired at the breath facility. On the day of trial, the State dismissed the charges for Driving Under the Influence Causing Damage to Person or Property.
