Our client was arrested and charged with domestic Battery.  The victim alleged that his brother slammed him to the ground during a verbal altercation in their mother’s living room. Law enforcement failed to interview two eyewitnesses. Our attorney gathered sworn statements from those witnesses and pictures of our client’s injuries. The evidence and statements were consistent with our client’s statement that the victim was the primary aggressor. He provided this information to the prosecutor, but the State initially refused to dismiss the case. Totally confident in his legal representation, the client rejected the State’s offer for a diversion program.  The attorney set the case for Trial and prepared pretrial motions.  Faced with the facts, the State dismissed the case before the stand your ground hearing.

On 6/20/2025, the defendant was traveling northbound on N. Dale Mabry Hwy in his black Chevrolet pickup. The defendant failed to stop his vehicle and the his Chevrolet struck a Toyota in front of him. The victim and the defendant had a brief interaction outside their vehicles, then the defendant got into his vehicle without exchanging any information and left the scene of the crash. The defendant was described as white male adult about 40 to 45 years old slightly heavy set built andclosely cropped hair wearing  black shorts and a black jacket. Medical records were obtained, and a medical doctor diagnosed the victim with a cervical sprain and a concussion without loss of consciousness directly attributed to this crash. The Toyota was totaled due to the traffic crash. Video surveillance was obtained  which captured the traffic crash by Hillsborough County Sheriff Deputy, who observed a dark colored pickup truck with a distinguishing white or chrome piece going along the front passenger side door to the rear passenger door. The Deputy then obtained video surveillance from Pete’s Place, just south of the traffic accident, and observed the victim leaving the parking lot in his Toyota. The Deputy also observed a dark colored Chevrolet pickup truck with the same distinguishing white or chrome piece going along the front passenger side door to the rear passenger door leave behind the victim shortly afterwards. Further reviewing video surveillance from Pete’s Place, the Deputy observed the Chevrolet pickup truck backing into a parking spot, registered to the defendant, at 1037 hours. A white male wearing a green shirt is seen driving the vehicle. Shortly thereafter the defendant is seen walking from behind the vehicle wearing a green shirt, black shorts, and black and blue sandals. The Chevrolet is seen on video surveillance in the same spot from 1037 hours until approximately 1758 hours. The defendant is then seen leaving the bar entry wearing a black jacket, green shirt, black shorts, and black sandals at 1757 hours. On 6/25/2025, the Deputy spoke with the defendant who invoked his Miranda rights.  The Defendant was charged with Leaving the scene of an accident. Result: the firm set the case for trial. Before the trial date, the State dismissed the charges against the defendant.

On August 17, 2025, at approximately 6:40 PM, FHP Trooper  was northbound on Interstate 75 approaching mile marker 238 when he was dispatched to a BOLO (Be on the lookout), in Hillsborough County. The Trooper then observed a brown pickup, in the outside lane traveling from lane to lane at a very slow speed. He paced the vehicle and got a reading of 50 miles per hour in a posted 70 and the vehicle was traveling into the center travel lane and onto the shoulder. Due to the violation, the Trooper immediately activated emergency lights and conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle. The vehicle immediately traveled onto the east shoulder of I-75. The Trooper noticed the driver had bloodshot and glassy eyes. The driver stated that he was headed home from the day at the beach. When he was speaking, he was slurring some of his words and speaking with a thick tongue. The Trooper also began to smell the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the driver’s mouth as he spoke. The Trooper asked the driver if he could step out of the vehicle and speak. When he stepped out, he was unsteady on his feet and swayed. Driver continued to slur his words and spoke with a thick tongue. The Trooper asked him again how much he had to drink, and he said he had two drinks at the beach. Due to all the indicators of impairment that observed, the Trooper asked the driver if he would be willing to perform standardized field sobriety exercises to make sure he was okay to drive. He refused them.  The Driver was then placed under arrest for driving under the Influence. He was then asked if he would provide a breath sample, but he refused to do so. The trooper then read  Implied Consent. Driver then refused again. Result: The firm set the case for trial. Prior to the trial date, the State dropped the DUI charge.

Our Client was charged under Florida’s super speeder law with the crime of driving at 113 MPH. The case was set for trial, but on the day of trial, the State amended the case to a simple speeding ticket, dropping the criminal charge, because the officer would not respond to the State’s request to provide Discovery as required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Our Client was charged under Florida’s super speeder law with the crime of driving at 50 MPH over the speed limit. In reviewing the Officer’s probable cause affidavit, our attorney recognized that the Officer was using radar terminology in a lidar (laser) case.  Upon pointing this out to the State, the State amended the case to a simple speeding ticket, dropping the criminal charge.

Our client was charged with Resisting With Violence and DUI.  This incident arose from the client getting stopped for speeding.  The officer stated that she traveled a long distance before stopping.  Upon contact the officer said that the client was in his personal space and pushed her having the first physical contact.  He was going to let her leave the car at the gas station and allow her to get it registered.  After pushing her he went to open the car door as she was closing it.  At that time, he forcefully took her to the ground in the parking lot.  As he was putting her in the car he stated she was drunk but never offered FSEs nor read implied consent or allowed her a chance to blow into the Intoxilyzer.  Multiple times after being told she was being arrested for Resisting with Violence and DUI, she asked for a breath test.  After watching the video and speaking with the prosecutor the state offered to let her plea to Resisting without Violence, receiving a Withhold of Adjudication, court costs and cost of prosecution.  The DUI was Nolle Prosequi’d.

Our Client was charged under the new super speeder law with driving “at 100 mph or more in a manner that threatens the safety of other persons or property or interferes with the operation of any vehicle.”  However, the officer wrote on the ticket that our Client was the lead vehicle.  As such, there was no way our client was driving “in a manner that threatens the safety of other persons or property or interferes with the operation of any vehicle.”  Thus, we set the case for trial.  However, the working day before trial, the State dropped the case outright.  Had our Client been convicted of the charge, it would have been devastating to our Client’s CDL.

Our client was involved in a minor accident on a one way street. After clearing the crash investigation, Orlando Police Department Officers allowed our client to leave the scene. However, our client forgot to take photos for the insurance claim, so he attempted to get the Officers’ attention by putting on his hazard lights and slowly going the wrong way down the one-way road towards the Officers. The Officers did not like this, nor did they accept our client’s explanation of why he was doing this, so they conducted a traffic stop by ordering our client out of the vehicle. From there, Officers proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation, including Field Sobriety Exercises, which our client completed extraordinarily well, yet he was still arrested. Our client agreed to provide a breath sample, which came back below the legal limit, as well as to provide a urine sample. Upon receiving the case, our attorneys immediately got to work. Based on our client’s performance on the Field Sobriety Exercises, our attorney filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence the State would be allowed to use against our client at trial. The day of the hearing on our Motion, the State dismissed the charges against our client.

The Client was charged with DUI after the Police found him standing next to his vehicle after getting involved in an accident.  The Police then conducted a DUI investigation after observing signs of impairment by alcohol.  The Client was then arrested and asked for a breath sample but refused.  The Firm was retained and investigated the case.  It was argued to the State that it was unlikely that they could prove all the necessary elements of the DUI charge, mainly that the Client was driving.  The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge against the Client.

On January 28, 2026, Mr. Alford and his client elected to take his case to a jury trial. Mr. Wilson was charged with a serious 2nd DUI, Refusal, and Driving While License Suspended. Mr. Alford severed the charge of Refusal and proceeded to a trial. During the trial, the State presented a Deputy who never conducted a DUI investigation. The rookie deputy had an experienced DUI Deputy oversee the investigation. During cross, Mr. Alford got the Deputies to admit the investigation was not done to standards required by NHTSA. The supervising DUI Deputy did not cure or fix anything in the investigation. After Mr. Wilson was arrested, they attempted to read Implied Consent. During the reading, Mr. Wilson pleaded the 5th and asked for an attorney. At no time did he say he refused. The Deputies took that as a refusal without curing his issues of the request.  They further failed to give him that opportunity at the jail with the intoxilyzer. At closing, Mr. Alford argued there was no probable cause for the arrest itself, and if there was probable cause, Mr. Wilson did not refuse. The jury came back with a Not Guilty Verdict after 1 hour of deliberations.

The Defendant was charged with DUI after being stopped for swerving and having a hard time maintaining his lane.  Once stopped the Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana.  He did the field sobriety exercises and performed poorly.  The Defendant was arrested and gave a breath sample under the legal limit but did provide a urine sample which was positive for marijuana.  The State offered to break the charges down to a reckless driving with probation and several additional requirements.  The Defendant and the Firm rejected that offer and set the case for a trial and a hearing on a motion to suppress the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle and any evidence after said stop.  The Firm conducted a hearing on the motion to suppress and convinced the Judge that the officer was being dishonest with regard to whether the Defendant was actually swerving or committing any traffic infraction.  The Firm accomplished this by cross-examining the officer using the dash cam video.  Once the Court granted the motion to suppress the State had to dismiss the entire case.

Client was charged with DUI 2nd Offense with minors in the vehicle and Refusal to Submit.  Trooper stopped client for speeding 77/55 and weaving into the other lane of traffic.  Client stopped in the middle of one of the two lanes of traffic next to a business.  Officer came in contact with client and asked him to exit vehicle and immediately started to instruct him in FSEs.  Client refused FSEs and officer arrested client for DUI stating as a DRE he recognized signs of impairment.  Client refused to give a breath sample or urine.  State agreed to a Reckless with alcohol and the client decided to accept it based on the Officer being a DRE, his refusal to submit and personal issues he had going on at this time