West Palm Beach DUI Law Office

Our Client was charged under the new super speeder law with driving at 101 MPH in a 70 MPH zone.  Upon examining the speed measurement documents, we observed that the laser log did not comply with the requirements of law.  Shortly after we filed a motion in limine to exclude the speed measurement, the State voluntarily dropped the charge against our Client.  The State recognized that our defense of our Client was correct.

Our client was charged with 2 counts of False Imprisonment, 6 counts of Domestic Battery, 2 counts of Domestic Battery by Strangulation, and 1 count of Tampering with a Witness. Our client faced a total of 31 years in Florida State Prison and had never been arrested before. Needless to say, the client was terrified – especially because he vehemently maintained his innocence throughout the process. Our lawyers attended court, took depositions, found inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s statements and testimony, and collected evidence all in an effort to get the client the best outcome possible. Finally, after about 2 years, the case began to come to a close. The matter was set for trial and we were ready to go. Ultimately, the State dismissed all felony charges against the client and he went home.

Our client came to us accused of Grand Theft over $100,000.00, a first degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 30 years in Florida State Prison. Our client was accused of stealing a high-end luxury car but he maintained that he purchased it lawfully. Over the course of over 2 years, we took depositions in the case, we exposed inconsistencies, missing evidence, and missing witnesses. The State nevertheless made a 4 year prison offer to our client to resolve the case. Our client refused to accept this and was warned of the consequences by the Judge – but our client had confidence in his case and in his lawyers. Ultimately, the case was set for trial multiple times. On the eve of the final trial call, the State dismissed all charges entirely.  After years of fighting, our client was elated to know that he no longer had this horrible accusation hanging over him.

Our Client was charged with driving an unsafe commercial motor vehicle causing the death of another.  If our Client had been convicted as charged, our Client would be out of work for 6 months due to the mandatory driver license revocation.  At trial, we convinced the Court that our Client did not cause the death of another.  As such, our Client was able to return to work, the Client’s commercial driver license completely valid.

The Client was stopped for running a red light, and once stopped law enforcement believed she was impaired by alcohol.  The Client was asked to participate in field sobriety exercises and was said to have subsequently performed poorly pursuant to the Officer’s report.  The Client’s father had seen the Firm’s lawyers in action as a juror in a trial earlier in the year and decided to advise the Client to hire the Firm.  Once retained, the Firm then investigated the case and found that the Client looked very sober and alert, according to the video evidence in the case.  The State was consulted on the case and eventually the DUI charges were dismissed.

The Client was alleged to have committed domestic battery on his girlfriend after arriving at her apartment and having an argument.  It was claimed by the Client  that he did not strike the girlfriend.  The Firm filed their Notice of Appearance on the case and the case was totally dismissed the next day.

Our client was accused of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, DUI, and Resisting an Officer Without Violence. When this client came to us, he explained what happened and we later received the videos in his case that confirmed his account. We discussed the case with the prosecutor who originally wanted the client to spend 60 days in jail. The prosecutor reasoned that the client was accused of kicking a police officer multiple times during the incident. We used the information supplied by the prosecutor to make legal and factual arguments as to why the case was not appropriate as charged and why the client acted in the manner he did. Not only was the felony charge dismissed, but the client served absolutely no additional jail time.

Our client was charged with Grand Theft.  The allegation was that while at an upscale Boca Raton restaurant, the Defendant stole a very expensive purse after another customer left the purse behind.  Video camera footage from the restaurant captured the event and the police began investigating and trying to make contact with the Defendant. The Defendant’s job was in jeopardy as a result of these charges.  Professional licenses could have been lost with a conviction. Ticket Clinic lawyers spoke with the investigating detectives in an attempt to avoid charges being filed.  Ticket Clinic lawyers returned the purse to the detective and no contents were missing.  However, the victim insisted on a prosecution.  After Ticket Clinic lawyers filed on the case and began a dialogue, the State agreed to drop all charges.  Ticket Clinic’s Expungement department is now working to expunge the file so that the Defendant’s record remains clean.

The Client was charged with DUI after being stopped by law enforcement for speeding.  The Defendant admitted to drinking beers and shots of alcohol.  After a DUI investigation where the Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises, the Defendant was arrested.  At the jail the Defendant gave a breath sample that was found to be just barely over the legal limit.  The Defense argued that the breath sample was very close to not being over the legal limit and that a jury could find that the Defendant was not DUI as a result.  In addition, the Firm argued there was the possibility that law enforcement was also outside their jurisdiction in the matter when they requested the breath sample.  The State agreed with the combined arguments by the firm and dismissed the DUI.

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.