RECENT COURT VICTORIES

The Results

The Results

On 03/18/21, at 0416 hours, Hillsborough County Deputy responded near the intersection of Dale Mabry Hw / County Line Rd Lutz, FL 33538. Upon arrival, he observed the driver (sole occupant), leaned against the trunk of his gray Honda sedan. The Deputy met with another Deputy and learned he made contact with the Driver on a traffic stop in reference to a reckless driver call for service and observed indicators of impairment. Upon making contact with the Driver, the Deputy introduced himself. While speaking with the Driver, he immediately advised he was not driving and should not be under investigation for DUI. The Deputy observed signs of impairment to include bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech, unstable balance, and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. The Deputy requested the Driver perform Standardized Field Sobriety Exercises and he refused. The Deputy advised the Driver that Standardized Field Sobriety Exercises are voluntary, and that the exercises confirm or dispel any suspicion of impairment. However, if he refused to perform the exercises, the Deputy would have to conclude the investigation and base his decision on the totality of the circumstances. The Deputy also advised Driver that refusal to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Exercises is admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding. The Driver again refused to participate in Standardized Field Sobriety Exercises. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Deputy determined the Driver was impaired to the extent his normal faculties were impaired. He placed the Driver under arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). A query of the Driver in the Driver and Vehicle Information Database showed he had a prior conviction for DUI with a disposition date of 03/10/10. The Driver’s license was suspended for 12 months for refusal to submit to a breath test.
Results: The firm filed a request with the DHSMV for a formal review hearing to contest the 12 month administrative suspension. After the hearing, the suspension was invalidated.

The Results

Police officers observed our client allegedly failing to maintain his lane of travel while operating his car and almost struck another car. Due to safety concerns a traffic stop was initiated. After the stop, signs of impairment were noticed including the odor of an alcoholic beverage and bloodshot/glassy eyes. Upon exiting the car, the driver swayed as he stood in front of the police officer. Roadside exercises were requested and our client agreed to perform. After the roadsides were complete, he was arrested for DUI.  A breath test was requested and agreed to. The results were .203 and .194. Ticket Clinic lawyers were retained to prepare a defense. Our lawyers tirelessly prepped this case and continued thorough negotiations with the prosecutor. After close to 1.5 years, the State agreed to drop the DUI.

The Results

Client was involved in a single vehicle incident and transported to the hospital. While at the hospital, he was read "Implied Consent" by law enforcement, informing him that if he did not submit to a blood test, his driver's license would be suspended. Based on that information, client agreed to provide a blood sample. Months later, after the blood results were received by law enforcement, our client was officially charged with a DUI.

Upon review of the case, our attorneys filed a Motion to Suppress the blood request and results based on Florida's Implied Consent Law. The Implied Consent Law only requires a breath sample or urine sample be provided, except when certain criteria are met. In our client's case, those criteria were not met, so asking for a blood sample was improper by law enforcement. Based on the case law provided by our attorney, and the testimony at the hearing, the Judge ruled that the blood request, and results would not be admissible in any trial against our client. Without any evidence to prove that our client was impaired, the State dismissed the case.

The Results

Our client, an older gentleman was involved in a traffic crash (not his fault). After arriving on scene, police officers made contact with our client and noticed signs of impairment.  A DUI investigation was initiated, and the officers decided to arrest our client for DUI upon the completion of their investigation.  A breath test was requested, which was agreed to.  The breath test results were .09, above the legal limit in Florida, but not by much. Ticket Clinic lawyers were hired, and we began preparing our defense. Discovery was demanded and all evidence was reviewed and scrutinized.  After the review, Ticket Clinic lawyers began negotiations with the State Attorney's office.  The case was resolved and the State agreed to drop the DUI charge and enter no driver license suspension.

The Results

The Client was arrested on a warrant in 2020 for allegations of a hit and run accident involving a child in the street from 1997.  The Client was unaware what the warrant was referring to and was shocked to find out there was a warrant out for his arrest.  The Firm was retained to handle the matter and immediately investigated why the Client had a warrant out for his arrest.  The Firm discovered that the Client was wanted in reference to a hit and run investigation from 1997 involving a child in the street on his bicycle.  However, the evidence in the file indicated no one actually witnessed the Defendant in any way in reference to the accident, and the State never tried to even find the Client to serve the warrant upon him.  The Firm researched the relevant case law and decided to file a motion to dismiss the case based upon the Statute of Limitations, which had expired.  The Firm filed the motion and after reviewing the matter the State agreed and dismissed the case entirely.

The Results

Our client was stopped for green neon lighting under his wheel wells and green neon tail-whip antennas.  He was charged with unsafe equipment and had an suspended license.  A motion to suppress for an invalid traffic stop was drafted.  The argument presented was that only blue and red colored neon was unsafe.  All other colors of neon are legal.  The ASA dismissed the case.

The Results

Our client was clocked at 105 mph on the Florida Turnpike. After stopping the vehicle, the Trooper noticed the odor of alcohol coming from with the vehicle and saw 3 empty beer cans in the car, and 4 that were unopened. Other physical signs of impairment were also observed according to the Trooper. After completed roadside exercises, our client was arrested. At the police station, our client fell asleep. The Trooper asked our client for a breath test, and he refused. Ticket Clinic lawyers set the case for a jury trial.  After deliberations, the jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, and a mistrial was declared.  Ticket Clinic lawyers took the case to trial a 2nd time, this time obtaining the desired verdict, NOT GUILTY just after 8 PM!

The Results

The Results

The client was accused of trying to kill his wife by smashing a barbell into her head and trying to stab her with a knife.  Police arrested him after he tried to flee by jumping into a canal.  Counsel for the firm was able to reunite the client with his wife during preliminary matters.  The guidelines called for many years in prison based on the law.  Counsel convinced the judge to downward depart and give the client only probation.  No incarceration.

The Results

The Client was stopped for running a red light and almost colliding with law enforcement.  Once the Officer made contact with the Client, he observed signs of impairment by alcohol and marijuana.  A DUI investigation was then conducted where the Officer alleged the Client performed poorly on the roadside sobriety exercises.  The Client was subsequently arrested for DUI.  Upon searching the vehicle incident to arrest, a half full bottle of Vodka and several bottles of prescription marijuana were located.  The Client admitted to consuming both.  After the arrest the Officer requested the Client submit to breath test.  The Client refused to give a breath sample.  However, within 15 seconds the Client changed his mind and requested the breath sample.  The Officer told the Client that he was sorry but there was nothing that he could do for him at this point.  The Client was not allowed to give a breath sample.  The Firm was hired to help the Client and immediately contacted the State Attorney assigned to the case.  The Firm explained that the video did not match the description given by the Officer and that the Client was improperly denied the right to give a breath sample.  The State refused to drop the DUI charge.  As a result the case was set for a jury trial.  Because of the pandemic the case took over a year to get to a jury trial, but only 15 minutes for the jury to render a verdict of not guilty!!

The Results

At 2am, our client drove to a vacant parking lot and decided to have some fun with his rental car, showing off to his friend.  It did not end well, our client lost control of his rental car and launched it over a curb and drove it into a retention pond.  Police arrived to see a submerged car and two wet people standing next to the vehicle.  Officers interviewed our client and his friend.  Our client was charged with Reckless driving.  Our attorney filed motions to suppress the statements of the driver based upon the accident report privilege.  He also argued that no one could place our client behind the wheel of the car.  The case was set for trial.  However the prosecutor was convinced by the arguments of our attorney and dismissed the charges.

The Results

The client was pulled over allegedly for speeding.  The officer reported the client had an odor of alcoholic beverage from his breath, had bloodshot eyes and admitted to drinking 3 alcoholic beverages.  The client stated he was coming from a wedding reception and had an open container in the car.  The officer reported the client performed poorly on the roadside tasks.  The client was arrested and later refused the breath test.  After preparing the case, counsel set the case for trial.  On the eve of trial the prosecutor proposed a settlement offer of to a lessor of Reckless Driving which the client accepted.

The Results

Our client was arrested for DUI after being involved in a single car crash with a light pole. When police arrived, our client was in the back seat of the car, but another person on scene identified her as the driver of the car. While dazed, our client admitted to being the driver of the car. Ticket Clinic lawyers reviewed the evidence , using GPS tracking and blood splatter evidence from the steering wheel , convinced the State Attorney's Office, that the "witness" at the scene of the crash was the actual driver of the car and that he had lied to save himself. As a result of this work by Ticket Clinic lawyers, the State dropped all charges against our client.

The Results

The client was pulled over after revving his engine, spinning his tires and drifting in an intersection.  The client admitted to the officer he was showing off for a girl in a passing vehicle.  He also admitted to just coming from a local bar where he consumed 2 drinks. The officer reported the client performed poorly on the roadside tests.  The client was arrested and later refused the breath test.  After preparing the case, counsel set the case for trial.  On the day of trial the prosecutor proposed a settlement offer of to a lessor of Reckless Driving which the client accepted.

The Results

The Results

Our client was charged with Possession of Cocaine, which stemmed from a traffic stop. After being retained, Ticket Clinic lawyers began investigating the case and began negotiations with the prosecuting attorney.  Ultimately, our client was required to complete a 4 hour drug awareness course, but the State agreed to dismiss the criminal charge, keeping this charge off of our client's record and preventing any mandatory driver license suspension.

The Results

Our client, who was 19 years old, was charged criminally with Reckless Driving. Ticket Clinic attorneys researched the case thoroughly, and presented compelling case law to the prosecutor.  We proved that the state would be unable to establish the criminal charge in court based on the facts of the case. The state agreed and dropped the criminal charge.