RECENT COURT VICTORIES
To protect our clients privacy, incomplete case numbers are provided.
The Facts
Date: 07/02/2019
Case #: CT-2019xxxxxxxxxx
Charge
Felony Drug PossessionThe Results
Deputies initiated a traffic stop on our client for allegedly failing to mover over on the highway. According to the deputies, our client consented to a search of his car. Deputies allegedly found numerous drugs in his car including MDMA and “dab oil” cannabis, charging our client with numerous felonies. The attorney for the Firm obtained discovery and took dispositions of the deputies. After detailed consultations with the client to obtain his perspective on the event and further analysis of the case, the Firm’s attorney filed a Motion to Suppress on numerous legal premises claiming the search of the client’s car was illegal. A day before the motion was to be heard in front of the judge, the prosecutor conceded to the our Motion to Suppress thereby dropping all charges.
The Facts
Date: 07/01/2019
Case #: 18ctxxxxxx
Charge
DUIThe Results
ON December 27, 2018, a County Sheriff Deputy observed a Chevy Tahoe parked in the parking lot of a closed business. The Deputy pulled in behind the vehicle without any lights or emergency equipment activated. The Deputy then saw the Tahoe’s brake lights come on and the vehicle began to roll back towards the patrol vehicle. The Deputy activated his air horn and the vehicle stopped. The Deputy then approached the Defendant who was in the driver seat of the Tahoe. The Defendant had slurred speech and blood shot watery eyes. A DUI investigator was called to the scene. The Defendant performed field sobriety exercises and was arrested after exhibiting clues of impairment. The Defendant provided a breath sample of .238 and .250.
Results: The firm filed a motion to suppress and prior to the motion being heard, the State dropped the DUI charge.
The Facts
Date: 06/28/2019
Case #: 2018CT##########
Charge
DUIThe Results
The Client was stopped as he left a bar and was swerving through a parking lot. Once stopped it was discovered that the Client seemed to be impaired and did not have a valid license. The Client was arrested for DUI after he did poorly on the DUI exercises and was then taken to jail where he gave a breath sample that was more than double the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the stop of the Client’s vehicle was questionable and that the Client had no prior criminal history. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI and the No Valid License charge.
The Facts
Date: 06/26/2019
Case #: 2019CT#######
Charge
DUIThe Results
The client stopped at the scene where his girlfriend was being pulled over and also receiving a DUI. Once he began conversing with the Officers, they believed the Client was impaired as well. A DUI investigation was conducted and the Client was then arrested for DUI. Once arrested the Client then refused to provide a breath sample. The Firm was hired to handle the case and began an investigation. The Firm discovered that the Client didn’t look that bad on the video and in addition he refused to give a breath sample. The Firm argued that the case wasn’t that strong and it looked like the cops were just harassing him for stopping to check on his girlfriend who was also getting a DUI. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge.
The Facts
Date: 06/21/2019
Case #: 2019CT******
Charge
DUIThe Results
Our client was stopped by the police for running a red light. The officer noticed our client to have a "thick tongue", slurred speech and was loud. His eyes appears to be red/glassy and he had difficulty exiting his car as he got caught in his seat belt. He admitted to drinking alcoholic beverages and agreed to perform roadside sobriety exercises. According to the police officer, the performance was poor. Ticket Clinic attorneys set the case for trial. On the eve of trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop the DUI charge.
The Facts
Date: 06/21/2019
Case #: 2019CT******
Charge
DUIThe Results
Our client was stopped by the police for running a red light. The officer noticed our client to have a "thick tongue", slurred speech and was loud. His eyes appears to be red/glassy and he had difficulty exiting his car as he got caught in his seat belt. He admitted to drinking alcoholic beverages and agreed to perform roadside sobriety exercises. According to the police officer, the performance was poor. Ticket Clinic attorneys set the case for trial. On the eve of trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop the DUI charge.
The Facts
Date: 06/21/2019
Case #: 2019-**-****
Charge
Leaving the Scene of an AccidentThe Results
Our client was driving his commercial motor vehicle, a semi truck pulling a trailer, when he collided with a car exiting a parking lot. Our client continued traveling on the roadway to make his first delivery. Within an hour, the client was stopped by a member of the Florida Highway Patrol and questioned about the accident. Our client denied knowledge of an accident. The Trooper observed damage consistent with the other driver's version of events. The Trooper cited our client with a 2nd degree misdemeanor criminal violation for leaving the scene of an accident without exchanging information and a moving violation for careless driving. A plea to this offense, regardless of conviction, would have led to the client's commercial license being suspended for a period of one year. Additionally, these two tickets carry a total of 10 points. After presenting mitigation to the State, including our client's driving record and valid insurance information, the State agreed to drop the criminal charge and the Judge dismissed the moving violation. Our client is no longer facing any sanctions to his commercial license or his job.
The Facts
Date: 06/20/2019
Case #: 2019CT***********
Charge
DUIThe Results
Law enforcement stopped the Client for driving on the wrong side of the roadway. The Officer believed the Client was impaired and conducted a DUI investigation. After the DUI investigation the Client was arrested for DUI and subsequently provided a breath sample that was more than twice the legal limit. The Firm discussed the case with the State and highlighted the fact that the Client had a clean prior record and was very cooperative with the Officer’s investigation and no accident or harm came from this case in any way. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI case.
The Facts
Date: 06/20/2019
Case #: 2019CT########
Charge
DUIThe Results
The Client was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The Officer believed the Client was impaired and had him submit to sobriety exercises. The Client stated he had only had one glass of wine. The Officer then arrested the Client for DUI and took him to jail where he refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case, and while it was shown that the stop of the Client was proper, there was not very much evidence to show impairment considering the Client refused to give a breath sample. In addition, there was a language barrier for the Client which could have further complicated matters, mistaking confusion for impairment. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
The Facts
Date: 06/12/2019
Case #: 208CT**********
Charge
DUIThe Results
The Client was discovered at the scene of a crash where he rear-ended another vehicle with his motorcycle. Law enforcement subsequently arrested the Client for DUI after he refused to perform sobriety exercises and then refused to give a breath sample. The Firm investigated the case and eventually found a video that law enforcement had failed to produce. The Firm discovered that this video showed law enforcement assuming the Client was impaired before they even observed him or spoke to him. In addition, the Client didn’t look impaired on the video and the biggest negative against the Client was the fact that he was in an accident in the rain. The Firm asked the State to dismiss the DUI charge and the State agreed.
The Facts
Date: 06/10/2019
Case #: 2018CT########
Charge
DUIThe Results
Law enforcement was called to the scene of what they believed to be a vehicle crash. Once on scene they discovered the Client sitting behind the wheel of a car that had severe tire damage. The Officers assumed the Client had hit the light pole in the parking lot where the vehicle was sitting, even thought the vehicle was not resting upon said pole. The Client was very impaired and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The Client then gave a breath sample that was more than double the legal limit once he arrived at the jail. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the facts of the case were not what they seemed. In fact, the Client had previously been involved in an accident that same day where law enforcement were called, investigated the crash and then let both the Client and the other driver leave with no ticket. This previous accident was only a couple hundred feet from where the officers later discovered the Client. The Firm deposed the Officer from the first crash, who stated that the Client’s vehicle had such bad tire damage that it was inoperable, and thus the Client could not later be guilty of a DUI. The State eventually agreed to this theory and dismissed the DUI.
The Facts
Date: 06/01/2019
Case #: 2017CT**********
Charge
DUIThe Results
The Client was involved in an accident where he was at fault for pulling out in front of another vehicle. Once law enforcement arrived on scene they believed that the Client was impaired and conducted a DUI investigation. During said investigation, the Client made some mistakes on the sobriety exercises and then admitted to drinking and smoking marijuana. The Client was arrested and then gave both a breath and a urine sample. The breath sample showed that the Client was slightly under the .08 limit, however the urine sample showed that the Client had marijuana in his system, which confirmed his previous admission. The Firm began work on the case and soon discovered that the mistakes the Client made on the sobriety exercises were the result of a rookie officer doing a DUI investigation for what had to be his first time ever. In addition, when the Officer asked for the Urine sample from the Client he stated that the purpose for said sample was to determine the Client’s alcohol level, which was incorrect and resulted in the Court suppressing said evidence when the Firm filed a motion to suppress. Lastly there was the issue of the Client’s admission to smoking marijuana, however the Firm used a motion in limine to exclude said statement because there was no other evidence that the Client was under the influence of a controlled substance, except his own statement. Once all the evidence was almost excluded the State then agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Facts
Date: 05/20/2019
Case #: 18-**********A
Charge
DUIThe Results
Our client was pulled over for driving 60 miles per hour in a 45 zone. He did not immediately stop for the officers and he drove for several minutes before stopping in front of his girlfriend's home. The officer began a DUI investigation but our client refused to do field sobriety exercises. The attorneys at the firm took the case to trial and secured a not guilty verdict for our client.
The Facts
Date: 05/14/2019
Case #: 1****7****10A
Charge
Solicitation of ProstitutionThe Results
Our client was accused of approaching an undercover cop and soliciting her to engage in a sexual act. The officers involved in a sting investigation attempted to coerce our client into agreeing to pay for prostitution but our client refused. Even though he refused, the undercover officer claimed that our client nodded his head in agreement and he was arrested by other officers. The lawyers at the firm prepared for trial and after a jury was selected all criminal charges were dismissed.
The Facts
Date: 05/09/2019
Case #: 2018CT######
Charge
DUIThe Results
The Client was stopped for having a flat front tire. The stopping officer noticed that she seemed impaired and requested a DUI Officer to investigate. It was also observed that the Client's 12 year old daughter was in the vehicle. The Client was removed from the vehicle, performed poorly on roadside exercises, and refused to provide a breath sample once arrested. In addition to a DUI, the Client was also charged with the Felony charge of Neglect with regard to her child. The Firm was hired and immediately began investigating the facts of the case, beginning with the video. The Firm also immediately informed the State Attorney's office that the felony charge was inappropriate, as there is an enhancement for the same factual situation found in the DUI statutes. The State agreed and dismissed the Felony charge but continued to prosecute the DUI charge. The Firm discovered in the videos for the case that all the officers involved did not smell alcohol, yet requested the Client submit to a breath sample to determine her alcohol levels. The Firm filed several motions to exclude evidence and/or dismiss the case. A hearing was held where all the officers came in and claimed they smelled alcohol in contradiction to the video in the case. Prior to the judge making a ruling on any motions, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Facts
Date: 05/08/2019
Case #: 2019CT00***3
Charge
Expired Driver's LicenseThe Results
The client was charged with driving on a drivers license that had been expired for over 6 months. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the State Attorney and all criminal charges against the client were dropped without the client ever having to come to court.
The Facts
Date: 05/08/2019
Case #: 2019CT00***8
Charge
Driving While License SuspendedThe Results
The client was arrested for driving on a suspended license. Even though the client had previously been convicted for the same thing, The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the State Attorney and all criminal charges against the client were dropped without the client ever having to come to court.
The Facts
Date: 05/08/2019
Case #: 2019CT00***1
Charge
Driving With an Invalid LicenseThe Results
The client was charged for the first time ever, when they were caught driving without a license. The Ticket Clinic Attorneys were able to negotiate with the State Attorney and all criminal charges against the client were dropped without the client ever having to come to court.