RECENT COURT VICTORIES

On April 22, 2025, our client was parked with her headlights on in the back parking lot of an adult entertainment industry 20 minutes after closing. That parking lot is only accessible by using a long narrow driveway; there is no other form of ingress or egress. The parking spots in that lot are lined with a parking curb at the front of the car. Beyond the curb is a moderately sized body of water, almost like a canal. The deputy thought it was "suspicious and unusual" that there was a car parked there after closing hours, so she went to investigate. Despite numerous open parking spots, the deputy decided to park in the middle of the driveway.  The deputy turned on  her spotlight then walked over to our client's car, shining her flashlight through the window. The first words out of the deputy's mouth when she reached our client's window were "turn off your car" followed shortly after by yelling "wake up!" Ticket Clinic took on the case and realized that there was no way for our client to terminate the encounter with the deputy because the driveway was blocked, there are no exits to the left or right of the parking lot, and the parking curbs combined with the body of water made it impossible to drive forward. We prepared a motion to suppress based on illegal seizure under the 4^th Amendment. The State refused to drop the charge and revoked the client's offer. The motion to suppress was argued on 5/20/26 - we were able to elicit testimony from the deputy and get her to admit on the stand that the way she parked her car, would make it very difficult for our client to exit without hitting the deputy's patrol car.  Judge reserved ruling. On 6/8/26, Judge issued an order GRANTING the motion to suppress. The State dropped the whole case before the end of the work day.

Our client was allegedly stopped at night with no headlights on for traveling 60 in a 35 mph speed zone and changing lanes improperly. Officers noted they immediately smelled an odor of alcohol and noticed signs of impairment. Officers further noted bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Officers report that our client admitted to having "too many" drinks and feeling "drunk" when asked. Our client was cooperative and agreed to do Field Sobriety Exercises. She was later arrested and subsequently was asked to submit to a breath test, which she refused. Despite these allegations, and despite having been charged with DUI and an additional criminal charge for refusal to submit to a breath test, we were successful in getting the DUI charge dismissed.

The Client was stopped after taking a turn too fast and striking the curb.  Once stopped law enforcement felt the Client was impaired based upon the driving pattern and the Client's lack of explanation for his driving pattern.  The Client was detained for DUI exercises and once outside the vehicle it was only then that the officer noticed the smell of alcohol.  Law enforcement then had the Client perform field sobriety exercises, which the Client performed poorly.  Lastly the Client was arrested for DUI and taken to the breath alcohol testing facility, where he gave a breath sample that was almost twice the legal limit.  The Firm was retained and spoke with the State Attorney's office regarding both the lack of initial probable cause for the detention and the fact that the Client had no prior criminal history.  The State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.

The Client was stopped because he ran a red light.  Once stopped the officer noticed that the Client's speech seemed uncoordinated and smelled of alcohol.  Law enforcement requested the Client perform field sobriety exercises and the Client refused to comply.  The Client was then arrested for DUI and transported to the jail where he provided a breath sample that was twice the legal limit.  The Firm was retained and argued to the State that the Client's primary language was Spanish and that was why he seemed uncoordinated in this speech pattern.  In addition, the smell of alcohol is not an indicator of impairment, only consumption.  As a result, the Firm argued that there may be a motion to suppress the detention and subsequent arrest of the Client in this case.  In addition, the Client had no prior DUI history, was not combative and largely complied with the requests of law enforcement.  The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge.

The Client was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane.  Once stopped the officer noticed signs of impairment by alcohol and had the Client submit to field sobriety exercises.  The Client performed poorly on the exercises.  Once arrested for DUI, and after being transported to the jail, the Client failed to provide a breath sample.  The Firm was retained and argued to the State that there may be a possible motion to suppress the stop of the Client's vehicle.  The motion would have been based upon the case law showing that other traffic needs to be affected in a failure to maintain lane infraction stop.  In addition, the Client had no prior DUI history.  The State agreed and dismissed the DUI charge.