On December 27, 2018, Hillsborough County Deputy observed a Tahoe parked in front of a closed business. The Deputy parked his vehicle behind the Tahoe with no emergency equipment activated. As the Deputy pulled in behind the vehicle, he observed the brake lights illuminate and reverse lights turn on. The vehicle began to move backwards until the Deputy blew his horn to alert the driver of his presence. The Deputy then approached the driver of the vehicle and immediately observed the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the Defendant's breath. There were opened beer containers in the back of the vehicle. The Driver submitted to field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI after exhibiting multiple clues of impairment. The Defendant then provided a breath test with a breath alcohol level of .23/.25.
Result: The firm challenged the administrative suspension for unlawful breath alcohol level with the DHSMV. After hearing on the evidence, the DHSMV hearing officer invalidated the suspension based on an illegal detention. Client was instantly eligible to get his driver's license back without any restrictions.
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 Client was stopped because he was driving southbound in the northbound lanes on Interstate 95. Once stopped law enforcement observed evidence, such as the odor of alcohol and slurred speech, that indicated impairment. A DUI investigation was conducted and the Client was then arrested. Once at the jail the Client refused a breath sample. The Firm, once retained, discovered that the Client had no prior criminal history, there was no breath sample, and the Client's inability to speak English could easily explain not only his driving pattern, but also his poor performance on the sobriety exercises. The State then agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Law enforcement noticed a vehicle blocking a turn lane with its door open. Upon closer inspection the Officer noticed that there was a man dancing next to the vehicle. The Officer turned on his rear facing lights to alert traffic behind him. At this point the man got back into his vehicle and rolled down the window. The Officer made contact with the man and noticed that he appeared impaired by alcohol. The man refused sobriety exercises and was subsequently arrested for DUI. He also refused to do a breath test. The Firm was hired and began an investigation of the Client's case. It was discovered that there was no video of any of this incident. In addition, the Firm filed a motion to suppress the stop of the Client as the Client was detained without probable cause. The Firm argued that because the Officer turned on his lights, even though they were rear facing, the Client submitted to his show of authority by getting back into his car and shutting the door and rolling down the window. This factual pattern demonstrated that the Client was seized by law enforcement before the Officer had actual evidence of a person behind the wheel of a vehicle, one of the necessary elements for DUI. The State refused to dismiss the DUI case. The Firm argued that even if the State won the motion to suppress the evidence, there was still very little evidence in the case establishing impairment, not even a video was present in evidence. Finally, on the day of the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence in the case, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Defendant was clocked going 101 mph in a 70 mph zone. The Defendant stopped and fumbled for his wallet and handed the officer a rental agreement for the car instead of the license as requested. He was in a good mood and extremely friendly. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, glassy watery eyes, dry mouth and his speech was thick tongued. He was unsteady on his feet and swayed from side to side. He seemed to be rambling and asked to be let go and to be given a break. He was unable to stand heel to toe and lost his balance during the walk and turn. He could not keep his leg up for more than 7 seconds and used his arms to balance himself on the one leg stand. Additionally, he performed poorly on the finger to nose task. The Defendant was arrested and asked to submit to a sample of his breath at the jail. After multiple attempts, he would not properly blow into the breath machine and the officer declared his inability to give a sample a refusal. He admitted to drinking four beers during the evening when being questioned by the officer. The Firm pointed out numerous problem areas to the State Attorney’s Office including the fact that the video did not depict a person who was impaired in addition to the fact that the roadsides were not captured on video. On the day of trial, the State dismissed the charge for Driving Under the Influence.
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 police stopped the Defendant when they saw her rolling a marijuana cigarette in plain view of the officers. She admitted it was marijuana and that she was going to smoke with a friend of hers. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a drug treatment program. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the State to drop the case completely.
