DUI Case Results

Charges: Driving Under the Influence

Case Number: 2015CT003828AXX

Facts: Our client was stopped for swerving and was observed as having glassy bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol on his person. Since our client was a local executive chef, the odor of alcohol could have easily been explained because our client cooks with alcohol, and the bloodshot eyes could be a result of heat from the kitchen.

Results: We immediately ordered roadside videos to determine our client's demeanor on the side of the road. No such video existed. After we reviewed all the written allegations, we contacted the State Attorney's Office and informed them that we would be filing a Motion to Suppress based on an unlawful stop. With all of these factors combined, we were able to convince the State Attorney's Office to abandon all charges by entering a "No File" on the case.


Charges: Driving Under the Influence

Case Number: 14039332MU10A

Facts: Our client's vehicle hit the center wall on I-95 and then eventually came to rest on the right shoulder of the road. There, he was approached by law enforcement who conducted a DUI investigation. Our client refused a breath test of his blood alcohol level and the administrating trooper read him his implied consent warnings. Our client was arrested and then performed sobriety exercises at the station as requested.

Results: After ordering all videos and evidence we were able to determine that our client was not properly read his implied consent warnings. Immediately we filed a Motion to Take Depositions so that we could depose the arresting officer in order to lock her into testimony regarding implied consent, for purposes of impeachment at trial. After the deposition, we filed motions to suppress the breath test refusal. As a result, we negotiated for the State to offer our client a Reckless Driving with a Withhold of Adjudication and only six months of probation. The Withhold of Adjudication allows our client, to seal this case from his record in the future.


Charges: Driving Under the Influence

Case Number: 2013CT018087AXX

Facts: Our client was approached as he was allegedly urinating outside of his vehicle on the side of the highway. No one else was nearby. After the officer made some observations of impairment, our client was arrested for DUI.

Results: Our office reached out to the State to point out that the Misdemeanor Presence Rule prohibits an officer from arresting someone for DUI if they do not observe that individual in actual physical control of the vehicle. Since our client was outside of his vehicle, the officer had no evidence that our client was in actual physical control, regardless of his statements and behavior. Thus, in this case, we negotiated for the State to dismiss, or No File the charges as a direct result of our client's unlawful arrest.


Charges: Driving Under the Influence

Case Number: 2014CT018391AXX

Facts: Our client was stopped for not having her headlights on while driving in a private parking lot. Upon being stopped, officers allegedly noticed signs of impairment. After an investigation, our client was arrested and charged with DUI.

Results: Florida law prohibits individuals from driving on public roads without the use of their headlights. However, there is no law stopping someone from driving in a private parking lot without their headlights activated. Thus, we immediately contacted the State and expressed our concerns that the stop was illegal; The Officers did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain our client. As a result, we negotiated with the State to "No File," or dismiss, the charges against our client.


Charges: Driving Under the Influence

Case Number: 2015CT018679AXX

Facts: After being arrested for DUI, our client submitted to a sample of his breath, which yielded an alcohol content of .031. This number is well below the legal limit. Subsequently, officers asked him to submit to a urine test to test for other drugs, as his behavior was allegedly inconsistent with his breath test results. Our client declined.

Results: We immediately ordered videos of the officer's dash camera and from the breath testing facility. After thorough review, we were able to successfully argue to the State that there was no way the State could prove what substance, if any, our client was under the influence of that night. As a result, the State entered a "No File" as to the charge of DUI, abandoning prosecution.


Charges: Driving Under the Influence

Case Number: 2011CT021180AXX

Facts: Our client was coming home after a long day at work, stopped by a bar, and immediately after leaving was pulled over and arrested for DUI. This being his fourth DUI, we needed to take the case to trial. If he was convicted, he would have been required to do substantial jail time and permanently lose his driver's license.

Results: At jury trial, we successfully argued that our client only consumed drinks immediately before leaving the bar. Therefore, the alcohol had not yet been absorbed into his system thereby at the time of stop he could not have been illegally impaired. The jury found our client Not Guilty and our client avoided a permanent license revocation and any jail time.

Jury Verdict: Not Guilty.