Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
The defendant was stopped for having no visible taillights and swerving erratically. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and heavy tongued/slurred speech. He also fumbled with his wallet and stated he had consumed two beers. He then performed various roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .090 and .088 in the breath machine.
The defendant ran a stop sign causing him to crash his car into another vehicle and then into a tree. When the officer arrived, the defendant was moving the airbags out of the way and told the officer that he was "coming from the middle east." The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. While outside the car, he was stumbling around and almost fell over while walking. He refused to perform and field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. The defendant later refused a breath test.
The defendant had blood stains and also a cut on his elbow from the airbag. We pointed out to the State that the impairment observed could have been as easily from the severity of the crash and the airbags deploying versus alcohol. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash in which airbags deployed. When officers arrived, they found the defendant unconscious (sleeping) in the rear back seat of his vehicle. After several attempts to awaken him, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and he was very unsteady. Officers determined that he was the driver as he had seat belt markings from his left shoulder and there was blood on his hands consistent with the blood on the steering wheel. In addition, he had airbag burns on his arms and it was the front driver's side airbag that deployed. After he was confronted with this evidence, he admitted to having been the driver that rear ended the other car. He performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .148 and .141 in the breath machine.
After several conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant crashed his car into a concrete barrier. Upon arrival, officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and thick-tongued speech. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was stopped for driving erratically. She was swerving all over the road. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes and slurred speech. She then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test), the walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was subsequently arrested for DUI and later blew a .159 and .157 in the breath machine.
There were many conflicts between the video tape, the DRE report, and the police reports. After conversations with the State about the evidence, they Dismissed the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and drifting over the lanes of travel, driving on the lane itself, and also on fog line multiple times. The officer observed an odor of alcohol. He appeared jittery, had slow reflexes, and had slurred speech. He also had a sway to his stance and fumbled for his door latch. He refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused a breath test.
After negotiations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was found passed out in his car by police in a lane of travel. There was no odor of alcohol, but officers, upon awakening him, noticed slurred speech, he kept nodding off, and appeared disoriented. He had bloodshot eyes, was unsteady, and swayed while he stood. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the officers requested him to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly on the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises and was arrested for DUI. He later submitted to a DRE (drug recognition exam) and he also refused to provide a urine sample. Post arrest, drugs were found in the defendant's wallet. Those drugs tested positive for illegal controlled substances and he was also charged with two felony possession charges.
After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI, Dismissed one felony, and he received No Felony Conviction on the other felony.
The State dropped the DUI.
After conversations with the defendant regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The entire investigation was captured on body won camera. The officer wrote that they smelled alcohol inside the ambulance, yet on body worn camera (BWC), the officer can be heard coming out of the ambulance stating, "I cannot smell anything." No one even ever asked the defendant if he had drank that night. In addition, the defendant told them he had knee issues, hip issues, toe issues, and was just upside down in a rollover crash, yet the officers still had him stand on one leg and walk a line. Also, it was evident on tape that the officer conducting the roadside tests was brand new and being trained. Thus, this was a training exercise and the defendant was the guinea pig. After discussions with the State, they Dropped the DUI at trial call.
After conversations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He also had slow movements. The defendant performed roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. The defendant was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. The defendant had a CDL license at the time of arrest.
After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, he was nervous and shaking, had bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having drank vodka and smoked pot. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
After several conversations with the State about the evidence and the defendant, they Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for not wearing a seatbelt and accelerating and decelerating for no reason. The Officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he admitted to having consumed three beers. He was clumsy, unsteady, and fumbled with his documents. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .175 and .172 in the breath machine.
After negotiations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, they Dropped the DUI.
The firm provided documentation to the State that the breath machine in question was taken out of service shortly after the defendant was arrested. Thus, the reliability of the defendant's results and the machine itself were called into question. We also provided medical documentation that the defendant had received injuries from the airbags during the crash, yet the officer still had him try to stand on one leg and do a walk and turn. After conversations with the State, they Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash whereby he T-boned another car at an intersection. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He then performed various roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. There was no video. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .121 and .113 in the breath machine.
The defendant was found by the police passed out in the driver's seat of her car at an intersection. Officers banged on the door multiple time without success. After numerous attempts to awaken her, fire rescue had to break the window to gain entry. She was then taken out of the car while still passed out. EMS used Narcan, but still got no response. A relative arrived on scene who advised that he had received a call that she had been drinking at a friend's house. She was then taken to the hospital. The officer then went to the hospital and observed her mumbling and she could not keep her eyes open. Blood was then drawn. The State Attorney's Office proceeded to get the results to see if there was any alcohol and/or drugs in her system. The blood revealed a blood alcohol result of over 500 (the equivalent of a .50 breath alcohol level, over 6 times the legal limit).
The defendant was stopped by police as he was observed driving the wrong way on a one-way road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred/incoherent speech. He also swayed and appeared unsteady. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later blew a .180 and .175 in the breath machine.
An officer observed the defendant drive through a bar parking light at night with no lights on, he appeared to be struggling to stay wake, and he was bobbing his head with his eyes closed at times. The officer made contact with the defendant and observed an overwhelming odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and watery eyes. He was asked to step out of the car. When the defendant was questioning why he had to step out, he was physically extracted from the vehicle. The defendant was then taken to the ground and handcuffed. He later stated he had drank four beers. The defendant was arrested for DUI and resisting an officer without violence. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was stopped for driving at night with no lights and blocking a crosswalk at a red light. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, fumbling with her documents, slurred speech, and difficulty dividing her attention. She then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). She was arrested for DUI and later blew a .156 and .154 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and pulling into an intersection, backing up onto a crosswalk right next to a cop. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank one beer. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was involved in a crash. She tried to avoid an animal, struck a fence, and ended up in a cow pasture. No police came at that point, but the defendant was treated by EMS. She then left to go to the hospital. After the hospital, she and her family came back the crash site to get the car. A police officer was there inspecting the crash scene. He came into contact with her and asked her questions. The defendant admitted to being the driver at the time of the crash and that she had drank margaritas earlier before the crash. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. She then was asked to perform various field sobriety tests to which she complied. She was arrested for DUI over three and half hours after the crash. A little over five hours later after the crash, she blew a .065 and .068 in the breath machine. In his report, the officer tried to do a retrograde extrapolation placing the defendant's breath alcohol results at a .143 at the time of the crash.
The firm was able to provide evidence to the State that the defendant was not the at fault driver and that the other driver was as equally as culpable for the crash. In addition, the officer made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk in his reports which was not the case on the video tape.
The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was fumbling over his words. He also staggered as he exited the vehicle. He then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test) and the walk and turn. While being instructed on the one leg stand, the defendant began to express his displeasure with the tests and would not stop interrupting the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was stopped for driving recklessly around a parking lot. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his movements were slow/sluggish. He also had slurred speech and appeared unsteady. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .193 and .188 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road, driving below the speed limit, and driving westbound in the eastbound lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and thick tongued speech. Her eyes were glassy. She was also slow to respond, unsteady, and she exhibited mood swings. She performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI. She was also charged with Felony possession of cocaine.
The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle on the side of the road by a road ranger. The car had run out of gas. When police arrived, the defendant was standing outside of his car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and incoherent/mumbling speech. He swayed while standing, was slow to respond, and appeared confused. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Under Florida Statute 901.15, all element of a misdemeanor DUI must occur in the presence of the officer unless there is a crash (i.e., they must observe the defendant driving or in actual physical control) or the arrest is unlawful. Here, the defendant was outside the car when the officer arrived so we pointed out to the State that the arrest was unlawful and they agreed. Also, when a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. The State Dropped the defendant's Third DUI and received no probation.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and clumsy dexterity. She also had slurred speech, made repetitive statements, and had unsteady balance. She then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). She was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
The defense pointed out various medical issues that the defendant had which could have affected her performance on the field sobriety tests. After conversations with the State, they Dropped her Second DUI.
After conversations the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was charged with a third offense felony DUI. He was involved in a crash whereby he drove his vehicle into a tree. It is important to note that the defendant did not suffer any injuries. There were several witnesses to the crash. The defendant left the scene in a different car, but returned shortly thereafter. After the witnesses identified the defendant as the driver the officers began conducting a DUI investigation. The officers asked the defendant a series of questions relating to his health. He informed them that he was a diabetic. He did not, however, tell the officers that he was suffering from a high or low blood sugar level. In addition, he did not complain of any injuries. The officers conducted a series a field sobriety tests and subsequently arrested the defendant for DUI. After arrest he was asked to provide a breath test to which he agreed. Fire rescue informed the police that the defendant had to be medically cleared first before they can take him to jail. As a result, the officers requested a blood test claiming that because the defendant was going to the hospital for medical clearance it would be impractical to obtain a breath test. He subsequently agreed. His blood alcohol level was a .257 (over three times the legal limit).
After pointing out a lack of probable cause to arrest her based on the video tape evidence, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no penalties other than court costs.
Many written observations in the police reports were contradicted by the video. After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. It was later determined that she had an expired driver's license. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and she admitted to having one drink. She then performed the HGN (eyes test), walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and the estimation of 30 seconds. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
After speaking with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and speeding. Other cars were honking at him because of the driving pattern. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and he had lethargic movements. An open alcoholic container was found in the driver's cup holder. He then performed numerous roadside tasks such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Although the officer had an in-car camera, he never put the defendant in front of the camera so we can truly observe his demeanor and hear him speak. In addition, the officer took an audio recorded statement of the defendant, however, the police never turned it over to the State. Due to the above issues, the State Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received no conviction for the leaving the scene of the accident charge.
The defendant was stopped for having illegal dark tint. Once stopped, the officer observed slow speech, red/bloodshot eyes, and a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the car. He appeared drowsy and fatigued, swayed, and had eyelid tremors. According to the officer, the defendant tried to hide a marijuana blunt in a soda cup in his center console. Believing he was impaired by the marijuana, the defendant performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later submitted to a urine test which came back positive for marijuana from the lab. He was also charged with felony tampering with evidence for trying to hide/destroy/conceal the blunt.
Police were called to a gas station parking lot because the defendant was found passed out behind the wheel. Once they awoke the defendant, they smelled burnt marijuana emanating from the car, her eyes were watery/bloodshot, very slurred speech, a fixed gaze, and her pupils were dilated. She performed various non-physical roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, and the alphabet. She was then arrested for DUI and later provided a urine test which came back positive from the lab for marijuana and two other controlled substances. She also was also arrested for Felony possession of controlled substance for a pill found in the car to which she didn't have a prescription for.
The lab never turned the report over to the State. Thus, the State could not provide it to the defense. Due to the unknown whereabouts of the lab report the State Dismissed the DUI.
The officer who stopped the defendant did not smell any alcohol and did not observe any slurred speech. In fact, he told the DUI officer that he did not think the defendant was signal one (code for DUI). Yet, he was still being unlawfully detained for a DUI investigation. On tape, the defendant was not unsteady, never staggered, and didn't sway. Also, he also performed very well on the field sobriety tests on tape as compared to what was written. The DUI officer was making the defendant out to be a falling down drunk which was the complete opposite of the video tape. Now that the arresting officer's credibility was called into question, as the reports were totally contradicted by videotape, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having drank two beers. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test) and refused to perform any other tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
The defendant was stopped for weaving within her lane, straddling the lane markers, and swerving to avoid a collision with a wall. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was unsteady. The defendant also vomited in the back seat of the police car. The defendant performed very poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .112 and .113 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding, weaving, and almost rear-ending another car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and sluggish movements. She also admitted to having consumed 2 to 3 drinks. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, she was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Anonymous calls went out over police dispatch about a reckless driver and that the driver (i.e., the defendant) was hitting curbs. Officers located the car and went to check on the driver. The defendant was sitting in her car staring aimlessly at her cell phone which was dead and did not even see the officers approach. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred/fast speech. She had a flushed face, staggered while she walked, a blank/dazed expression, and swayed while she stood. She then performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .185 and .168 in the breath machine.
When there is an anonymous tip, police officers need corroboration of that tip to show reliability. The reason being is that anonymous tips are at the low end of the reliability scale. Here, the officers did not observe any driving pattern. (i.e., corroboration). Since the defendant was seized without corroboration, the initial contact and seizure of the defendant was unlawful.
To save your license, you must act within 10 days. Get in touch with our firm by calling 321.593.0222, or fill out the form here.