Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Tampa Criminal Attorneys
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Prosecution Unable to Prove DUI Where Driver Found Outside Vehicle

Category: DUI

Our client drove his car into a TECO power pole causing $30,000.00 worth of damage. Luckily, he received minor injuries as a result of the crash. The client was asked to perform field sobriety testing and according to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy he showed a number of clues of impairment. After being arrested for DUI he was transported to the Hillsborough County Jail where he submitted to a breathalyzer exam. His results were .121 and .128. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. During depositions the officers who first encountered the driver acknowledged that he wasn't in the driver's seat. It is not impossible for the State Attorney to prove someone was driving a vehicle where they are found outside the car, but the fact that the driver was found outside the vehicle can create problems. Here, he admitted driving before the officer actually started conducting his DUI investigation. In Florida, there is an accident report privilege which allows driver's to answer the officer's questions about a crash without it being used against them later. Usually the officer notifies the driver that he is switching hats from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation. What is more critical than notifying the driver that you are switching hats is notifying them of their Miranda rights. Here, there was no admission of driving after the Miranda rights were read to the driver. He spoke to the police officer about other things, but not about driving. This small fact made prosecuting our client for DUI impossible. If you have been arrested for DUI and you have any questions about whether the officers followed proper procedure you can call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Video of Field Sobriety Tests Not Enough Without Audio

Category: DUI

A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy followed the client for over a ½ mile with his overhead lights on before he stopped. After the stop the driver (client) admitted to having a beer and a drink before driving. When the client was pressed by the officer he told him that the passenger could drive him home because she had a valid driver's license. The Deputy observed the passenger to have a ½ filled margarita on the passenger floor board next to her. The deputy then observed an open container of Cognac Salignac 200 ml. 40% alc/vol next to the driver door on the floor in plain view.

A Critical Mistake for the Prosecution

A special DUI Task Enforcement Officer was called to the scene. Before he exits his vehicle to begin a potential investigation the DUI officer usually turns on a video camera that is fixed inside his vehicle. He also turns on his mic so the encounter between himself and the suspect can be recorded. If he arrests the suspect it is going to be important for the officer's report to mirror the events on the video. Here, the officer failed to turn on his mic so while you could visually watch the defendant (client) perform tests you could not hear the deputy's instructions or any statements the defendant made.

Why is this a critical mistake for the prosecution? Field sobriety exercises require proper instructions. You can't judge someone's performance unless you know whether he has been properly instructed. What you can see of the client's performance does not indicate impairment per se. The audio may have revealed slow, slurred responses to the deputy's instructions or it may have revealed quick accurate responses. Without the audio it is impossible to know. There are many steps involved in conducting a thorough investigation of a DUI charge. Any mistake can create a hole in the investigation that would force any jury to find in the defendant's favor. The ultimate resolution of this case was greatly affected by this mistake. If you have questions about whether the police officer took the proper steps in your criminal investigation call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

DUI Involving Death Dismissed in Clearwater

Category: DUI

Whenever someone is killed as a result of an car accident the first question law enforcement makes an effort to answer is whether the drivers involved in the accident were intoxicated in any way. Even where a drunk driver is not at fault for the accident serious steps will be taken to determine whether a dui manslaughter charge could be filed against him or her. In this case the client was driving his motorcycle down U.S. 19 and Tampa Road in Palm Harbor, Florida. That particular day he had his girlfriend sitting behind him on his bike. An older gentleman drove his car onto US 19 without seeing the client on his motorcycle. His motorcycle drove right into the front driver's side quarter panel. Both my client and his girlfriend were catapulted over the hood of the car. They both hit the pavement traveling about 45 mph and traveled over 100 feet before they finally came to rest. My client was severely injured, but his girlfriend was much worse. She received fatal injuries and died at the scene. The client was bay-flighted to the Bayfront Medical Center from the scene of the crash.

Evidence of Impairment

The driver of the vehicle was clearly at fault for the accident. He was eventually cited for violating our client's right of way. A blood draw was taken from our client. Whenever a traffic accident results in a fatality law enforcement is permitted to draw your blood without your consent. It was determined that the client's blood contained both alprazolam (xanax) and oxycodone. The blood sample was taken to the Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory. The trooper requested the lab to conduct a quantitative analysis to determine the amount of xanax and oxycodone that was in our client's blood. According to the Forensic Toxicologist the normal therapeutic range for Oxycodone is 100 ng/ml. The results of the analysis indicated that the client had 400 ng./ml. in his blood. The Forensic Toxicologist stated that the client was 4 times the therapeutic range. It appeared to her that the dose could have been lethal. As a result of this analysis the defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence almost a year after the accident. In this particular situation the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office made a decision not to file DUI Manslaughter because the older gentleman was clearly at fault for causing the accident. However, the State Attorney's Office felt the lab results forced them to file a DUI charge.

Proving Intoxication Based on Drugs (prescribed or controlled substances)

Proving someone is impaired by alcohol can be accomplished in two separate ways. One way is to prove the alcohol content of their blood was above the legal limit at the time of driving. As you are probably already aware the legal limit in the state of Florida is .08. Another way of proving impairment is accomplished by offering evidence, usually in the form of a video, which proves someone's normal faculties are impaired.

Here, you have a situation where the prosecutor must prove that my client was impaired because of the level of oxycodone in his blood. This can be problematic. In order to prove impairment based on the ingestion of a prescribed drug you must first show that the prescribed drug is one that can cause impairment. For instance, there are some drugs that are not listed as controlled substances even though they can cause impairment. Ambien can affect your ability to walk, talk, and judge distances, but it was not listed as a controlled substance that can cause impairment under our DUI statute. Second, if you have been charged with DUI and your charge is based on the impairment of a drug listed in the statute, then the prosecutor must determine whether the drug affected your normal faculties or whether there is a quantifiable amount of drugs that would cause impairment. For instance, theoretically you could be pulled over and arrested for DUI based on a urine sample that shows heroin in your system. This urine sample would not give you a quantifiable amount, but the prosecutor may not need to quantify the amount of heroin, where your video shows you failing all the field sobriety tests. On the other hand, in our case no field sobriety tests could be administered because my client was air lifted to the hospital. The only way the State Attorney could prove intoxication in this case was to call a toxicologist to the witness stand to testify that my client had 4 times the therapeutic level of oxycodone in his system.

The Unique Nature of Pain Killers

Oxycodone is a pain killer. People that are forced to take pain killers over an extended length of time develop a tolerance to them. In order to relieve their pain they inevitably have to take higher and higher doses of the medication. Our client had been through serious neck surgery and another motorcycle accident before the fatal accident in December of 2008. As a consequence, he was on an aggressive therapeutic pain management treatment program for a considerable length of time prior to the accident occurring on 12/10/08. Narcotic analgesics have an extremely large tolerance potential resulting in patients becoming tolerant to potential side effects including motor performance impairment over a long dosing history. In other words, the therapeutic level for oxycodone for my client was much higher than the average person who had never taken pain medication. The level of oxycodone in the client's system would certainly affect the normal faculties of a person who had no pain management history. However, Our client's normal faculties would not have been affected by the amount of oxycodone that he had in his system.

The Prosecution

Our client's medical history was supplied to the prosecution. Once we cross-examined the State's expert about the logic surrounding the tolerance of pain killers the State decided to dismiss the charge. To find out more about DUI contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Criminal Attorney - Illegal Stop for DUI Leads to Problems For Prosecutor

Category: Criminal Law

The Client was found passed out behind the wheel at the Flying J Truck Stop at Highway 579 and Sligh Avenue in Tampa. A Hillsborough County deputy was notified about our client's condition by a store employee. Deputy Angelo walked out to his car and knocked on his window in an effort to wake him up. When he awakened the Deputy smelled an odor of alcohol and demanded his car keys. A DUI enforcement officer was called and reported to the scene. Our client attempted to perform field sobriety tests and failed. Shortly after his arrest he was transported to the Orient Road Jail where he refused to submit to the breathalyzer.

A deposition was conducted of Deputy Angelo. She acknowledged that she hadn't smelled an odor of alcohol until she ordered our client out of the vehicle. The issue then became whether our client was legally parked in the gas station parking lot. If so, the deputy's actions would be illegal. We filed a motion to suppress the stop of our client. The State Attorney ran into a number of difficulties bringing forth the proper evidence to prove our client was illegaly parked.

To find out more information about this case link to tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

DUI Dismissed By Tampa DUI Attorney (Blow .125 and .126)

Category: DUI

State v. H; Judge: Lawrence Lefler

The client was arrested for DUI in North Tampa by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. She was very unfamiliar with the area and when she left the local bar she attempted to follow a friend home. After the stop of her vehicle she performed field sobriety tests and failed. She was then transported to the Orient Road Jail. She agreed to blow into the breathalyzer and the results were .125 and .126. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. The officer that stopped the client was a special DUI enforcement officer. His patrol car was equipped with a video camera that documented our client's driving pattern. Sometimes the officer's camera can benefit the Defendant's case. Link to our website to learn the difference between stops conducted by a regular patrol officer and a special DUI enforcement officer.

Tampa DUI Charge Reduced to Reckless Driving

Category:

State v. C.G., Judge: James Dominguez

Facts: Our Client, a prominent local business owner, was pulled over a few blocks from his house under suspicion of DUI. After submitting to roadside field sobriety exercises, the client was arrested and transported to central breath testing at the Hillsborough County Jail. He later refused to take the breath test.
After reviewing all of the evidence in the case, we determined that there was very little evidence that our client was too impaired to drive safely. Due to the fact that the client refused the breath test, the evidence of impairment was limited to the officer's observations at the time of the arrest and the video of our client's performance on the field sobriety exercises. Although the officer reported that the client appeared to be clearly intoxicated, the video told a very different story. The client's demeanor and behavior was consistent with a person who was very tired, not drunk. His performance on the FSE's was not perfect, but it was far better than the officers report reflected.
Result: After setting the case for trial, the prosecutor reduced the charge to reckless driving and offered to withhold adjudication. The client was not convicted and his record was sealed.

Tampa DUI Attorney gets Reckless on Refusal in Orlando

Category: DUI

The client was arrested for DUI in Orlando. She, and her sixteen year old daughter were on their way home from a rock concert when the trooper stopped her vehicle for erractic driving. The client had no familiarity with Orlando, and became very lost when she tried to read her mapquest directions backwards on the ride back to Tampa. After the initial stop the client performed field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and then transported to the jail. When she was asked to perform the breathalyzer she refused. Read a summarized version of the tampa criminal defense lawyer's letter to the prosecutor. The letter requests the prosecotor to reduce the charge to reckless driving. While our client's performance on the field sobriety tests was poor, the letter gives you insite into how her performance could be affected by the conditions of the area that the trooper chose to administer the tests.

RESULT: She plead to reckless driving, and the conviction was withheld. In other words, she received no points on her driving record.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets Reckless on .166 and .167

Category: DUI

The client was driving his vehicle on Channelside Drive when he was pulled over for failing to maintain a single lane. According to the tampa police officer our client's vehicle continued to drift from lane to lane before he finally stopped him at 19th Street and Adamo Drive. After exiting his vehicle he was asked to perform a number of field sobriety tests which the officer felt he failed. The client was transported to the Orient Road Jail where he agreed to submit to the breathalyzer. He blew .166 and .167. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. Find out how the tampa DUI attorney convinced the State Attorney to reduce this charge to a reckless driving.

Tampa DUI Attorneys Get Reckless Despite Blows of .217 and .226, and Crash

Category: DUI

The client was driving his vehicle in the area of West Linbaugh Avenue when he rear ended another motorist. Shortly after the accident a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy reported to the scene. Our client had been drinking heavily at a local bar before crashing into the other vehicle at a stoplight. When law enforcement arrived our client was standing outside the driver's side of his vehicle. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests, but was unable to complete them. He was arrested for his second DUI within a 5 year period and transported to the Orient Road Jail. After arriving at the jail he consented to the breathalyzer and blew .217 and .226. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. Get more details on how the tampa DUI attorney prevented the client from having to suffer through the following sanctions:

1) pleading to the DUI charge (charge reduced to reckless driving)
2) a mandatory jail sentence,
3) a five year suspension of his driver's license,
4) and a $1,000.00 fine

Naples Criminal Attorney Gets Probation Terminated (Collier County, Hillsborough County)

Category: DUI

The defendant was arrested in Tampa for DUI in July of 2007. His case was eventually reduced to a reckless driving and he was put on probation. During the period of probation he moved down to Naples, Florida where he received another DUI. He went on probation in Collier County and violated his probation. After he entered a treatment program in Naples he called us to find out whether we could resolve his probation violation in Tampa. We pointed out to the Court the conditions that were met by the client, and his reckless driving probation was terminated. Find out how the tampa criminal lawyer brought about the termination of the client's probation.

Despite 4th DUI Arrest, Sarasota DUI Reduced to Reckless Driving by Tampa Criminal Attorney (Sarasota County)

Category: Criminal Law

The client was stopped for speeding by a sarasota sheriff's deputy at 2:17 a.m. He was arrested, and transported to the county jail shortly after he failed the field sobriety tests. When the handcuffs were placed on the client he stated, "I know I messed up, but do you have to arrest me?" Despite the officer's opinion we approached the State about our client's performance on the field sobriety tests. We felt he performed well on the tests, and they were critical to the State's case since the client refused to blow into the breathalyzer. Consequently, the only real evidence of intoxication was the client's performance on the FST's. Eventually, the State agreed to reduce this charge on the day of trial. Get more information on how the tampa dui attorney resolved this case and what role the field sobriety tests play in any DUI.

DUI Reduced To Reckless Driving After Motion To Suppress .163 Blood Draw (Pinellas County)

Category: DUI

State v. M; Judge: William Overton

The Client was involved in an accident after he failed to brake at a stoplight. The passenger in the other vehicle was pregnant. After admittng he had been drinking to police officers he was transported to Ed White Hospital in St. Petersburg. In an all out effort to collect evidence of DUI from our client the police ended up coercing a blood draw. The blood draw indicated he was over twice the legal limit, but the officers methods triggered us to file a motion to suppress. Further investigation of the facts set out in the motion resulted in reduction of the DUI charge to reckless driving. The blood draw revealed that the client's blood alcohol was .163 and .161. The "implied consent" law is applied differently when law enforcement draws blood from a DUI suspect as opposed to requesting a breath sample. Intense investigation of this case, and numerous depositions brought about a reduction of the DUI charge when the Tampa DUI attorneys exposed the inconsistent statements made by the Pinellas County Sheriff's deputies.

Tampa Court Grants Motion to Suppress Stop on DUI charge Where Client Blew .162 and .169

Category: DUI

State v. C; Judge: Thomas Barber

The client blew .162 and .169. The legal limit is .08. A special DUI officer from the Tampa Police Department claimed that the defendant veered from her lane and almost struck his vehicle as he was traveling on North Dale Mabry. As she continued north the officer claimed that she accelerated over the speed limit, and began to brake erratically. Shortly after she was removed from the vehilce she attempted the field sobriety tests and performed poorly. She was arrested and transported to the Orient Road Jail. The tampa criminal attorney was able to expose inconsistencies in the officer's testimony that ultimately led to the DISMISSAL of the DUI charge.

Police Misconduct Results In Reduction of DUI Where Tampa Defendant Blows .208 and .205

Category: DUI

The officer began to follow our client when he noticed the rear bumper of his vehicle was about to fall off. When he questioned him our client was unable to respond to the officer's questions, and gave no explanation for the damage to his vehicle. After failing field sobriety tests he was transported to the Orient Road Jail in Tampa where he blew .205 and .208. The legal limit in Florida is .08. The Tampa DUI attorneys were able to file a motion to suppress the stop, which led the State to reduce the charge to reckless driving.

DUI Lowered to Reckless Driving Despite Failed Field Sobriety Tests and Blow of .17

Category: Criminal Law

On the night of the incident, someone driving behind our client with access to police radio put out over the wire that he was swerving in his lane, crossing lanes, and almost crashed off the shoulder of the highway. Upon talking with our client, the responding officer claimed that he had slurred speech, watery and bloodshot eyes, had trouble getting out of the truck, and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. The client submitted to taking field sobriety tests, which he failed, and when arrived to jail he consented to a breathalyzer test, where he blew a .17. Find out how the tampa dui attorney forced the State to drop the DUI to a reckless driving.

DUI Lowered to Reckless Driving for Underage Defendant Due to State's Lack of Proof

Category: Criminal Law

On the night of the incident, our client was involved in an auto accident with a tractor trailer truck on his way home from a concert. During a conversation with our client, the responding officer claimed to smell alcohol on his breath. After failing the field sobriety tests and blowing a .14, he was arrested for DUI. The charge was subsequently dismissed by the State. Get a more detailed explanation from a tampa dui attorney.

Underage Defendant Gets DUI Charge Dismissed After Police Fail to Follow "Fellow Officer Rule"

Category: Criminal Law

Our underage client was arrested and charged with DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Due to extenuating circumstances, the third officer to arrive at the scene made the arrest on information provided by two officers that were there previously. All charges were dismissed. Get more detailed information from the tampa dui attorney that resolved this DUI charge.

Despite Blow over .20, DUI Lowered to Reckless Driving

Category: Criminal Law

Our client was pulled over for weaving. Due to some difficulties in performing field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, our client submitted to have her blood taken. It was discovered her Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was over .20. The client was then arrested for DUI. In the end, our firm was able to have the charge dismissed. Get more information on the steps taken by the tampa criminal attorneys that resolved this case.

State's Inability to Prove Intoxication Leads to Dismissal of DUI

Category: DUI

State v. H; Judge: Lawrence Lefler

The defendant became very intoxicated drugs prescribed to him by his doctor. His driving led to a crash where law enforcement arrested him after determining he was unable to perform field sobriety tests. The DUI charge was ultimately dismissed. Find out how the tampa dui lawyer brought about a DISMISSAL of this charge.

Plea Deal in Felony DUI Case Raises Questions About the Legality of Many Stops

Category: Criminal Law

State v. L.; Judge: Gregory P. Holder; William Fuente

FACTS: The defendant was charged with his third DUI charge within a ten-year time span. This aggravates the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony with a possible maximum sentence of 5 years in the Florida State Prison System. The defendant was witnessed driving his vehicle toward the Dale Mabry entrance of Macdill Airforce Base. He approached at a high rate of speed, and swerved abrupty before he reached the gate. After he stopped at the gate he asked the Military Police Officers (MP) whether this was "the way to Gainesville". The military police officer claimed that he could smell a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage on the client's breath. He also observed that our client's eyes looked watery and bloodshot, and his speech was very slurred. The MP then ordered the client to turn off the vehicle and hand him the keys. After he received the keys the MP placed spike strips behind the client's vehicle. A few moments later the client jumped from the driver's seat to the passenger's seat, and claimed that someone else had been driving. Pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15(10) the military police officer called the tampa police department, and filled out an affidavit describing his observations. A tampa police officer arrived on scene and arrested the defendant after he refused to perform all sobriety tests.

DEFENSE: There have always been discussions among attorneys in the tampa area about the legality of stops made by the military police at MacDill Airforce Base. Many believe that the military police can stop suspects pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15(10). However, 901.15(10) requires that the military police officer make his observations "on federal military property".

Initially, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge claiming that the initial detention of the client was unlawful because the stop occurred on federal property. What made this property special was the fact that it had been deeded to the federal government by the State of Florida in 1950. The federal government retains exclusive jurisdiction over any crimes that occur on property transferred in this way. In response to the Motion to Dismiss the State Attorney in his traverse, swore under oath that the Dale Mabry guard gate sits on municipal property owned by the city of Tampa. Our office in turn filed a second motion to suppress the stop of our client because Florida Statute 901.15(10) requires that the military police officer witness our client on "federal military property". Hillsborough County Circuit Judge William Fuente ruled on our Motion to Suppress. In deying the Motion for Re-hearing the Court stated that the military police officers had discretion to defer the investigation to civilian authorities, "regardless of the status of the property at the gate, be it city property or federal property". Subsequent to the Court's ruling we entered further negotiaitions with the State Attorney's Office. Ultimately, the State agreed to reduce the FELONY DUI charge to a MISDEMEANOR in exchange for a waiver of our right to appeal the jurisdictional issues involved in the above motions.

RESULT: The felony dui charge was reduced to a misdemeanor DUI occurring outside of a five year time span. As a connsequence, our client avoided not only a possible State Prison Sentence, but also a mandatory Hillsborough County Jail sentence. In our opinion all stops made by miilitary police officers at the Dale Mabry guard gate pursuant to 901.15(10) are unlawful, and should be challenged in the future.

Learn more about DUI from a tampa dui lawyer.

4 DUI Charges are Dismissed for Pasco County Defendant

Category: DUI

State v. T.; Judge: William G. Sestak (Pasco County); Date: January 28, 2008

FACTS: The client was charged with four (4) DUI'S with personal injury; one (1) DUI; three (3) leaving the scene of an accident charges; and a traffic citation. The defendant (client) is a nurse at the Florida Hospital. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the client was traveling westbound on State Road 54 when his vehicle began weaving, and driving into oncoming traffic. Witnesses stated that our client eventually struck the rear of another SUV, and then fled the scene. A short time later the client collided with a second chevrolet, and left the scene of that accident. The client continued to have trouble controling his vehicle, and ended up colliding with a mailbox, and left the scene of that accident. The client then struck a ford truck, and left the scene again after the fourth collision. Eventually, the client came to rest on the shoulder of State Road 54 near Boyette Road. According to the witnesses the client exited his vehicle through the driver's side window. As he stood on the side of the road the client began staggering and having trouble maintaining his balance. When paramedics arrived on scene they recovered a hypodermic needle with fresh blood on the syringe from inside the client's vehicle.

Paramedics suspected the client had possibly overdosed and transported him to the Florida Hospital. After arriving at the hospital the trooper questioned the defendant about his condition. The entire time the defendant was incoherent and unable to respond. The trooper then read the defendant Florida's "implied consent law". Florida Statute 316.1932 (c) states the following:

Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided in this section if there is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. As used in this paragraph, the term "other medical facility" includes an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition is deemed not to have withdrawn his or her consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not the person is told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor.

When asked whether he would be willing to submit to a blood draw the client was "unable to agree or disagree" according to the trooper. Despite the fact that the trooper had the ability to order the medical staff to draw the defendant's blood, he did not. Instead, the trooper claimed that the defendant "refused" to submit to a blood test.

DEFENSE: The trooper's failure to draw blood created a major problem for the state prosecutor. The prosecutor could not argue that the defendant refused the test because the facts clearly contradicted that argument. In addition, the hypodermic needle with fresh blood on it wasn't relevant unless the prosecutor could prove that our client had some controlled substance in his system.

RESULT: The State DISMISSED three (3) DUI with personal injury charges; one (1) dui charge; ; three (3) leaving the scene of an accident charges; and a traffic citation. The fifth DUI charge was reduced to a reckless driving and the defendant received probation.

Tampa DUI Charge is Dismissed Where Defendant Blows .215 and .197

Category: DUI

State v. N.; Judge: John N. Conrad; Date: August 27, 2007

FACTS: Law enforcement observed the client, a college student, traveling 65 mph in a 55 mph zone, and following other vehicles "too closely". The officer ultimately stopped the client's vehicle at I-275, south of Westshore Boulevard for suspicion of DUI. As he spoke to the defedant at the driver's side window the officer claimed to have smelled an odor of an alcoholic emanating from her breath. The DUI enforcement officer arrived on scene and noticed the defendant had bloodshot/glassy eyes, and was very unsteady on her feet. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests and performed poorly. A short time later she was arrested and transported to the county jail. Upon arrival she submitted to a breath alcohol test and registered a .215 and .197. The legal limit in Florida is .08.

DEFENSE: Despite the fact that the description of the driving pattern seemed terrible at first glance, further investigation led to information that explained her driving. We filed a motion to suppress all the evidence that emanated from the stop of the vehicle.

RESULT: The DUI charge was DISMISSED.

Tampa DUI With .15 Breath Result is Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. B; Date: July 30, 2007

FACTS: The defendant (client) was driving southbound on North Palm Drive in Tampa when a Tampa Police Officer noticed that her headlights were off. The officer activated his emergency equipment and attempted to pull the vehicle over. As she pulled into a parking space the vehicle went up and over a curb. The officer noticed that the client's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He also noticed that she had a odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. During questioning the defendant admitted having a few drinks, and said she was the "soberest" one in the car.

The client then agreed to perform a number of field sobriety tests, which she failed. After she was arrested she was transported to Central Breath Testing at the Orient Road Jail. She agreed to submit to a breath test which indicated .152 and .137.

DEFENSE: We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the defendant's vehicle which led to negotiations with the State. The client's breath result was very high, but that breath result has no bearing or relevance to the issues surrounding the stop of someone's vehicle for DUI. No matter how ugly you might think the facts of your case are it is crucial that you retain an experienced attorney to represent you. Without an experienced attorney this particular case would of probably had a much different result.

RESULT: The State agreed to drop the DUI.

Prosecution of Tampa DUI Falls Apart When Video is Lost

Category: DUI

State v. C.; Judge: Tom Barber; Date July 23, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by Tampa Police for running a stop sign and speeding. When the DUI enforcement officer arrived she noticed "bloodshot, glassy eyes, and slurred speech". When the officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle he stumbled, and then grabbed hold of his vehicle to steady himself. Our client was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests (specifically the walk and turn test), which he agreed to do. He was unable to maintain his balance, stepped off the line, and started performing before the instructions were read. Shortly after he performed the walk and turn, the defendant was arrested. When he arrived at Central Breath Testing the client refused the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: During the discovery process we determined that the prosecution was unable to locate the video of our client's performance. We then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that our client's due process rights were violated because the video would dispute the officer's opinion of how poorly he performed.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI charge.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. A; Judge: Elizabeth Rice; Date: July 10, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy after her car remained stopped at a green light at 22 street North and 7th Avenue in Ybor City. The deputy detected slurred speech and red-watery eyes. When the DUI enforcement Deputy arrived he claimed there was an easily detectable odor of alcohol on our client's breath. After further discussions with the deputy the client admitted to drinking alcohol, and she was arrested for DUI. She was also arrested for Driving While LIcense Suspended.

DEFENSE: We had a number of discussions with the State about filiing a motion to suppress the stop of our client's vehicle which led to a negotiated agreement.

RESULT: The State reduced the DUI charge to reckless driving and the Driving While License Suspended charge was amended to No Valid Driver's License.

Tampa DUI Defedant has case dropped

Category: DUI

State v. W; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: June 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was pulled over because his radio was too loud. The officer claimed he could hear the radio 75 feet away. In the state of Florida, if your radio is audible within 25 feet, an officer can stop your vehicle, and give you a citation. Whenever someone is pulled over, they typically become nervous, even if it's just a speeding ticket. In this case, however, the defendant had a panic disorder, which made him appear extremely nervous on the video. His voice wasn't slurred and he never swayed while he spoke to the officer, but he also never stopped talking. He continued to tell the officer that he was too nervous to take the test. Once the officer realized the defendant was going to continue to repeat himself, he engaged the defendant in further conversation. The officer knows that someone who appears to be "stalling", or "making excuses" looks guilty.

Generally, the first officer who makes contact with a possible dui suspect radios for the assistance of a special "dui enforcement officer". The initial officer takes that step because he obviously believes the suspect is DUI. The moment the dui officer gets out of his cruiser to make contact with you, it is important to realize that the video camera is on and you are both, "on stage". As he approaches you the dui officer is presuming guilt because of his conversation with the officer who made the initial stop. The goal of the dui officer is to collect as much incriminating evidence (a poor performance on video) as possible. Sometimes what may sound like "friendly talk", is a method used by officers to document "admissions of guilt" on the video.

DEFENSE: Ultimately, we were able to point out to the state attorney that our client's performance on the video was the result of his panic disorder, not because he was driving under the influence. This was extremely important to the client because it was his second DUI within the past five years. If he had pled straight up to the DUI, he would have lost his license for five years, and done a minimum of 10 days in the Hillsborough County Jail.

RESULT: The Defendant's DUI was dropped, and he received no license suspension.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. M; Judge: John N. Conrad; Date: May 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was a very respected school teacher in one of our county school systems. She was observed weaving in and out of her own lane, and traveling 60 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The officer conducted a traffic stop at Kennedy and Howard, and noticed our client had a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage. The officer also noticed that the client had watery, bloodshot eyes. Before performing the Field Sobriety Tests she was asked whether she had anything to drink. According to the officer she initially denied having any alcohol, but then admitted to having one drink post-miranda. The defendant was prepared to perform the walk and turn test when she asked the officer if she could have an attorney. The officer told her that she was not entitled to an attorney at that time. Ultimately, the client refused to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and was arrested for DUI. After arriving at Central Breath Testing she was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. The defendant refused that test also.

DEFENSE:: The offense occurred on January 21, 2007. The weather that night was particularly windy and cold. The defendant was not wearing the proper clothing and ended up shivering uncontrollably outside her car. While the Field Sobriety Tests appear very simple and straight forward to most people, they can be very difficult to perform in bad weather. For instance, before you begin to perform the walk-and-turn test you are asked to stand heal to to without moving, as the officer reads you the instructions. This is extremely difficult when you are shaking from the cold. Many times an officer will get upset if you decide not to perform the field sobriety tests. The reason for that is simple. You are refusing to give him the evidence he wants to prove your guilt. When our client refused to perform the Field Sobriety Tests without a lawyer, it created friction between the client and the officer. This friction led to the defendant refusing to submit to the breathalyzer also.

This chain of events is not uncommon. People refuse to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and the breathalyzer for many different reasons. In this case, we were able to persuade the State Attorney that the defendant's refusal was justified under the circumstances.

RESULT: The client's DUI was reduced to a reckless driving, and she received a withhold of adjudication, and court costs. A withhold means that the client was able to avoid a conviction on the reckless driving charge and she received no points on her driving record.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 20, 2007

FACTS: After spending the night in Ybor City, the client drove some friends home. She was pulled over after one of the passenger's in her car threw garbage out of the back window. Her car was pulled over at about 4 a.m., at the off ramp of I-75 and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. As the officer spoke to the client he smelled an odor of alcohol on her breath and her eyes appeared to be glassy. The client was also wearing nightclub arm bands on both arms. After she admitted to drinking the officer asked her to perform some field sobriety tests. The officer felt she failed the field sobriety tests and arrested her for DUI. When she arrived at the Orient Road Jail in Hillsborough County she refused to blow into the breathalyzer. The defendant was also an under age drinker.

DEFENSE: The defendant's performance on the video was much better than the description given by the Tampa Police Officer in his report. Again, a video can create a real doubt as to the defendant's guilt in a DUI case.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped.

DUI Gets Dropped By Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: DUI

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 19, 2007

FACTS: The client was driving a motorcycle at a very high rate of speed when he was observed by a deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. The defendant was passing erratically and unexpecteddly with no warning. He also caused other drivers to slam their brake as he was correcting and readjusting within his lane. After the defendant was stopped the officer noticed that the defendant's speech was slow and slightly slurred. He also noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant's breath. The client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and failed miserably, according to the police report. He was then arrested for DUI and booked at the hillsborough county jail. The defendant refused to blow into the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: There was a dispute as to whether the defendant had performed as poorly as described by the deputy. The video of our client can sometimes create enough of an inconsistency in the evidence to bring about a very positive result.

RESULT: The dui was dropped.

Tampa Defendant Gets DUI Dropped

Category: Recent Wins

State v. C, Judge: Tom Barber; Date: March 15, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped by a trooper for traveling 97 mph in a 65 mph zone on the Howard Franklin Bridge. As the trooper contacted the defendant he noticed he was disoriented and mumbling, with a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. When the client exited his vehicle he was unsteady and stumbling. The client believed he was heading to St. Pete when he was actually headed towards Tampa. The defendant was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, and failed, according to the trooper. There was no video of the defendant's performance of the field sobriety tests at the scene. Ultimately, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

DEFENSE: The video of the defendant at the Orient Road Jail contradicted the trooper's description of him at the scene. In addition, we were able to supply evidence to the State that the defendant was new to the area, and unfamiliar with the roads. It is also important to point out that the client's refusal of the breath test did not weaken the state's case. The State has the ability to argue that the defendant refused, "... because he knew he was intoxicated". However, in this particular situation we were able to provide the State with a reasonable explanation for the refusal.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: Recent Wins

State v. O, Judge: James Dominguez; Date: March 12, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped at the light on highway 41 north and Florida Avenue. A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office deputy stopped at the light behind our client. According to the deputy the light cycled through twice before she activated her overhead lights and approached the defendant's vehicle. The deputy claimed that the defendant was incoherent, and unaware of her surroundings when she made contact with her at the driver's side door. At that point the stopping deputy called a special DUI enforcement deputy who conducted a DUI investigation. The second deputy asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, and claimed she had failed the tests. Much of what the deputy reported seemed to be confirmed by the defendant's breath result (the breath result was .146 and .129).

DEFENSE: After a number of attempts to negotiate with the State failed, we filed a motion to suppress the stop of the defendant's car. The State felt there was a safety concern that warranted the deputy stopping our client to determine the situation. We felt the deputy stopped our client's vehicle prematurely, and without reasonable suspicion.

RESULT: The State realized there were problems opposing our motion which led to a reduction of the charge to reckless driving for the client.

Two DUI Arrests Dismissed By Tampa DUI Attorney

Category: DUI

State v. P, State v. N; ; Judge: Joelle Ober; Date: February 22, 2007

FACTS: The defendants (clients) both left the Dallas Bull Bar near U.S. 301 and Interstate 4, at around 1:30 a.m. Before leaving the bar each had consumed 1-2 beers. As they left the clients decided to follow each other home. Both clients were unaware that a special DUI enforcement deputy was waiting in a nearby parking lot for patrons to leave. The deputy decided to follow them as they left. Shortly after falling behind the defendants the deputy claimed one was following the other too closely, and stopped his car to cite him for the infraction. After the stop, the deputy claimed he smelled an odor of alcohol and began a DUI investigation of the first client. Because she was concerned about her friend, the second client approached the deputy to find out why they were stopped. After making contact, the deputy claimed he could smell an odor of alcohol on her breath also, and investigated her for DUI.
The deputy claimed that both defendants failed their respective Field Sobriety Tests and arrested them both for DUI. Each client agreed to take the breathalyzer. One defendant blew a .031, and the other blew a .028. The deputy then started grasping at straws. He asked each defendant to drop a urine sample. Both defendants complied, and their urine results ultimately revealed nothing.

DEFENSE: The above scenario is a very common occurrence. The deputy involved in this investigation was a special DUI enforcement officer. These DUI enforcement officers (both at the HIllsborough County Sheriff's Office and the Tampa Police Department) camp outside bars and wait for people to drive away late at night. After the suspects leave the bar, many officers will use any excuse, no matter how weak, to stop the vehicle for some traffic infraction or less. This case is a classic example of a dishonest law enforcement officer using any pretext to stop someone, and arrest them for a crime. It is also points out the risk to law enforcement when they decide everyone leaving a bar at 1:30 a.m is intoxicated. While the officer has a lawful right to park his car outside of any bar and wait for people to leave, he shouldn't just stop vehicles unless his observations warrant the stop.
Here, the deputy stopped the clients claiming one was following too closely. Did the driver actually commit the infraction, or was the officer using it as a pretext to conduct a DUI investigation? When you look at the facts, and realize the driver blew well below the legal limit, it calls into question the validity of the entire investigation, and the lawfulness of the arrests.

It is important to realize that just because these defendants blew well below the legal limit, that does not mean that their DUI charges were automatically dismissed by the State Attorney's Office. In the state of Florida a breath result of .08 or above is prima facie evidence that the person driving was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(c). If someone's breath result is between .05 and .08, there is no presumption of impairment. Florida Statute 316.1934(b). If someone's breath result is below .05, it is presumed that the person driving was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(a).
In this case, there was a presumption that both drivers were not under the influence of alcohol to the extent their normal faculties were impaired (in short they were not DUI). However, any presumption can be rebutted by evidence. So it does not necessarily follow that you are automatically guilty of DUI if you are above the legal limit, and not guilty of DUI if you are below the legal limit. For instance, in some cases where defendants blow below the legal limit there can be proof that the defendant was driving under the influence of some intoxicant other than alcohol (prescription drugs, marijuana, cocaine...etc.). In addition, every person is affected by alcohol differently. As a consequence, whether you are above or below the legal limit, you should still hire an attorney. This case ultimately resulted in a dismissal of both DUI charges, but it is very unlikely the defendants would have received that result on their own. I have seen many unknowing pro se (self-represented) defendants plead guilty to DUI when they blew below the legal limit. Without an attorney you have no idea of the real strengths and weaknesses of your case.

RESULT: Both DUI charges were dismissed by the State Attorney.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case #06-0034-DKT; Judge Marc Salton-Pasco County (New Port Richey); Date: December 18, 2006

FACTS: The client, a former police officer, was observed by law enforcement to be asleep behind the wheel of his car at a flashing yellow light. The client's engine was running and the vehicle was in drive. When the troopers pulled behind him the defendant woke up and pulled his vehicle to the side of the roadway. The troopers noticed that the defendant's face was pale, and his pupils were dilated. When the client exited the vehicle he leaned against the car to steady himself. Because the officer noticed some balancing problems he requested the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. Our client notified the trooper that he had a number of medical conditions that could create a problem in his performance (lower back, head, knees).
This is a recurring problem for law enforcement and defendants. The officer is going to ask most suspects of a DUI to perform the field sobriety tests despite the fact that they have physical disabilities. Their response is typically, "don't worry, I will consider your medical conditions in determining whether you performed the tests correctly". It doesn't matter how sincere the police officer is when he tells you he is going to consider your medical disabilities as you perform the field sobriety tests. The fact of the matter is that police officers are not doctors, and haven't the slightest idea how severe someone's injury is, or how it is affecting their ability to perform a field sobriety test. In this case the defendant attempted to perform a number of field sobriety tests and the officer failed him on all of them.
After the client was arrested for DUI the officer asked if the client was under any medication. The client indicated that he was taking a number of medications (zoloft, vicodin, and some sinus medication). The officer concluded that the client was under the influence of prescription medications, and asked the defendant to submit a urine sample. The defendant dropped a urine sample and the results indicated that he had a number of different drugs in his system. Some of the substances were break down products of valium and a mild stimulant.

DEFENSE: In this particular case we were able to hire an expert in Forensic Toxicology. The toxicologist report supported our client's story in terms of the timing, and amount of drugs that were ingested. Ultimately, the prosecution was unable to prove that the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. A urine sample by itself makes it very difficult to quantify the amount of drugs in someone's system. In addition, the urine sample cannot tell you when the drugs were taken.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped by the State Attorney.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

CASE #001-674-XAM; 007-179-ELP; 007-182-ELP; 004-209-EPL; Judge Tom Barber; Date: December 12, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was pulled over for failure to maintain a single lane and no tag light. When the officer approached the vehicle she claimed she smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The officer also noticed three open beer bottles in the defendant's vehicle. Based on her observations she called a DUI unit to conduct the investigation. The defendant told police he had taken several medications for depression and other illnesses. During the investigation the DUI officer administered a number of field sobriety tests. However, the incident report was unclear as to how he performed on the tests. This problem was aggravated by the fact that the officer had no video of the defendant's performance. One of the tests often administered by a police officer in a DUI investigation is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. The HGN test involves the officer simply moving a pen with a light on the end of it in front of your eye. The subject is required to keep their head still while the officer moves his pen across your field of vision. If your eye begins to shake when the pen is moved to a 45 degree angle then it is supposed to indicate impairment. It is important to realize that a nystagmus can be caused by a number of factors that do not involve alcohol (contacts, fatigue). Some people have a natural nystagmus. For some reason the officer in the defendant's case did not administer the HGN test. This seemed very strange since he indicated the defendant did not perform well on some other tests that require physical coordination. If the officer felt the defendant was too intoxicated to perform the physical tests (walk and turn, one-legged stand, ... etc.) then why didn't he administer a test that involves almost no physical performance on the part of the defendant?
The truth of the matter is that just about every DUI investigation includes an HGN test, and they fail almost everyone. For some reason the officer decided not to administer this test in our case.

DEFENSE: The police officer's report was very confusing and inconsistent with the facts. In addition, the State was unable to explain the inconsistencies without the DUI video.

RESULT: The defendant's DUI was dropped and his traffic infractions were dismissed.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case # 001-899-XAM; Date: November 27, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was driving west on Kennedy Boulevard when he was pulled over for leaving his lane 5 times. After being pulled over by the law enforcement officer he agreed to perform field sobriety tests and failed. Our client was arrested and transported to the Hillsborough County Jail where he submitted to the breathalyzer. His result was .205 and .200.

DEFENSE: We filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence in the above case claiming that the defendant's driving pattern (drifting w/in his lane) was caused by the fact that tropical storm Alberta had landed in the Tampa Bay area that night. Alberta had created wind gusts of 60 mph in the Tampa Bay area.

RESULT: The State was unable to proceed at the Motion to Suppress Hearing and the DUI Charge was dropped.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case No.: 001-235-XAM; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: October 3, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was observed driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer stopped the defendant's vehicle, and asked the driver to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant complied with the officer's request. After observing the defendant's performance the officer made an arrest for DUI.

DEFENSE: The officer failed to properly judge the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Closer inspection of the video showed that the defendant had performed very well on the tests. It is common for many officers to exaggerate someone's poor performance.

RESULT: The state dropped the DUI charge.

Tampa Attorney gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

CASE #001-194-XAM; Judge: James Dominguez; Date: September26, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was alleged to have made a very wide, fast turn traveling half way into the inside lane of oncoming traffic. His vehicle supposedly almost crashed into another vehicle traveling the opposite way. The officer claimed the defendant had bloodshot glassy eyes and slurred speach. He also noticed a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage coming out of his mouth. According to the police report the defendant showed clues of impairment on his field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.

DEFENSE: Review of the videotape revealed that the officer was very accusatory and coercive towards the defendant. In addition, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests appeared to be much better than the officer described.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI charge.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

CASE # 001-648-XAM; Judge Tom Barber; Date: September 22, 2006

FACTS: The defedant was stopped by a law enforcement officer after he ran two stop signs. After exiting his vehicle the officer radioed for a DUI enforcement officer who decided not to administer any field sobriety tests because of the defendant's medical condition. The defendant was arrested and transported to central breath testing where he blew .129 and .129.

DEFENSE: There was an issue of a lack of probable cause due the fact that the officer failed to administer any field sobriety tests to the defendant. The breath results were collected after the questionable arrest.

RESULT: After negotiations with the State they agreed to drop the DUI charge.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case #06-CM-014800; Judge Joelle Ober; Date: September 14, 2006

FACTS: The officer observed the defendant's vehicle continuously cross over the lane lines, and have difficulty maintaining a single lane. After a traffic stop the officer noticed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol on her breath, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. According to the officer the defendant had difficulty standing and fumbled for her wallet. The officer administered Field Sobriety Tests to the defendant, and arrested her for DUI.
During his investigation the defendant admitted to taking xanax, and smoking marijuana a week earlier. The officer requested the defendant to submit a urine screen. After making numerous attempts the defendant was unable to drop urine.

DEFENSE: After questioning the police officer at the formal hearing for Department of Motor Vehicles the officer admitted that the defendant did not seem impaired by marijuana. In addition, the officer admitted that the defendant was sincerely unable to drop a urine screen.

RESULT: After discussing the testimony of the officer at the formal hearing the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case Number: 006-386-XAF; Date: September 12, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was stopped for driving erratically in his lane at low speed. Shortly after the stop the law enforcement officer read the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant indicated to the officer that he was unsure about his rights which led to even more confusion on the part of the defendant. After performing two road side tests (alphabet, counting backwards) the defendant was arrested and transported to the county jail. At the jail law enforcement claimed that the defendant refused to take the breathalyzer. There was a dispute as to whether the defendant actually had the ability to perform the breath test.

DEFENSE: After reviewing the officer's police report and the video it appeared that there were two pretrial motions to suppress evidence. One motion to suppress the stop of the defendant's vehicle and another motion to suppress all of the statements made by the defendant after the stop.

RESULT: Pretrial negotiations led the State to drop the DUI charge.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer gets DUI Dismissed

Category: DUI

CASE #002-712-XAM; Judge Tom Barber; Date: July 28, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was alleged to have pulled in front of the police officer almost striking a curb. Shortly after pulling into traffic he approached a traffic light where he straddled the double line. The officer followed the defendant who came close to striking a second curb. As the defendant approached the next light he was alleged to have almost struck the vehicle in front of him, and then cut off another vehicle short distance later. The officer stopped the defendant, conducted Field Sobriety Tests and arrested the defendant for Driving Under the Influence. Shortly after arriving at the Orient Road Jail the defendant submitted to a breathalyzer test and blew .143 and .156.

DEFENSE: Shortly after being retained the defendant made us aware of the passenger in his vehicle, and that the path of travel described by the officer was incorrect. Further investigation at the crime scene led us to file a Motion to Suppress the Stop of the Defendant's vehicle. Testimony from the officer elicited during the motion to suppress hearing was inconsistent with the configuration of the area of the arrest and the passenger's testimony.

RESULT: The Court Granted the Motion to Suppress and the DUI charge was dismissed.

Plant City DUI Win by Tampa DUI Lawyer

Category: DUI

CASE #001-132-XCA; 001-477-EOL; Judge Christine Vogel; Date July 26, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was pulled over and charged with Racing on Public Highways. Shortly after the stop the police officer smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant and noticed he was slow to react. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests and performed poorly. The officer did not video the defendant at the scene. The defendant admitted to drinking 4 martinis.

DEFENSE: It was unclear from the police reports whether the stop of the defendant was proper. The illegality of the stop led to negotiations with the State on both charges.

RESULT: The DUI charge was dropped and the State dismissed the Racing on Highways charge.