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.

We have represented this particular client on a previous violation of probation which was also dismissed. His gambling problem, however, persisted. The gambliing led to a drug addiction which made complying with probation extremely difficult. The cilent was alleged to have violated his probation by failing to appear at the probation office on 4 different occassions. He was also required to pay the victim restitution for his crime. The client's parent's kicked him out of their house and the client was forced to live on the streets. This prevented him from attending his probation meetings. Before he was arrested he voluntarily entered himself into a gambling treatment program. See our website for background on how this case was resolved before the Court. While our Courts our interested in seeing many of the defendants become productive members of society, every judge will tell you that there is a point at which the defendant cannot be helped. Battling a gambling and drug addiction is very difficult, and the Courts recognize the obstacles. The Court in this case was willing to give our client another chance to prove that he could successfully complete his supervision.

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.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT:

In order to understand the true purpose of the statute it is important to examine the Legislative Intent which is conveniently located in subsection (1). It states the following:

It is the policy of this state that persons committing serious criminal offenses, posing a threat to the safety of the community or the integrity of the judicial process, or failing to appear at trial be detained upon arrest. However, persons found to meet specified criteria shall be released under certain conditions until proceedings are concluded and adjudication has been determined. The Legislature finds that this policy of pretrial detention and release will assure the detention of those persons posing a threat to society while reducing the costs for incarceration by releasing, until trial, those persons not considered a danger to the community who meet certain criteria. It is the intent of the Legislature that the primary consideration be the protection of the community from risk of physical harm to persons.

As the last sentence clearly states the primary consideration is the "protection of the community from risk of physical harm to persons". Other important concerns involve assuring the accused's presence at trial, and assuring the integrity of the judicial process.

DOES MY CLIENT QUALIFY FOR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION?

There is a number of factors that must be considered before you can determine whether your client is eligible for pre-trial detention.

1) You must first determine whether your client has been charged with a "dangerous crime". The "dangerous crimes" are listed in subsection four (4) of the statute. This issue is very going to be black and white for the most part. Either you have been charge with one of the enumerated offenses or you haven't.

2) Subsection (b) of the statute just states that if charged with a dangerous crime you must have atleast some monetary condition imposed at first appearance court. However, remember the mandatory monetary conditions seem to apply only at "first appearance" court. The Court has the discretion to release the accused on a monitor or on his own recognizance if the circumstances warrant it at a later point in time.

3) Subsection (c) sets out the criteria under which the Court can detain someone pretrial. Subsection (c) sets out the standard the court uses to determine if pretrial detention is appropriate. There must be a "substantial probability", based on the defendant's past and present patterns of behavior, the criteria in florida statute 903.046 (which is simply bail statute), and any other facts that show the following circumstances exist:

1) Defendant has previously violated his pretrial release

2) Defendant has attempted to obstruct the judicial process (threatening witnesses, jurors, victims...etc.)

3) Defendant is charged with trafficking, and there is a substantial probability that he committed offense;
and no way to assure his appearance at a later criminal proceedings

4) Defendant is charged with DUI Manslaughter, there is a substantial probability that defendant committed
the crime; and the defendant poses a threat to community. See statute for circumstances that create
a "threat to community".

5) Subsection (5) describes the typical scenario faced by criminal attorneys. Under this section the
defendant must "pose a threat of harm to the community". The Statute sets out what factors the Court
should consider in determining whether the defendant poses a threat. You must be (1) charged with
a "dangerous crime"; there must be (2) a substantial probability that the defendant committed the crime;
(3) the factual circumstances of the crime must indicate a disregard for the safety of the community;
and (4) there is no condition of release that would sufficiently protect the community from risk of
physical harm to persons.

6) The defendant was out on parole, probation, or another form of release when the "dangerous crime"
was committed.

7) The defendant has violated one or more conditions of his pretrial release for the offense currently
before the court, and no conitions of release could assure the protection of the community or the accused
accused's presence at trial.

The remaining aspects of the statute speak about the procedures that should be followed by law enforcement, and the state attorney's office when someone is arrested for a dangerous crime. It allows the arresting agency to hold anyone charged with a dangerous crime for 24 hours while the state files a motion for pretrial detention. The statute also points out that it is the State's burden to show a need for pre-trial detention. While the Court can admit relevant evidence without complying with Florida's rules of evidence, no evidence can be admitted that has been secured in violation of the Florida or United States Constutions. The statute also directs the Court on the procedures to be followed when it makes its findings to detain the defendant pretrial, and under what circumstances defense counsel can move the court to release the client after a determination of pretrial detention is made.

Tampa Police Department recieved a citizen's complaint about several black males selling drugs in front of the vacant apartment located at 2908 E. 22nd Avenue in Tampa. The QUAD squad (division of the tampa police department responsible for deterring drug activity) of the Tampa Police Department received the information and responded to the call by conducting surveillance in front of the apartment complex in the hopes of arresting the dealers and anyone who purchased from them. Our client (defendant) drove to the apartment complex and brought cocaine from a dealer. The officer surveilling the complex believed he witnessed a hand to hand transaction between our client and the dealer, so he radioed other officers waiting outside the area, and our client was followed for about a mile and a half before being pulled over. Shortly before he was pulled over the officers saw the client briefly open his car door and then shut it while the car was moving. The officers stopped his vehicle, and cited him for opening a car door while it was moving. While they wrote the client a ticket the officers asked him for consent to search his vehicle (feeling he had just purchased cocaine from the dealer). He agreed, and the officers found a baggie of cocaine in the middle console. The client (defendant) was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. The tampa police officers felt the stop of the client's vehicle was justifiable on two separate grounds. One, the officer conducting surveillance believed he saw a drug transaction take place between our cient and the dealer. Two, even if the officer did not witness a "drug transaction", the defendant committed a traffic infraction, which easily justifies the stop of his vehicle. The consent to search the vehicle was voluntary, so the only way to attack this case was by disputing the validity of the stop. We filed a motion to suppress the legality of the stop of our client's vehicle, and the State Attorney eventually agreed to DISMISS the possession of cocaine charge. Find out how the tampa criminal attorney successfully defeated the charge by challenging the legality of the client's stop.

The client (defendant) was on felony probation for a number of theft related offenses. Like many people with a serious drug problem, he turned to theft to support his drug habit. He made strides while on probation, but continued to run with friends who dealt in drugs. The night of his arrest the client was actually driving in his father's van with a dealer who was being surveilled by the Tampa Police Department's QUAD SQUAD (a specialized division of the tampa police department focused solely on drug detection and prevention). The client noticed that he was being followed by the police department and dropped off his friend. The Tampa Police continued to follow the van and eventually stopped the client at a gas station. They searched his vehicle and found drugs. The client was arrested for the drug charge and for violating his probation. He was taken into custody and given no bond on his violation of probation. Find out how the Tampa Criminal Lawyers got the defendant out of jail, and brought about the dismissal of the drug charge and the client's 4th violation of probation.

The client (defendant) was accused of striking his girlfriend several times after they became involved in a verbal dispute over his son. The victim told the Tampa Police Department that our client got up off the couch without warning and started hitting her in the face. She called 911, and When police arrived they found the victim crying and upset. They took photographs of her injuries, and arrested the defendant for felony battery. The battery charge was aggravated to a felony due to the client's prior convictions for battery. See how the tampa criminal attorney brought about a DISMISSAL of this charge through investigation and the discovery process.

The Bradenton Police Department alleged that our client became intoxicated at the Old Main Pub on 12th Street in Bradenton. According to the report when management instructed him to leave the premises he left and came back. An verbal altercation between the client and the bar owner ensued which escalated into a fight. Numerous witnesses testified that the defendant (client) attempted to strike one of the patrons. The stories told by the bar patrons were inconsistent and the defendant (client) ultimately pled to a trespass without probation or conviction. Get more detail on how the tampa criminal lawyers resolved this case.

The client (defendant) was arrested for domestic battery after he got into an altercation with his girlfriend. It started out as an argument over a $1,700.00 cell phone bill. At one point his girlfriend grabbed a knife and ran into the client's bedroom. HIs bedroom contained a safe that held 32 firearms. At some point during the argument the girlfriend believed our client might try to grab a gun out of the safe. She took a bottle of nail-polish remover and threw it in his eyes. The police report indicates that the defendant then pushed the victim to the ground. Tampa Police were called and our client was arrested for domestic battery. A short time later the girlfriend filed a Petition for a Domestic Violence Injunction with the Domestic Relations Court in Tampa. Even when a victim decides to recant her story and drop charges a Tampa Criminal Attorney is going to face obstacles before he/she will be able to bring about a dismissal of the battery charge. In short, a cooperative victim does not mean that your case will be dismissed. The state will go forward on a case whether the victim wants to or not if they feel that they can prove the defendant's guilt. In order to bring about a dismissal of a charge in this situation the prosecutor must be convinced that pursuing the charge is pointless because the case would be very difficult to win. Here, we contacted the prosecutor and made him aware of the circumstances that supported our client's self-defense argument, and we also filed our own waiver of prosecution (not the form waiver handed out by victim's assistance) with the Court. The State eventually dropped the charge. The Domestic Violence Injunction was dismissed by the Domestic Relations Court after a hearing revealed that our client did not intentionally strike the victim.

The client and his girlfriend began arguing over his employment problems. The girlfriend through a phone across the room and broke a window when she found out our client was lying to her. She attempted to lock him out of the house, but he came back in through a window. When he got inside he grabbed her by the hair and dragged her through some glass. Violent arguments continued to occur for days before the Tampa police were called. When the Tampa Poilce arrived they photographed a number of bruises over the victim's body. The client initially handled this case on his own and attempted to complete an intervention program. He was removed from the program and the Court put a warrant out for his arrest. In this case the tampa criminal attorneys removed the warrant before taking the necessary steps to DISMISS the domestic violence charge.

Our client got involved in an argument with his girlfriend, and pushed her into a wall. After the client elbowed her in the chest the victim punched our client in the face. The victim eventually called 911, and the police arrived on scene. The victim had numerous contusions and abrasions on her body fromt he incident. Get more detailed information on how the tampa criminal defense attorneys forced a DISMISSAL of this case.

FACTS: The client was 17 years of age. He was arrested for selling marijuana in school and possession of alcohol by a minor on separate occasions. As a highschool student the client was excelling. He was enrolled in an honors program, and set to attend a prestigious engineering college on an acedemic scholarship. Unfortunately, his mother decided to allow him to move in with his father a few months before his graduation. The juvenile began to associate with the wrong kids at school and eventually ended up with these charges. For a more detailed account of how the tampa criminal attorneys entered these cases into an intervention program; which should ultimately dismiss the charges.

FACTS: This case is a common example of a petitioner abusing the Domestic Relations Court in an effort to retaliate against the respondent. This particular injunction was filed by our client's former girlfriend in an effort to destroy his career at a company that employed them both. Find out more information on how the tampa criminal lawyer defended these allegations and brought about a voluntary DISMISSAL OF THE INJUNCTION.

The accident report privilege springs from every driver's statutory duty to answer questions posed to him/her by law enforcement when they have been involved in an accident. When someone is involved in an accident and law enforcement suspects them of being intoxicated it presents a special problem. The duty to report compels the DUI driver to answer all the officer's questions about the accident, but in the process the answers to those questions could lead to very incriminating statements about a potential criminal charge of DUI. Every person suspected of committing a crime also has a right to be notified of their fifth amendment rights (usually before a "custodial interrogation" or a formal arrest) prior to law enforcement questioning them about the alleged criminal conduct. To address the problem of compelling possible incriminating statements from driver's involved in accidents that could flow from criminal conduct the Florida Legislature enacted the "Accident Report Privilege" (See Florida Statute 316.066(7)). The statute states that statements by a suspected driver to law enforcement during the accident phase of the officer's investigation are privileged and inadmissable against the driver in any trial civil, or criminal. The only exception to that rule involves statements made by the driver to the officer that do not violate the driver's privilege against self-incrimination (this exception can arise when the driver's statment qualifies as an "excited utterance"). In response to this statute law enforcement officers investigate an accident that could involve a criminal traffic charge in a different way. They initially ask questions of the driver during the "accident phase" of their investigation (like they would after any traffic accident). If they become suspicious during the accident phase of their investigation that the driver was involved in criminal conduct (DUI, vehicular manslaughter), they begin the "criminal phase" of their investigation.

The critical question for anyone suspected of being involved in any criminal traffic charge is when does the "accident phase" end, and the "criminal phase" begin. The answer to this question will determine which statements, made by the accused, are admissable. Florida Courts have debated the proper procedure to follow when notifying a driver involved in an accident that the investigation is changing from the accident phase to the criminal phase. For years many courts felt that the "changing of hats" method properly notified the suspected DUI driver involved in a crash that the officer was moving from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation. The "changing of hats" amounts to an officer notifying the driver that, "Mr. Smith, I am now changing from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation, will you answer my questions". The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the "changing of hats" is an insufficient approach to notify the suspected driver that he or she is no longer compelled to answer the officer's questions pursuant to Florida's duty to report statute. The Florida Supreme Court's position is simple. The focus should be on whether the driver's Fifth Amendment Rights were violated. The only way to adequately notify someone that their duty to report information regarding the accident is over, and they have a right to remain silent is by reading them their Miranda Rights. In their holding the Florida Supreme Court stated the following:

"We hold that the privilege granted by section 316.066 is not applicable in this case where Norstrom was not told that he had to respond to the questions asked by the officers and where Norstrom was given his Miranda rights. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court on this issue. Furthermore, we also disapprove its prior decision in West v. State, 553 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA1989). To clarify our decision, we emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.066 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is *441 now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted."

Some prosecutors read the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Norstrom v. State literally, and believe that Miranda is only required when the officer notifies the driver that he/she has a duty to report. The holding in the Norstrom case is clarified in the third district court of appeals decision in State v. Marshall. In a footnote the 3rd DCA gave a clearer meaning to the Florida Supreme Court's statement that a "changing of hats" must occur, and Miranda must be read when the officer proactively notifies the suspected driver that they must answer the investigating officer's questions. In their footnote the 3rd DCA stated the following,

"In so holding, the court pointed out that not only had Norstrom been given his Miranda rights, but also "Norstrom was not told that he had to respond to the questions asked by the officers...." 613 So.2d at 440. The court also stated: Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted.

Id. at 440-41. As we interpret it, the court is addressing the situation which would exist if, during the accident investigation phase, the investigating officer administered Miranda warnings but then at some point also told the reporting person that he or she was required to respond to questions concerning the investigation of the accident. Telling the reporting person that he or she must answer questions during the accident investigation would undo any earlier-administered Miranda warnings. It would be then necessary at the conclusion of the accident investigation to advise the reporting person that the criminal investigation was beginning and to administer new Miranda warnings."

The problem is that many prosecutors feel the only time that Miranda is necessary is when the officer proactively notifies the suspected driver that he or she must answer questions pursuant to the "duty to report" statute. However, the 3rd District Court of Appeals interpretation of the Norstrom holding in Marshall should be accepted by all courts in the State of Florida because the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Marshall opinion. This in effect makes Marshall, and the third district's interpretation of the holding in Norstrom the law in the State of Florida.

Link here for more information on what steps a tampa criminal attorney takes when assessing a DUI, and what stop issues might be present in your case.