Courtroom Victories

The following is a list of a few of the many cases defended by Attorney William Moore. For additional information regarding any of the following matters, please contact The Law Offices Of William Moore. Please note that in order to preserve the privacy of our clients, the actual names of all individuals have been omitted.

CASE NO. 99-010722MM10A - Case Dismissed.

CASE NO. 12-013777CF10A - Case Dismissed.

CASE NO. 98-012300CF10A - Case Dismissed.

CASE NO. 11-004587MM10A - Case Dismissed.

CASE NO. 10020304CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 10017027MM10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 10014807CF10A - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 07024740MM10A - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 0704XAV - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 8833XCM - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 1514XAZ - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 08006878TC10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 08002267MM40A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 07002126MM10A - Breakdown to Reckless Driving

CASE NO. 07010411MM10A - Ultimately Dismissed

CASE NO. 07006630MM10A - Prosecution Declined

CASE NO. 07006630MM10A - Charges Declined

CASE NO. 07005850CF10A - Charges Declined

CASE NO. 07026977CF10A - Charges Declined

CASE NO. 07008085MM10A - Certain charges dropped

CASE NO. 07012299CF10A - State declined prosecution

CASE NO. 07014931MM10A - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 07005560CF10A - Charges Dropped

CASE NO. 07021674MM10A - Charges Dismissed

CASE NO. 07001714MM10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 06004815TCA04 - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 06048196CF10A - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 0601743423MM10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 0625795MM10A - States Evidence

CASE NO. 6155XAE - Case Dismissed

Case No. 0961XAV - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 489798X - Charges Reduced

CASE NO. 06025087MM10A - Treatment in lieu of jail

CASE NO. 06002688MM10A - Charges Dismissed

CASE N0. 06022666CF10A - Felony counts dismissed

CASE NO. 06004396CF10A - All counts dismissed

CASE NO. 0607871MM10A -Dismissed

CASE NO. 06010823MM10A - Charges Dismissed

CASE NO. 06015912MM10A - Case Declined

CASE NO. 06024028MM10A - Minimum Jail Sentence Avoided

CASE NO. 06014805CF10A - Declined Prosecution

CASE NO. 92026090MM10A - The Charges Were Reduced

CASE NO. 06002574MM10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 0523805MM10B - Dismissal of all charges

CASE NO. 04022533MM10A - Charges broken down

CASE NO. 05023805MM10B - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 05016941CF10A - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 06010823MM10A - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 06CT037871AXX - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 06004136MM10A - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 06007871MM10A - Case Dismissed

CASE NO. 06004815TCA04 - Charges broken down

CASE NO. 06004815TCA04 - Driving while license suspended

CASE NO. 05016941CF10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 05015085MM10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 04022533MM10A - Charges broken down

CASE NO. CRC 0432128CFAES - Felony counts dismissed

CASE NO. 04025247MM10A - Charges reduced

CASE NO. 04019346MM10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 006504MM10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 05002246MM10A - Reduced

CASE NO. 0406666MM10A - Reduced

CASE NO. TT04000397LW397 - Reduced

CASE NO. 04011658MM10A - Reduced

CASE NO. 04021260MM10A - Reduced 

CASE NO. 04006600MM10A - Reduced

CASE NO. 05013678MM10A - Judgment of Acquittal

CASE NO. 05005397CF10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 05005396CF10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 02000636CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00014908CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00001721CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00009374CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. J.R. (Juvenile Record Sealed) - Dismissed

CASE NO. 01007392CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00009515CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00004222CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00001785CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 00003208CF10A - Not Guilty Verdict

CASE NO. 05008334MM10A - Judgment of acquittal

CASE NO. 03009081CF10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 0413359MM10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 05003216CF10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. 03000676CF10A - Dismissed

CASE NO. M.E.WPB 01 - Dismissed

CASE NO. 04019629MM10A - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

CASE NO. 04019441MM10A - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

CASE NO. 03020025CF10A - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

CASE NO. 01004448CF10A - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

Another Motion to Suppress Granted, Resulting in Dismissal of Aggravated DUI

CASE NO. 07-027313MM10A – CASE DISMISSED.

The client was observed traveling north on NW 3rd Avenue in Broward County, Florida with a “broken tail light.” A traffic stop was initiated whereby a BSO deputy smelled an odor of alcohol emitting from the vehicle. When asked for her driver’s license, our client responded by handing the deputy her bank card. The driver further stated that she was returning home from the hospital which was located as the same address listed as her home address on her driver’s license. Upon being asked to perform field sobriety exercises the driver stumbled out of her car. After a brief observation, it was determined that the driver would be unable to attempt any roadside exercises. After being taken to the DUI BAT unit the driver was asked to provide breath samples, the results of which were .280 and .288. Under Florida law this is over three and a half times the legal limit.

Defense Preparation:

Sworn testimony was obtained by the stopping and arresting officer in both deposition and at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles administrative hearing. Under oath, the sworn officer repeatedly stated that the only reason to effectuate the traffic stop of the client was due to the fact that she was driving with a “broken” tail lamp. When pressed to disclose whether broken meant shattered, non-illuminating, or cracked, the officer stated that he could not remember specifically the meaning of “broken” in this specific case. Upon further questioning it was learned that the stopping officer was only behind the driver’s car for eight seconds and did not observe any driving pattern that would be indicative of DUI. No further driving infractions were explained by the Broward Sheriff’s deputy that would otherwise give him justification in stopping the driver’s automobile.

Legal Argument:

Florida Statute, S316.221 regarding automobile tail lamps requires that each automobile traveling on public roadways shall have two operable tail lamps. Consequently, when a vehicle is manufactured to include three tail lamps, the failure of one renders the automobile “in compliance” with applicable law. In the Appellate decision of Doctor v. State, 596 So. 2d. 442, it was determined that the stop of an automobile was not justified on the basis that officers “reasonably suspected” that automobiles with cracked lens covers over one of its rear lights was in violation of the law in that officers are charged with the knowledge of law and a reasonable officer would have known that the automobile was in compliance. Additionally, it was held that police cannot stop a vehicle for malfunctioning equipment if the equipment is not required by statute, poses no safety hazard, or otherwise violates no law.

Motion to Suppress Based on Illegal Stop:

At the hearing on the Motion to Suppress for an illegal stop of the driver’s vehicle, it was alleged that all observations and any evidence obtained resulting from the illegal police activity should be suppressed. This included all observations and of course, the Intoxilyzer results that were so damaging. If the stop was found to be illegal, all evidence would have been suppressed, leaving the State with no case. Surprisingly, when questioned by the prosecutor, the stopping officer drastically changed his story and included new facts. Specifically, the officer in trying to overcome our Motion to Suppress alleged that the driving pattern of our client was indicative of someone being under the influence of alcohol. He stated that the driver swerved over lines, sped up and slowed down, and that the malfunctioning tail light was completely shattered and emanating a white light which interfered with a driver’s vision who might be traveling behind. Naturally, all of the statements by this law enforcement officer were impeached by his prior testimony stated above. In fact, the level to which this officer contradicted himself was astounding.

Ruling of the Court:

The Honorable Judge Kathy Ireland sitting in Broward County court found the officer’s testimony to be completely unreliable due to so many contradictions. Speaking directly to our client, she further stated that due to the extremely high blood alcohol level, she would prefer not to grant a motion to suppress due to the aggravating circumstances surrounding this DUI. Nonetheless, due to the law in effect, she had no choice but to rule in favor of the defense thus stripping the state attorney’s office of all evidence required to obtain a conviction. Given that the law is directly on point, it is unlikely that the state attorney’s office will attempt to file an appeal. It is anticipated that all charges will be dropped within the next two weeks.

Broward DUI attorneys know full well the power of suppressing State evidence. At the very least it weakens the prosecutor’s case and at best leads to an outright dismissal. For questions about this article, please contact the Fort Lauderdale Driving Under the Influence Defense Attorneys at the William Moore Criminal Defense Law Firm.

DUI Case Victories
Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 - Case Dismissed

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his automobile parked slanted and occupying two parking spaces in his residential development. State witnesses allege that they had seen the firm’s client operating the vehicle prior to the Police being called on the scene and was now passed out with the door open and a alcoholic beverage by his side. Upon making contact with the defendant, officers observed him to be incoherent, having a slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and in need of medical treatment. Paramedics were called to the scene. Upon fully investigating the claim and presenting witnesses, the defense established contradictory evidence that challenged the State’s eye witness testimony as to the events that occurred on the night of the defendant’s arrest.

Result

Confronted with contradictory testimony that the defendant had not been operating the vehicle of the night of his arrest, the Assigned Assistant State Attorney agreed to break the DUI charge down to a Reckless Driving charge, and the firm’s client was not convicted of DUI.

Case No.: 06-0048196CF10A - Case Dismissed

Co-Defendant charged in Felony Court maintained his innocence to the charges filed by the State Attorney’s Office and demanded a speedy trial when it became apparent that State witnesses would be unavailable to testify against him after over one year of litigation. Unable to proceed forward, the State dismissed all counts against the firm’s client when the Court refused to allow more time for the State to prepare.

Result

Dismissal of all felony counts.

Case No.: 04-022533MM10A - Broken down to Reckless Driving

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his pick-up truck at a green light with the doors locked and the engine running. Law enforcement officers surrounded the vehicle and ordered the firm’s client out of his car and proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation. Defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol prior to driving, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. Upon being read implied consent, Defendant agreed to submit to a breath test which showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08.

Maintaining his innocence, Defendant demanded a trial on the merits. Maintaining his innocence, a Trial was demanded on his behalf to which the State responded by breaking down the DUI to Reckless Driving, believing that they would not succeed in a conviction.

Result

Client not convicted of DUI.

Case No.: 05-023805MM10B - Dismissed

Upon arrest, Defendant was found to have possessed marijuana which was taken into evidence and tested by the BSO Crime Lab. The State Attorney’s Office voluntarily agreed to dismiss this Count resulting in a favorable resolution to our client.

Case No.: 05-016941CF10A - Case Dismissed

Defendant was observed operating a vehicle with one tail light inoperable, to which law enforcement pulled him over and conducted a criminal investigation. Upon researching all of the facts and circumstances, it was determined that the firm’s client was driving a car that had a standard three tail lamps, of which two were working properly and in compliance with the Statute.

As Florida law requires two operable tail lamps, the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop was suppressed from evidence and unable to be used by the State Attorney’s Office.

Result

With no evidence to proceed forward, the State Attorney’s Office voluntarily dismissed the charges against the firm’s client.

Case No.: 06-010823MM10A - Case Dismissed

Defendant was charged in Misdemeanor Court, despite the State being unable to prove the crime charged.

Result

Upon demanding a trial on the merits, the State Attorney’s Office was forced to dismiss the pending charges. Client not convicted.

Case No.: 06-CT037871AXX - Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested after being found behind the wheel of his automobile and unconscious submitting to a Breathalyzer Test, the firm’s client blew three times the legal limit and was charged with Aggravated DUI. Upon research of the new Intoxilyzer 8000, certain defects in the software rendered the reading unreliable.

Result

The State Attorney’s Office declined pursuing aggravated DUI above blood alcohol level, above .20.

Case No.: 06-004136MM10A – Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested by members of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office after making an illegal turn and almost crashing into a Deputy’s patrol car. The DUI investigation ensued, whereby it was alleged by law enforcement that Mr. Nava had red, watery eyes, a flushed face, and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his person. The defendant also admitted to having consumed alcohol, which was evidenced by several alcoholic beverage containers placed throughout his van. The defendant complied with limited roadside sobriety exercises and submitted to giving a breath test, the results of which were a .197 and .200—over two times the legal limit.

Defense Asserted

A Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the turn conducted by the Defendant was, in fact, legal and the officer’s explanation that he almost caused an automobile accident was in an effort to bolster justification for the unwarranted traffic stop. Additionally, as our client spoke limited English, a language barrier prevented him from fully understanding instructions given to him regarding roadside sobriety exercises. Finally, as the new Intoxilyzer 8000 Unit was used, the reliability of said tests were put into question, as was the availability of this evidence to the State should they fail to provide statewide and local breath technicians. Following the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson’s review of all testimony at hearing, an Order was entered suppressing all evidence following the illegal stop.

Result

With no evidence in which to proceed forward, the State dismissed all charges against our firm’s client.

Case No.: 06-007871MM10A - Case Dismissed

Defendant lost control of his vehicle, tore through some bushes and into several parked cars. Upon law enforcement officers making contact, they observed signs of impairment leading them to believe that our client was under the influence of controlled substances and alcohol. The arresting officer asked Defendant if he would submit to a blood test, which she agreed. Testing of said sample revealed the presence of high levels of Cocaine, Xanax, Hydrocodone and Oxycodone. The State Attorney’s Office filed formal charges against our client seeking a conviction on the evidence obtained on the night of his arrest.

The State Attorney assigned to prosecuting the matter offered a conviction for DUI and one year of probation in an effort to resolve this case. Our client refused, and a Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the blood evidence collected by investigators on the night of the arrest was obtained illegally and in violation of our client’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. After having a hearing on the Motion before the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson, the Court reserved ruling for over one month before finding in favor of our client. The inability to use the very damaging blood alcohol evidence against our client rendered the State unable to proceed with DUI charges, which was ultimately formally dismissed.

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 – DUI Charge Broken Down To Reckless Driving

The State Attorney assigned to this case agreed to break the charge down to Reckless Driving after the defense presented witnesses that were willing to testify that our client was not driving the automobile that he was discovered behind the wheel of while its engine was running.
Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 - Driving While License Suspended Charge Dismissed

Prior to having his case resolved, our client was charged with driving an automobile on a dui suspension. The State Prosecutor agreed to dismiss all counts in addition to breaking the initial dui charge down to reckless driving.

Case No.: 05-016941CF10A – Dismissed State’s Evidence Suppressed
Presiding Judge Honorable Judge Lebow

During Deposition of the Law Enforcement Officer who initially stopped our client’s vehicle, it was learned that the basis for the stop was a burned out tail lamp. Under Florida Law a vehicle must be equipped with at least two (2) operable tail lamps. As the vehicle driven in this matter was equipped with three (3) tail lamps, it was compliance with Florida traffic statues. A Motion to Suppress was filed and heard whereby William Moore argued that since the vehicle in question was in compliance, the Law Enforcement Officer had violated the Defendant’s Constitutional Rights in pulling him over without a valid reason. The Honorable Judge Lebow after reviewing all evidence presented by the State, Ordered that the Officer’s stop of the vehicle was without probable cause and in violation of the Defendant’s Constitutional Rights. Consequently, all evidence was ordered suppressed leaving the State with no evidence to proceed forward.
The State subsequently filed a notice of appeal, which was later withdrawn.
The State voluntarily dismissed all charges against the defendant.

Case No.: 05-015085MM10A – Charges Voluntarily Dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney

Unable to produce witnesses necessary to prove their case in chief, the assigned attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges against our client.

Case No.: 04-022533MM10A – Broken Down to Reckless Driving

Our client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his automobile by law enforcement officers. Upon making contact officers observed bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. Upon being arrested the Intoxilzer 5000 was administered where our client blew above a .08 (legal limit).
After almost two (2) years the assigned Prosecutor agreed to break the charge of DUI down to Reckless Driving upon being unable to produce the breath technician who administered the breath test at an adjudicatory hearing.

Case No.: CRC 0432128CFAES – Felony Counts Dismissed

Firm’s client standing on his innocence refused to accept the plea offer conveyed by the State and demanded a Trial by Jury. When presented with compelling evidence of the Defendant’s innocence, the State Attorney voluntary dismissed both Felony counts in exchange for a plea to a single Misdemeanor count.

Case No. 04025247mm10a – Broken Down to Reckless Driving

Client was pulled over after being observed swerving across lanes and driving with his high-beams on. Upon making contact, officers detected an odor of alcohol on the client’s breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. The patrol car video depicted the client swaying from side to side and falling on to the ground in attempting roadside sobriety exercises.
Upon an investigation of the case, William Moore learned that one of the officers participating in the DUI investigation had previously been untruthful in his reporting of an incident involving another officer. Mr. Moore additionally, alleged in a motion to suppress that the stopping officer’s reason for “pulling over” his client’s car was illegal.
Before the conclusion of the motion, the state prosecutor agreed to break the case down from DUI to Reckless Driving.

Case No. 04019346mm10a - Dismissed and Notice of Appeal Withdrawn by State Attorney’s Office

After a thorough investigation all facts and circumstances a motion was filed alleging that the stop and detention of the firm’s client just prior to his arrest for DUI was without probable cause and otherwise illegal. After the State’s failure to produce any Law Enforcement Officers involved the arrest for hearing on the motion on three (3) separate occasions the Court granted said motion without hearing any evidence. The State filed a notice of appeal which was later withdrawn. With no evidence whatsoever to seek a conviction the State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

Case No. 006504mm10a - Dismissed

Despite the firm’s client having crashed into a guard rail on interstate I595 in front of an off duty police officer at 4:00 a.m. William Moore filed an appropriate Motion to Suppress Any and all evidence alleging that the eye witness testimony afforded by Law Enforcement was not creditable. After presenting photographic evidence of damage to the vehicle which conflicted with that of the officer’s testimony the Court suppressed all evidence rendering the State unable to proceed. As a result the State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

Case No.05002246mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving

Upon learning that the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test client’s blood alcohol was taken out of service shortly after being used on the night of his arrest, in addition to a perceived lack of evidence on the State’s part, a trial by jury was demanded when the prosecuting attorney refused to make an offer that was acceptable. Just prior to the potential jury being brought in for selection, the State Attorney voluntarily agreed to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. 0406666mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving

DUI Check Point Case. Upon the failure of the State to break down the charges filed against the firm’s client, the offer of the lowest permissible sentence (for the offence of DUI) was rejected and a trial by Jury was demanded. Faced with having to present their case in chief to a Jury, the assigned prosecutor broke down the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. tt04000397lw397 - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was stopped by officers after they observed him run a red light in response to a car behind him aggressively motioning for him to advance at a quicker speed. Upon making contact with the individual officers detected an odor of alcohol on the client’s breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech
An appropriate motion to suppress was filed seeking to exclude any observations of impairment alleged by officers in addition to all statements made. Being unable to defend the motion on the date of the schedule hearing and denied additional time to prepare by the presiding judge, the case was voluntarily broken down from the charge of DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. 04-011658mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was found by officers asleep in his vehicle with a bottle of liquor by his side in a mall parking lot. Upon officers making contact with him, the client claimed that he was a law enforcement officer and became argumentative with police.
Upon investigating the case, it was determined that a motion to suppress the stop, detention and arrest of the firm’s client was appropriate and requested that any observations or statements be excluded from State’s evidence. The prosecuting attorney believing that he would be unsuccessful in eventually obtaining a conviction in the matter, agreed to break down the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. 04-021260mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving

After a thorough case review it was determined that the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was without probable cause and an appropriate motion to Suppress was filed seeking the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained from the illegal police activity. When faced with defending said Motion to Suppress, the assigned State Attorney office broke the charge down from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No.04006600mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was unable to accept the State’s offer of 90 days in Jail when faced with his fourth DUI charge. In an effort to reduce the State Attorney’s overwhelming amount of evidence, an appropriate Motion to Suppress (the stop of the vehicle, the roadside sobriety exercises as well as the officer’s observations following the stop,) was filed. Being caught off guard and unable to defend this motion the State Attorney offered to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving without any jail time.

Case No. 05-013678mm10a- Judgment of Acquittal

Following the State’s refusal to dismiss the charges against the firm’s client, a trial by Judge was demanded. After the presentation of the prosecuting attorney’s case in chief, appropriate ore tenus motion was submitted, alleging that the state had failed entirely to prove even a prima facia case. The court agreed with said motion and entered a judgment of acquittal in our client’s favor.

Case No. 05005397cf10a - Dismissed

The Prosecuting Attorney failed to break down client’s case or convey a reasonable offer. William Moore, subsequently filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence alleging that the stop and detention of the firm’s client was illegal due to the fact that law enforcement officers, through an overwhelming show of force, stopped and detained him without probable cause.
Mr. Moore’s motion was granted and all evidence obtained from said illegal stop was suppressed. Having no evidence whereby the State could in good faith seek a conviction the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the case.

Case No. 05005396cf10a - Dismissed

After the prosecuting attorney failed to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea to the firm’s client, William Moore filed a motion to suppress all evidence. The motion alleged that all evidence obtained by law enforcement was the result of an illegal stop and detention to which the court agreed. Having no evidence available to them whereby she could in good faith seek a conviction, the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges.

Case No. 02000636cf10a - Not Guilty

In response to the prosecuting attorney failing to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea other than incarceration, William Moore demanded a Trial by Jury on the merits of the case.
During the presentation of the prosecutor’s case, William Moore successfully moved to exclude testimony identifying the defendant, alleging that the prosecutor in the case had acted improperly in preparing his witnesses to testify against his client. With a lack of any credible identification witnesses, after short deliberations, the jury returned a “Not Guilty” verdict.

Case No. 0014908cf10a - Not Guilty

William Moore demanded a Jury Trial after the prosecuting attorney refused to break down or dismiss the charges against his client which carried a sentence punishable by “life in prison”. During the presentation of the prosecutors case in chief, William Moore, successfully objected to damaging facts being brought into evidence.
After the presentation of the prosecutors case in chief, William Moore presented evidence in defense of his client and ultimately convinced the jury to hand down a “Not Guilty” verdict and acquit his client of the crime charged.

Case No. 001721cf10a - Not Guilty

The firm’s client, standing on his plea of not guilty, felt it was his best interest to proceed to trial on the merits of his case. At the close of all evidence presented in his defense, by William Moore, the Jury returned with a verdict of “Not Guilty”.

Case No. 009374cf10a - Not Guilty

In response to the State Attorney’s failure to convey a plea offer that was acceptable to the defendant, William Moore demanded a trial by Jury, excluded evidence presented by the State, and presented evidence in defense of his client. After a short deliberation the Jury returned with “Not Guilty” verdict on all counts.

Case No. J.R. (Juvenile Record Sealed) - Dismissed

Upon failed negations with the State Attorney’s Office whereby no break down or plea offer which was acceptable to the firms client was conveyed a request for trial by Judge was entered. Prior to the State’s proceeding with their case William Moore made several motion alleging that the State’s proceeding with thee limited evidence in which they had was both unethical and illegal. In response and prior to the Judge’s ruling the State voluntarily dismissed as charges.

Case No. 007392cf10a - Not guilty

Client standing on his innocence and unable to accept the offer of incarceration by the State requested that William Moore proceed to trial on the merits of his case. At the close of all evidence presented by William Moore, in his defense, the jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts

Case No. 00009515cf10a - Not guilty

Rejecting the offer from the prosecuting attorney of incarceration, the client, at the advice of William Moore, proceeded to trial on the merits of his case. After the close of all evidence presented by William Moore in his defense the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

Case No. 00004222cf10a - Not Guilty

At the advice of counsel and due to the fact that the client had no prior criminal history, William Moore demanded a trial by jury. After successfully suppressing certain evidence offered by the State Attorney during trial and following the presentation of defense evidence by Mr. Moore, the jury found the defendant not guilty of the crime charged and instead settled on the far less serious “lesser included” offense.

Case No. 00001785cf10a - Not guilty

Rejecting the State’s offer of incarceration and at the advice of counsel the client proceeded to trial by jury on the merits of his case. Upon successfully suppressing certain State evidence introduced at trial and upon conclusion of all defense evidence presented by William Moore the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

Case No. 00003208cf10a - Not Guilty

At the advice of counsel, the client rejected a plea offer of incarceration offered by the prosecuting attorney. William Moore demanded a trial by jury, successfully excluded certain State’s evidence during trial and presented evidence in defense of his client. After a short deliberation the jury returned with a not guilty verdict.

Case No. 05008334mm10a - Judgment of Acquittal

Standing on her innocence and at the advice of William Moore, the firm’s client proceeded to have a trial by Judge. At the conclusion of the State’s case, William Moore made and appropriate motion alleging that the prosecuting attorney had failed to meet its burden in proving the case, and that the court should, as a matter of law, direct a verdict acquitting the defendant. The Court agreed with defense counsel and entered an appropriate judgment of acquittal.

Case No. 03009081cf10a - Dismissed

Despite the State Attorney having overwhelming evidence, William Moore, through investigation, determined that the State lacked necessary witnesses in proving its case and filed an appropriate demand for speedy trial.
Finding themselves caught off guard, the state prosecutor agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the charges against William Moore’s client.

CASE NO. 99-010722MM10A – CASE DISMISSED.

  • Prosecution dismisses case rather than go to trial

CASE NO. 12-013777CF10A – CASE DISMISSED.

  • Voluntary dismissal by the State Attorneys Office

CASE NO. 98-012300CF10A - CASE DISMISSED.

  • State Attorney dismisses charges

CASE NO. 11-004587MM10A – CASE DISMISSED.

  • State Attorney refuses prosecution

CASE NO. 10-020304CF10A – Not Guilty.


CASE NO. 10-017027MM10A – Not Guilty for repeat offender.

  • Client went to trial on a 2nd DUI; defendant won trial; case dismissed.

CASE NO. 10-014807CF10A – CHARGES REDUCED.

  • Client had a felony Dui; attorney asked for special set trial; charges reduced to a Misdemeanor.

CASE NO. 07-024740MM10A – CHARGES REDUCED.

  • Client was a former police officer charged with DUI. Client took the Intoxilyzer which gave a reading above .08 and charges were subsequently filed. Defendant demanded a trial on the merits, but the State, believing they would be unable to secure a conviction agreed to break down the DUI to a reckless driving charge.

CASE NO. 0704XAV – CHARGES REDUCED.

  • After demanding a trial on the merits in this DUI, feeling that they would be unable to secure a conviction, the State Attorney’s office agreed to break-down the DUI charge to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 8833XCM – CHARGES REDUCED.

  • Client was involved in a car accident without injuries. Police noticed signs of impairment by way of flushed face, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol emanating from defendant’s breath. After announcing ready for trial, Attorney Moore proffered to the court and state attorney that there was some issue as to whether or not the State could prove the client was actually the one in physical control of the vehicle at the time of impact.

RESULT

  • The Assistant State Attorney consequently agreed to breakdown the DUI to a reckless driving charge.

CASE NO. 1514XAZ – CHARGES REDUCED.

RESULT

  • Charges were reduced to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 08-006878TC10A – NOT GUILTY

  • The firm’s client was charged with driving while license suspended resulting from a previous DUI suspension or refusing to submit to an intoxilyzer. DUI charges were pending when an officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle for a traffic infraction and found that he had sustained a suspension. The state attorney’s office had offered a plea of 30 days in the Broward County jail which was promptly rejected.

RESULT

  • A trial on the merits of the case was demanded A trial on the merits of the case was demanded upon our realization that the charging document filed by the state was, in fact, faulty. Upon the resting of the state’s case, these issues were brought to the attention to the judge who promptly rendered a ruling in favor of our client.

CASE NO.: 08-002267MM40A - NOT GUILTY

  • Our client was charged with a misdemeanor. This client was a police officer who was forced to resign after the allegations were brought by local law enforcement and the state attorneys’ office. An issue that made this case so threatening to our client was the fact that a conviction would result in a denial of his pension. Furthermore, any certification to obtain employment as a law enforcement officer would be revoked.

RESULT

  • Taking an aggressive stance in this matter, the defense pushed forward for trial catching the state attorney off guard and unprepared. Being forced to go forward with very little to no evidence, the state attorney’s office went forward. A not guilty verdict was obtained.

CASE NO.: 07-002126MM10A – Breakdown to Reckless Driving

  • Client was pulled over for traveling 95 MPH in a posted 45 MPH zone. Upon making contact an officer from the Florida Highway Patrol noticed an open container (rum and coke) in the cupholder of client’s automobile. When asked to perform roadside exercises, signs of impairment were detected by the officer during the following exercises: HGN, walk & turn test, one leg stand and finger to nose. Client was brought to the breath alcohol testing facility where he refused to provide a breath sample. Client can audibly be heard on the videotape stumbling over his words explaining that he was not going to further participate in any exercises or tests designed to help the state determine impairment. 

RESULT

  • Client suffers from a condition that causes him to stutter which may have otherwise led the law enforcement officer to believe he was impaired by alcohol due to speech challenges. The admissibility of his refusal to submit to chemical testing was also challenged via a Motion to Suppress which was to be heard on the day of trial. Believing that the State would be unable to secure a conviction in this matter, a breakdown to reckless driving was offered and accepted by our client.

CASE NO.: 07-010411MM10A – Ultimately Dismissed


CASE NO.: 07-006630MM10A – Prosecution Declined

  • After a thorough review of the case, the State Attorney declined prosecution on the DUI.

CASE NO.: 07-006630MM10A – Charges not filed

  • The State Attorney’s office, believing that they did not have enough evidence with which to pursue a conviction, declined pursuing charges against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO.: 07-005850CF10A – Charges not filed

  • After reviewing evidence available to them, and believing that they would be unable to obtain a conviction, the State Attorney’s office declined pursuing charges against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO.: 07-026977CF10A – Case declined

  • The State Attorney’s office declined to pursue charges against the Firm’s client upon a review of all evidence and investigative reports believing that a conviction could not be obtained.

CASE NO.: 07-008085MM10A - Certain charges dropped

  • Client was driving his vehicle westbound on Oakland Park Boulevard, where he crossed a break in the median and crashed into four automobiles parked along the front row of a business parking lot. City lighting, hedges and yellow billboard poles were also damaged as a result of the crash. Immediately following the accident the client fled on foot from police officers called to the scene. Upon being apprehended, law enforcement officers detected an odor of alcohol, observed the client with red, glassy eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech.

RESULT

  • After communication with the State Attorney’s office, the assigned State prosecutor declined prosecuting the firm’s client for fleeing the scene and running from police officers. The DUI is still pending.

CASE NO.: 07-012299CF10A – State declined prosecution

  • The Firm’s client charged with a 3rd degree felony following being pulled over for careless driving while traveling southbound on Interstate 95. Upon searching suspect’s automobile after obtaining consent, a firearm was found in the glove compartment of the vehicle. Client was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm and careless driving.
  • Under Florida law a person may carry a firearm in a secured compartment, legally, even if that individual does not hold a concealed firearm’s permit. A concealed compartment can be a glove compartment or even a bag which is not affixed to the automobile.

RESULT

  • Upon contacting the State Attorney’s Office and making a legal argument prior to filing, the assigned Assistant State Attorney declined prosecution in both the careless driving and carrying a concealed firearm charges and released the firearm to the Defendant. Additionally, the State Attorney’s office agreed to refrain from seeking criminal charges under the careless driving statute.

CASE NO. 07-014931MM10A – Case dismissed

  • Client rejected all offers made by the State and demanded a jury trial on the merits of the case. Upon realizing that the State Attorney was unlikely to obtain a conviction in the matter, all charges were dropped.

CASE NO. 07-005560CF10A – Charges dropped

  • Our client was arrested for possession of oxycontin, oxycodone, xanax, crack cocaine, DUI, possession of drug paraphernalia and carrying a concealed weapon.

RESULT

  • Following an investigation of the case by our law firm, the State voluntarily dismissed all charges with the exception of the possession of drug paraphernalia.

CASE NO. 07-021674MM10A

  • Client charged with driving under the influence – Charges dismissed.

RESULT

  • After thoroughly investigating the case and preparing all necessary defenses, the State Attorney’s office voluntarily dismissed the DUI charge against our client.

CASE NO. 07-001714MM10A

  • Client retained our law firm after being charged with driving under the influence. The state’s case was very strong in that defendant was pulled over at 4:00 in the morning traveling at a high rate of speed on A1A away from the direction of his home. Allegations also included that the defendant could not maintain a single lane and swerved across two lanes of traffic. Upon being pulled over, our client threw his keys in an effort to hide them and consistently said on DUI investigation video that he had not been operating the vehicle. When pushed further by the responding DUI investigator, defendant admitted he had been driving, he was the only person on the scene, and it was his automobile that had been stopped by a previous officer. Defendant slurred as he spoke and swayed from side to side. Despite the list of damaging facts against our client, he proceeded to trial due to the fact that a conviction for DUI would cause him to lose his job and give up his career selling pharmaceutical supplies nationwide.

Strategy – in any case involving such horrible facts against the defense, it is imperative that a jury be selected that may be able to sympathize with the defendant and refrain from rendering a guilty verdict. These juries often apply the true letter of the law holding the state attorney’s office to their extremely high burden of proving the case beyond and to the exclusion of any and all reasonable doubt.

RESULT

  • At the close of several hours of jury selection, the presiding judge commented that our firm had done an excellent job in choosing defense oriented tryors of fact to sit in judgment. The presiding judge also stated off the record that the state attorney’s office may want to consider breaking down the charge. The suggestion was refused. At the close of all evidence, closing argument was made by William Moore explaining that defendant’s long history of knowing law enforcement officers had led him to believe that he could not trust police officers who conducted DUI investigations and that he had erroneously relied on advise of police officers not related to this investigation who had told him never to admit operating a motor vehicle on film. After deliberating for two hours, a unanimous verdict of not guilty was rendered.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 - Case Dismissed

  • Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his automobile which was parked slanted and occupying two parking spaces in his residential development. Prior to the police being called on the scene, State witnesses allege that they had seen the Firm’s client operating the vehicle, and that he had passed out with the door open and an alcoholic beverage by his side. Upon making contact with the Defendant, officers observed him to be incoherent, having slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and in need of medical treatment. Paramedics were called to the scene.

RESULT

  • Upon fully investigating the claim and presenting witnesses, the defense established inconsistent evidence that challenged the State���s eyewitness testimony as to the events that occurred on the night of Defendant’s arrest. Confronted with contradictory testimony that Defendant had not been operating the vehicle on the night of his arrest, the Assistant State Attorney agreed to breakdown the DUI charge to reckless driving, and the Firm’s client was not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO.: 06-0048196CF10A - Case Dismissed

  • Co-Defendant charged in Felony Court maintained his innocence to the charges filed by the State Attorney’s Office, and demanded a speedy trial when it became apparent that State witnesses would be unavailable to testify against him after over one year of litigation. Unable to proceed, the State dismissed all counts against the Firm’s client when the Court refused to allow more time for the State to prepare.

RESULT

  • Dismissal of all felony counts.

CASE NO. 06-01743423MM10A – Not Guilty

  • Client was stopped driving 55 in a 35 mph speed zone; officer observed the following signs of impairment – flushed face, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol. During roadside sobriety exercises, client failed to touch heel to toe, used arms for balance and swayed off of the line several times. On finger to nose test, client touched mouth and missed nose on two occasions. On one-leg stand, client used arms for balance and only raised foot two inches off the ground. Client refused to provide a breath sample when requested to do so.
  • At trial Defendant testified that she had consumed an alcoholic beverage, however, was not impaired at the time of the stop. Client also admitted to lying to law enforcement officers at the time of arrest, stating that she had not been drinking. Client stated in court that she did not take the Intoxilyzer as she believed that police officers were trying to mount a case against her and she did not trust breath testing machines based on what she had been told and articles that she had read in the past.

RESULT

  • After a short deliberation, jurors returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

CASE NO. 06-25795MM10A – States Evidence

  • Client was observed failing to maintain a single lane, weaving across marked roadway lanes. DUI video of the Firm’s client on the night of his arrest showed clear evidence of intoxication in the form of slurred speech, inability to answer questions or perform roadside sobriety exercises. Due to the client residing out of state, a request was made to have this matter special set for trial before a jury, as opposed to being placed on standby.

RESULT

  • On the day of trial the State Attorney’s Office amended the charge from DUI to reckless driving based on the belief they could not succeed in obtaining a conviction with the evidence available to them. Client was not convicted of DUI.

Facts The defendant was involved in a one car accident crashing into a tree and a street sign. His car was totaled. There was an officer in the area that heard the crash but did not observe the crash. When she arrived on scene, the defendant was still behind the wheel of the vehicle. When she made contact with the defendant, she observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant also exhibited mood swings. Due to the defendant's injuries, rescue was requested and responded to the scene. The defendant was arrested for DUI and was asked to submit to a blood draw. The defendant refused a blood draw and was transported to the hospital. At the hospital the defendant made racial slurs to the officer and other patients. After being treated at the hospital, the defendant was transported to the BAT facility. The defendant then became combative with the officer resisting their efforts to transport him.

Result We took the deposition of the first officer that arrived on scene. During the deposition, she was reading from her police report. In questioning her further, she testified that she did not remember the defendant or the incident. After providing her with all of her paperwork she filled out that evening, she still did not remember the incident. If a witness does not have sufficient recollection about an incident to testify independently of a police report, they can be excluded as a witness. We presented this evidence to the state. At this point, the state did not have a witness to testify that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle. As such, the state dropped the DUI charge.

Facts The defendant was stopped for traveling 20 in a 45 mph zone, making a wide right turn, and swerving out of his lane 4 times while traveling down the road. After the officer activated his lights, the defendant continued to travel an additional 7 blocks before coming to a stop. The officer noticed the odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also unsteady while exiting his vehicle and had difficulty removing his license from his wallet. The defendant agreed to the roadside exercises and performed poorly, On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe, stepped off the line. raised his arms for balance, and turned incorrectly. On the finger to nose, the defendant did not return his arms to his side and missed his finger to nose on all 6 attempts. He was arrested and agreed to a breath test with a result of .107.

Result We took depositions and prepared for trial. The video of the defendant did not depict the observations that the officer was prepared to testify to in Court. There was also a strong argument that the breat test results did not reflect the defendant's breath level at the time of driving. In discussions with the state on the morning of trial, the state dropped the DUI charge.

Facts The defendant was stopped for exiting a shopping plaza through a designated entrance only. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy bloodhot eyes. The officer notified him he was conducting a DUI investigation and the defendant agreed to roadside exercises. During the roadside exercises, it was raining. On the one leg stand, the defendant hopped, put his foot down numerous times, and raised his arms for balance. During the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line and missed heel to toe. He was arrested for DUI and agreed to a breath test with a result of .156.

Result We filed a Motion to Suppress the Stop, a Motion to Suppress the Breath Test, and a Motion to Suppress the Roadside Exercises. In the Motion to Suppress the Stop, we presented a photo of road the defendant exited the plaza. The photo showed two "do not enter" signs. The first sign was completely covered by trees and the second sign was partially covered by a tree. There is a Florida statute that requires signs on the road to be visible and properly placed, if not, the sign cannot be enforced. The Judge found that the sign was not visible and granted the Motion to Suppress thereby throwing the case out. The defendant is a member of the US Armed Services and a current medical student.

Facts The defendant was stopped for making a wide right turn, speeding, and driving down the middle of a two lane road. Once the officer came into contact with the defendant, he alleged an odor of alcohol and slurred speach. After speaking with the defendant, he requested that she perform the roadside exercises to which she agreed. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down immediately, hopped, and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn, she fell off the line, tripped over her feet on 3 occassions, and took 12 steps instead of 9. She was arrested. The officer found, cannabis, a smoking pipe, Soma, Oxycodone, and Hydrocodone inside her vehicle. She refused to provide a breath or urine test.

Result Prior to trial, we filed a motion in liminie to exclude all of the drugs from evidence at the trial. The Judge granted the motion and we proceed to select a jury. After the jury selection, the state approached us with a plea to reckless driving. After discussing the plea, the defendant accepted the reckless driving plea.

Facts The defendant was stopped for spinning his tires while exiting a business and traveling 80 mph in a 45 mph zone. Upon making contact with the driver, the officer noticed odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The dedendant agreed to perform the roadside exercises but performed poorly. On the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, made an improper turn, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, swayed, and used his arms for balance. The defenadnt was arrested and he agreed to a breath test with a result of .120.

Result The defendant called the firm after years had passed since his arrest. We had the warrant withdrawn and investigated the case. Our investigation revealed that a witness was no longer employed by the department however the state still presisted with the case even after this discovery. We pointed out to the state that a stop for spinning tires is illegal. They countered by saying he was traveling in excess of 80 mph. However, the police actived their lights prior to discovering he was traveling at 80 mph. The State dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant was found sleeping in his carat a traffic light. When the police attempted to wake him, he stepped on the gas and attempted to flee the scene. The police were able to reach in the car and remove the keys. Upon exiting the car, the police noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, glossy eyes, and dried blood on the defendant's face. The defendant was offered the roadside exercises and refused. He was placed under arrest for DUI and refused a breath test.

Result The defendant had been awake for over 24 hours. He got info a fight with a relative and was attempting to drive home. He fell asleep on the way home. The blood on the defendant was a result of the fight with his relative. We presented this information to the prosecutor. Furthermore, on video back at the station, the defendant walks and stands fine. He speaks fine is able to answer all questions from law enforcement. We advised the prosecution we were ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the state dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant cut off an emergency vehicle, a police car. The police tried to pull him over but he passed several safe points at which he could stop. When police finally contacted the defendant, they noticed an order of alcohol and slurred speech. Upon looking in the van, police saw a open container of Coors beer. The defendant was asked to exit the car and swayed from side to side and was unsteady on his feet. He was asked to perform roadside exercises and agreed. He first performed the HGN; he swayed and lost his balance during the exercise. He attempted the walk and turn, he was very unsteady and kept losing his balance. The defendant advised he could not do that exercise. On the one leg stand, he kept losing his balance and could not keep his foot off the ground for more than 2 seconds. He was placed under arrest for Felony DUI and refused to submit to a breath test. The police also found cannabis and a smoking pipe on the defendant's person.

Result The State alleged that this was the defendant's 5th DUI arrest and he was charged with a felony. We filed a motion to Dismiss the felony charge, a Motion to Suppress the Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test, and Motion to Suppress the cannabis and pipe due to an illegal search and seizure. The State conceded the Motion to Dismiss and offered the defendant a plea that did not include any jail time. The defendant accepted the plea and did not serve any jail.

Facts The defendant was involved in a two car accident where he alledgely made a right turn and struck another vehicle. When the police arrived, the defendant was sitting behind the wheel of his vehicle. Police said the defendant appeared to be impaired when they contacted him at the scene. The defendant complained of neck pain and was transported to the hospital. While at the hospital, the defendant was again contacted by law enforcement. The police noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy and bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech coming from the defendant. The defendant was being extremely combative, violent, and belligerent with hospital staff. A blood sample was requested and the defendant complied. The result was .270.

Result We filed a Motion to Suppress the Blood Draw alledging it was taken contrary to Florida Law. At the hearing the police testified consistent with the facts of the case listed above however they told our client that he was under arrest prior to asking for a blood sample when in fact he was not. The Judge did not rule on the motion but requested additional law on the subject. In the meantime, we had discussions with the prosecutor and the State agreed to drop the DUI charge.

Facts The defendant was stopped for speeding 84 mph in a 45 mph zone. The officer also alleged that the defendant was weaving and crossed over the white solid line on several occassions. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and a red face. The defendant dropped his license twice while attempting to hand it to the officer. The defendant exited his truck and swayed while standing. He agreed to perform roadside exercises. On the finger to nose, he missed his nose on all six attempts touching his upper lip 5 times. On the one leg stand, he placed his foot down two times during the exercise. On the walk and turn, he could not keep his balance while listening to instructions, used his arms for balance, lost his balance while walking, and turned improperly. He was arrested for Felony DUI and was asked to take a breath test. He refused.

Result The defendant's video looked much better than the police officer described his performance on the roadsides. This was the defendant's 5th DUI arrest. The State's inital plea offer contained substantial jail time. We requested a copy of the defendant's prior convictions. When the state was unable to provide all of the defendant's convictions, they were much more willing to make a deal. We requested the case be set for trial. Prior to trial, the state made a plea offer that did not include any jail time. The defendant accepted the offer to probation with NO jail time.

Facts The defenadnt was stopped by police for driving on I95 and constantly speeding up and slowing down. The police alleged he did this approximately four times, as well as weaving out of his lane on three occassions. When the defendant came into contact with police, they noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. When asked to exit the car, the defendant leaned on the door for support and staggered to the rear of his vehicle. As he stood, he swayed from side to side. He was offered roadside exercises and refused. He was arrested and asked to give a breath test. He refused that as well.

Result At Jury Trial, the police testified consistance with the facts above. On cross examination, we caught the officer in at least four inconsistancies with his testimony. He was also impeached with his police report three times. When the prosecutor played the video from the police station, the defendant was not swaying as alleged by the police. However, at times on the video, the defendant's speech was slurred. After discrediting the officer, the jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

Facts The defendant was stopped for making an illegal u-turn in the middle of the road. The defendant was followed by a police officer until he pulled into a plaza. The officer activated his lights and the defendant continued to drive. He drove past two other patrol cars in the parking lot with their lights activated. The defendant was finally forced to stop by the police. Upon contacting the defendant, police noticed a strong odor of alcohol, watery, glassy eyes, his coordination and listening skill were poor. When he exited the vehicle, he swayed while walking and standing. He was asked to do the roadside exercises and agreed. On the walk and turn, he used his arms for balance, stepped off the line, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, used his arms for balance, and swayed. On the finger to nose, he missed his nose on all six attempts. He was arrested for DUI and provided a breath sample of .069.

Result We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the defendant's vehicle arguing that is was unlawful. Prior to the motion hearing, we had discussions with the prosecutor about changing the charge. At first, the would only offer a reckless driving with full DUI penalties. We rejected that offer. The day prior to the motion, the state agreed to drop the charge to reckless driving and require that the defendant only pay court costs.

Facts The defendant was involved in an automobile accident where he struck another vehicle from behind. When the police arrived to investigate, they notice the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes on the defendant and called a DUI investigator. When the DUI investigator arrived, he noticed the odor of alcohol, flushed face, droopy eyes, very slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and dialiated pupils. As the defendant stood in front of him, he swayed from side to side. He requested the defendant conduct the roadside exercises and he agreed. He was unable to walk heel to toe without losing his balance and placed his foot on the ground numerous times during the one leg stand. The defendant was arrested for DUI and agreed to a breath test which resulted in a reading of .000. The police requested urine but the defendant refused.

Result Based on the facts as presented by the police,it seems as if the defendant was DUI. However, with a breath reading of .000 and a urine refusal, the State was going to have a difficult time proving what the defendant was impaired by. The law requires the State to prove you are impaired by either alcohol, a controlled substance, or a chemical substance. Although he may have exhibited signs of impairment, since the state could not establish what substance was causing the impairment, all charges against the defendant were DROPPED.

Facts The defendant, a licensed florida attorney, was observed by three police officers walking down the street on South Beach. An officer testified that the defendant was staggering down the street and was "out of it." The officer instructed him not to drive and the defendant engaged him in a brief conversation. The officer testifyed that his speech was slurred and was not making any sense when he spoke. The officer got in his car and witnessed the defendant get into a car and drive off. The officer followed as the defendant weaved out of his lane of travel on 4 occassions. The officer conducted a traffic stop. The officer testified that he had no doubt that the defendant had to much to drink to safely drive but called in a DUI specialist to make sure. The DUI officer arrived, conducted the field sobriety tests, and placed the defendant under arrest for DUI. The defendant agreed to a breath test and blew .000/.000. A drug recognition expert was called to the station to continue the investigation. During the one hour investigation, the defendant admitted to smoking cannabis and taking 3 adderol pills just hours prior. The defendant them submitted to a urine test. The toxicology reports showed that the defendant had Cannabis, amphetamines, ephedrine, propoxyphene, naproxen, and PPA in his system.

Result At jury trial, we argued that the defendant normal faculties were not impaired. He performed roadside exercises on two occassion and performed well. The officers testimony was impeached withpolice reports and deposition testimony on numerous occassions regarding the facts. Each officers testimony contradicted the others regarding what they saw and who was present for what part of the investigation. The toxicoligist testified that each drug had the ability to impair the defendant. However, she could not testify if any drugs were impairing him on the night of the DUI arrest. She further testified that some substances in the defendant's system were not controlled substances. We argued to the jury that the defendant's normal faculties were not impaired and if they were impaired, the state could not establish if the defendant was impaired by a controlled substance or a non controlled substance. The law requires that the defendant be impaired by a controlled substance. After 10 minutes of deliberations, the jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY. The was the defendnat's 3rd DUI arrest.

Facts The defendant allegedly drove past a marked Broward Sheriff's Office patrol car going 120 mph on northbound I-95. As the deputy followed, the defendant weaved in and out of traffic. The Deputy finally got the behind the defendant at traffic light and activated his lights. The defendant stopped at a green light and finally pulled over in a gas station parking lot. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant, glassy eyes, and mood swings. When the defendant exited the car, he dropped papers all over the ground. The defendant agreed to perform roadside exercised. On the HGN, the deputy testified that the defendant consumed alcohol and exhibited signs of impairment on the test. The officer next attempted the walk and turn test. The defendant became argumentative and eventually uncooperative. The deputy and defendant argued about the walk and turn and the deputies lack of demonstration. Finally, the deputy ended his investigation and arrested the defendant for DUI. The defendant refused a breath test. After being arrested, the defendant made comments to the deputy such as, "Ya, you like to feel my ass" "You will still be a fucking pig" The deputy does not even know how to do a DUI investigation, how does he expect me to do it"
Result At jury trial, we argued that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. He was able to walk and talk with absolutely no problems at all. We agreed that did not make the best judgments that night by driving 120 mph and making such comments to the police. However, they were not the result of alcohol impairment. The jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY after jury trial.

Facts The defendant was stopped by a Davie Police Officer for making an illegal U-turn in the City of Plantation. Upon contact with our client, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes. The officer asked for roadside exercises but our client refused. He was arrested for DUI and refused to take the breath test.
Result Prior to the case making it to Court, we contacted the case filing attorney. We explained that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was illegal because a Davie Officer cannot make a stop in the City of Plantation unless certain circumstances are present. We provided case law in support of our position. Next, we argued that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest our client. The only elements of impairment noticed by the officer were the odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes; this does not rise to the level of probable cause to arrest. We provided case law. Finally, we were aware that the arresting officer was the subject of an investigation for falsifying police reports and used that to our advantage. DUI charges were never filed against our client.

Facts The defendant was stopped for traveling 95 mph in a 45 mph zone. When the police made contact with the defendant, they noticed the odor of alcohol, glassy bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. When the defendant exited the vehicle, he swayed from side to side. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside exercises. During the exercises, he raised his arms for balance, skipped numbers in counting to 30, could not touch heel to toe. He was arrested and agreed to a breath test with a result of .098.
Result Throughout the course of our investigation, we discovered that the arresting officer was the subject of an investigation for falsifying police reports. As such, we announced ready for trial with the anticipation of attacking his credibility. Prior to trial, the State agreed to drop the DUI charge against our client.

Facts The defendant was stopped running a red light, driving at night without headlights, weaving, and speeding. Upon making contact with the police, the defendant smelled like alcohol, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to drinking alcohol. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside exercises. According to the officer, the defendant performed poorly on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. The defendant further agreed to take a breath test with a result of .084.
Result We announced ready for trial as we believed, even with a breath test above the legal limit, we could secure not guilty verdict for our client. After several discussions with the State, the State agreed to drop the DUI charge against our client.

Facts The defendant was stopped for driving off the road, over a curb, and through some bushes. When the officer stopped him, the defendant was uncooperative, smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and was unsteady while standing. The defendant refused the roadside exercises and a breath test and requested an attorney. The defendant was verbally abusive toward the officer.
Result at Jury Trial, a defense witness testified that he saw the defendant walking to his car on the night of the arrest. The witness saw two men strike the defendant in the back of the head on the way to his car. The defendant fell to the ground. The defendant appeared dazed. The witnesses tried to assist the defendant however the defendant drove off. A doctor testified to the symptoms of a head injury or concussion at trial. The doctor further testified that the defendant actions on the video from the night of his arrest were consistent with a head injury and consistent with alcohol impairment. We argued that the State did not prove the defendant was impaired from alcohol as the impairment could have been from the head injury. The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

Facts The defendant was stopped for making a sharp turn recklessly causing his tires to squeal and hisvehicle to slide from left to right. When the officer caught up with him, she observed him speeding and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/red eyes, flushed face, and slurred speech. The defendant performed the roadside exercises. On the one leg stand, he nearly fell over and was never able to gain his balance. On the finger to nose, he did not touch his nose and left his finger on his nose. On the walk and turn, he nearly fell over again. He was arrested and provided a breath sample of .208.
Result We filed a pretrial Motion to suppress alleging that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was illegal. During the motion, the officer testified to the facts above and was cross examined. The Judge did not find the officer's testimony credible and GRANTED the motion. The DUI charge was dropped.

Facts The defendant was stopped for being behind a closed business late at night and driving off when the police approached. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery/glassy eyes, coordination problems, and slurred/thick tonged speech. When the defendant exited the car, he was unsteady and used the car for support. He was also swaying while walking and standing. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He refused to provide a breath sample.
Result We filed a pretrial Motion to suppress alleging that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was unlawful. Just prior to the motion being argued before the judge, the State dropped the DUI charge.

Facts The defendant was stopped for going 112 in a 70 mile per hour zone. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and red/bloodshot eyes. The defendant was unsteady while he was standing outside his vehicle. The defendant attempted the roadside exercises but performed poorly according to the police officer. He was arrested for DUI and provided a breath sample of .093.
Result We prepared the case for trial and the defendant flew down from Connecticut. On the morning of trial, we convinced the State to drop the DUI charge.

Facts The defendant was found passed out in his car on the grass next to the roadway. The officer approached the car and ordered the defendant out of the car after waking him. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, a confused look, and the defendant almost fell to the ground. The defendant could not perform the roadside tests due his intoxicated state. He was arrested for DUI and then blew a .222 and .223 in the breath machine.
Result We filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging that the defendant was illegally ordered out the car. The Judge granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State then Dismissed the DUI.

Facts The defendant was stopped by police after his wife called the police and told them that they had an argument he was drunk. Upon being stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, swaying, and bloodshot eyes. He refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest for DUI, he refused the breath test.
Result We were ready for trial. The DUI was dismissed.

Facts The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed and running a red light. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The officer found an open beer in the car. The defendant was uneasy on his feet and used the car for support. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He refused the breath test.
Result At Jury Trial, we created conflicts in the evidence through cross examination and further argued the defendant's normal faculties were not impaired. The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

Facts The defendant was found by the police in a parking lot passed out in his car. The officers, upon waking up the defendant, noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slow speech. The defendant stated he drank three mixed drinks. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .107 and .101 in the breath machine.
Result Pre-trial depositions of the officers in question revealed that the State could not establish the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle since he had no "capability" of operating the vehicle while sleeping. Furthermore, the officers had no right to order the defendant out of the car on the sole fact that he was sleeping. The State Dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant ran a red light cutting off a police officer. The officer followed the defendant and observed him tailgating several vehicles and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer stopped the defendant and noticed an odor of alcohol, red watery eyes and a flushed face. The defendant performed the walk and turns and finger to nose test on video and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The defendant blew a .085 in the intoxilyzer. This was the defendant's 2nd DUI.
Result We announced ready for trial. Despite showing some unsteadiness on the walk and turn test, the video was positioned in
such a way whereby it was impossible to see his feet. Furthermore, none of the driving pattern that the officer observed was captured on video. After Jury Selection the State dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant was found by police passed out in his vehicle. The officer observed loud speech, bloodshot eyes, and an odor of alcohol. He was also leaning against the car for support and stated he had three beers. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the videotaped roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI.
Result We were ready for trial. We pointed out to the State that none of the defendant's "normal faculties were impaired." The State Dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and very slow speech. According to the officer, the defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down. He was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test.
Result We prepared the case for a trial and the DUI was ultimately dismissed.

Facts The defendant was stopped for veering over the lane marker 4 times into the bicycle lane. After the stop, the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, as well as being unsteady while exiting the car. The stopping officer called for another officer to conduct the field sobriety tests. The DUI officer noticed that the defendant was swaying side to side and asked him if he had been drinking. The defendant told the officer that he had a few beers. The defendant performed and allegedly failed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand and walk and turn test. The defendant was subsequently arrested and blew a .150 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's 2nd DUI.
Result We filed a motion to exclude the breath test from evidence. The motion was granted and the breath test was excluded from evidence. Subsequent to losing the breath test evidence the State dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant was stopped for speeding and straddling the lane markers. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests for the officer which was not videotaped. For example, on the walk and turn, he fell backwards, did not touch heel to toe, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down four times and swayed. The defendant was very argumentative with the arresting officer after his arrest for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Defense We attacked the credibility of the arresting officer at trial on every point of his testimony.
Result The Jury found the Defendant Not Guilty in less than fifteen minutes.

Facts The defendant was stopped as he drove around a police car almost striking that patrol car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The officer noticed swaying and stumbling. The defendant stated he had three beers. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were videotaped. For example, on the walk an turn, he used his arms for balance, stepped off the line, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand, he used his arms for balance and put his foot down. After his arrest for DUI, he refused the breath test.
Defense We prepared the case for jury trial.
Result The State Dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant was stopped for not having his license plate illuminated. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. His movements were slow and he almost fell to the ground. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe and stepped off the line. He was arrested for DUI and then blew .101 and .104 in the breath machine.
Defense We prepared the case for trial.
Result Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Facts The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness. They also noticed thick tongued speech and swaying. The defendant refused to do the roadside tests. After his arrest for DUI, he refused the breath test.
Defense We prepared the case for jury trial.
Result On the day of jury trial, the State Dropped he DUI.

Facts The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and swaying. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The defendant then blew a .174 and .161 in the breath machine.
Defense The officer only wrote he stopped the defendant for failure to maintain a single lane. He did not write one specific fact about the driving pattern.
Result The DUI was dismissed.

Facts The defendant was stopped for a violation of right of way. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. According to the officer's vague report, he failed the roadside tests. After his arrest for DUI, he blew .080 in the breath machine.
Defense We pointed out that due to the .005 built in margin of error in the breath machine; the defendant could have been under the legal limit.
Result The DUI was dismissed.

Facts The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and dilated pupils. The defendant was also observed swaying. No roadside tests were conducted due to the defendant being transported to the hospital. Later on, the defendant was arrested for DUI and he refused to give a blood, breath or urine test.
Defense We prepared and were ready for trial.
Result Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

State v. File No. 0413359mm10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. 05003216cf10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

tate v. File No.03000676cf10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. M.E.WPB 01 - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. 04019629mm10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 04019441mm10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 0320025cf10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 01004448cf10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided