DUI Case Results in 2010
DUI Charges Completely Dropped (10-CT-8137-A-O)
On the day jury selection was scheduled to begin, October 12, 2010, the State Attorney’s Office filed a “nolle prosequi” in open court for a DUI case involving a breath test reading of 0.055 and 0.052After the breath test, our client agreed to take a urine test which reportedly tested positive for marijuana (specifically 11-Nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC).
On the day of trial, the prosecutor dropped the DUI charge completely (in other words the client did not enter a plea to any reduced charges). The court also dismissed a citation for possession of an open container and failure to obey a traffic control device. The client did plead “nolo contendere” to a civil speeding ticket and paid a $312 fine.
DUI Charges Completely Dropped (CT-007562-GGW) – On April 29, 2010, the Prosecutor filed a “nolle prossequi” which dismissed all charges pending against our client.
Tim Matas, I.D. #49005, an officer with the Tampa Police Department reported that he arrested our client for DUI because our client:
- failed the nystagmus test (initial eye test);
- had a “distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his person”; and
- “demonstrated clues of impairment” during the roadside ability exercises.
Although our client told the officer that he only had one beer to drink earlier in the evening, the officer nevertheless arrested him for DUI. Our client decided to take the breath test and blew .007 and .008 which is well below the legal limit of .08.
Officer Matas then requested the driver submit to a urine test. Our client agreed to take the urine test which came back 60 days later completely clean. After seeing the urine test and other evidence in the case, all charges were dropped. This recent case shows us that the police can often make mistakes in DUI cases by arresting individuals that are not impaired by either drugs or alcohol.
DUI with Property Damage Reduced to Reckless Driving with a Withhold of Adjudication
Our client avoided a DUI conviction and the typical reckless driving sanctions (CT-001783-X–) after being arrested in Tampa for DUI with Property Damage. Our client took the breath test which registered a reading of 0.96 and 0.102. The charge was reduced to reckless driving on April 8, 2010, before Judge James Dominguez, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL.
The police alleged that our client was changing lanes when he crashed into a vehicle which was then pushed into the vehicle in front of it. The officer reported that our client’s performance on the field sobriety exercises indicated impairment. After the arrest, our client took the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test which registered .102 and .96. In order to fight the charges, we filed the following DUI motions:
- motion to suppress statements taken in violation of crash report privilege;
- motion to suppress statements because of the failure to give Miranda warnings;
- motion to inspect the particular Intoxilyzer 8000 (breathalyzer machine) used in this case;
- motion to produce certain records for the breath test machine;
- motion to subpoena records from the manufacturer of the breath test machine; and
- motions to dismiss and suppress other evidence in the case.
Prior to a hearing on the motions, the State Attorney’s Office agreed to reduce DUI to reckless driving, withhold adjudication (so the client could avoid a “conviction” and points), and imposed court costs. The client was not required to take DUI school, do community service, or serve any time on probation.
Tampa DUI Conviction Avoided for 0433-X– – With Breath Test Result over .08
On February 16, 2010, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the DUI charge to reckless driving in a case pending before Judge Lefler. Our client had been convicted of DUI one year before, so avoiding the DUI conviction saved her from the penalties for a second DUI within five years. Those penalties included at least 10 days in the Hillsborough County jail, a five year revocation of her driver’s license with no ability to obtain a hardship driver’ license for at least the first year, and one year with an ignition interlock device.
Submit this form to request a free and confidential consultation with one of our attorneys.