Driving Offenses Case Results (Part 3)

Internal Reference #5032

Facts:

Two separate incidents.

1. Dispatch advised of burglary in progress. Witness advised white male with grey shirt and tan pants was pulling handles of vehicles in parking lot. Deputy B. detained a subject, ∆, fitting the description. A “show up” of the ∆ was conducted, with the witness giving a positive ID.

Witness first noticed a dome light on in a vehicle. The witness followed the ∆ from his balcony as he tried several handles to other vehicles. Witness continued with his update until ∆ was detained.

∆ was extremely incoherent from unknown narcotic. All the ∆ kept mumbling was that he worked for the complex. Officer contacted member of the board of directors for the complex. She advised ∆ was no an employee. ∆ was arrested and transported to the police station.

2. Police responded in reference to a fraud investigation. Investigation revealed ∆ was in possession of another person’s driver’s license and check card. ∆ attempted to withdraw $2500 from account in which he was not an authorized user. ∆ was arrested.

Process: ∆ paid restitution.

Charges:

Burglary conveyance unoccupied (810.02-4(3))

Possession of unlawfully issued driver’s license (817.568)

Result:

Burglary conveyance unoccupied (810.02-4(3)) – Plea of nolo contendere, Adjudication Withheld, 2 years probation, $402 costs

Possession of unlawfully issued driver’s license (817.568) – Plea of nolo contendere, Adjudication Withheld, 2 years probation, $132 costs

No jail and no prison time.


Internal Reference #5033

Facts:

Process:

Charges:

Expired Tag More than 6 months (320.07(3)(C)

Result:

Expired Tag More than 6 months (320.07(3)(C) – Dismissed

All charges dismissed


Internal Reference #6002

Facts:

On 8/03 at approximately 0544 hours, Deputy S observed a car traveling westbound . Deputy S estimated the vehicle’s speed at 85 MPH in a posted 70 MPH zone. Deputy S(who was in his police vehicle) paced the car at 85 MPH for approximately 1 ½ miles and conducted a traffic stop at the 111 mile marker.

Upon making contact with the driver, Deputy S detected a strong odor of burnt cannabis coming form the inside of the vehicle. When Deputy S asked the driver for his drivers license, the defendant stated he did not have one with him,

Upon Deputy S asking the driver if his license was valid, the defendant stated “It was suspended.” The driver then provided Deputy S with his driver’s license number. Deputy S used his in car computer to access the David system to verify the drivers driver license status and identity. The driver was positively identified by his digital image and his drivers license status was confirmed as suspended. The driver was subsequently placed under arrest for driving while license suspended with knowledge

Based on the probable cause created from the odor of burnt cannabis coming from inside the vehicle, the vehicles two passengers the defendant and another occupant were asked to exit the vehicle to be searched. The defendant was the sole occupant in the back seat, sitting on the passenger side, prior to exiting. Upon searching the defendant, a small clear bag containing approximately three grams of green leafy substance ws locate din his right pants leg. The substance tested presumptive positive as cann is. The defendant was placed under arrest for possession of cannabis under 20 grams.

Deputy P and Deputy S conducted a search of the vehicle where the defendant was sitting. Deputy S observed four bundles of US currency stuffed and concealed in the rear seat between the cushions leading into the trunk. The currency was in various denominations (twenty, fifty and one hundred dollar bills) and each bundle held together by two small black rubber bands(one on each end of the bills) The bundles were in the following amounts: three bundles of one thousand dollars each and on bundle of two hundred twenty dollars. Also found was another folded group of thirty nine twenty dollar bills totaling seven hundred eighty dollars which was not bound together. In addition, Deputy S located another one thousand seven hundred sixty two dollars on the defendants person. Approximately one thousand of this was in the defendants left shoe concealed under his foot.

Deputy P advised Deputy S he had spook with the drier, the defendant and the other passenger regarding the circumstances of their trip and the currency found. Deputy P advised there were several inconsistencies in the statements from the vehicle occupants. However, Deputy S did not participate in their conversations.

Since the owner of the vehicle was not present and an attempt to contact the owner had failed, the vehicle was towed to a towing lot. Prior to towing, the vehicle was inventoried as per policy of the sheriffs office.

During the inventory, the following items were located in the trunk: An empty glock .40 cal magazine, four packages of small blue and yellow zip lock style bags, and a set of brass knuckles with two knife blades attached. These items were taken into custody and are listed on the attached property form. In the center console, Deputy S also located a bag of small black rubber bands. These rubber bands were not taken into custody.

The amount and manner in which the currency was bundled, the fact that the defendant concealed it from law enforcement, and the nature of the items found in the car are all consistent with narcotics activity. This plus the inconsistencies of the occupants statements, the cannabis found on the defendant, and the defendants lack of explanation regarding the currency, cause Deputy S believe the currency to be the product of narcotics activity.

The occupant was released at the scene and provided transportation off the interstate by Deputy P. Deputy S transported both the driver and defendant to the office to continue the investigation. There, Deputy P conducted an audio taped interview with the driver and the defendant. Deputy S did not participate or observe the interviews.

Upon return to the office, Deputy P counted all the currency collected from the scene while Deputy S observed. The total for all the currency was five thousand seven hundred sixty two dollars. The currency was taken into custody to be held for proof of ownership. Deputy P contacted the on call evidence technician to take possession of the currency located during the incident.

The defendant was advised by Deputy P to contact the legal advisor should he have any questions regarding proof of ownership of the currency. The driver was issued two uniform traffic citations for unlawful speed and for driving while license suspended. The driver and the defendant were transported by a prisoner transport to the jail.

Deputy S transported the currency and other evidence facility and turned it over to the evidence technician.

∆ was pulled over and found to be in possession banded stacks of money and suspected narcotics.

Process: The client hired Mr. Foley to recoup the approximate $6000 unlawfully taken by police. Mr. Foley contacted legal council for the police department and was able to convince them to return all of the monies taken.

Results: All Monies Returned


Internal Reference #6005

Facts:

Process:

Charges:

Driving while license suspended without knowledge

Expired tag

Result:

Driving while license suspended without knowledge - Dismissed

Expired tag - Dismissed


Internal Reference #6014

Facts:

Process:

Charges:

Driving with suspended license

Speeding

Result:

Driving with suspended license – nolo contendere, adjudication withheld

Speeding – nolo contendere, adjudication withheld


Internal Reference #6015

Facts:

Process:

Charges:

Operating vehicle while driver’s license suspended

Failure to use due care

Failure to provide proof of insurance

Result:

Operating vehicle while driver’s license suspended – Dismissed

Failure to use due care – Withhold of Adjudication Traffic Infraction

Failure to provide proof of insurance – Dismissed


Internal Reference #6016

Facts:

Process: Mr. Foley entered the ∆ in a diversion program to preserve their DL. However, Mr. Foley filed a motion to withdraw soon after because he could not reach client.

Charges:

Driving with license suspended

Disobeying stop sign

Failure to wear safety belt

License not carried/exhibited

Tag unsecured/obscured

Result:

Driving with license suspended – N/A

Disobeying stop sign – N/A

Failure to wear safety belt – N/A

License not carried/exhibited – N/A

Tag unsecured/obscured – N/A


Internal Reference #6017

Facts:

Process: Same ∆ as 6016. Mr. Foley filed motion to withdraw.

Charges:

Driving with license suspended

Child restraint required

Result:

Driving with license suspended – N/A

Child restraint required – N/A


Internal Reference #6022

Facts:

Process: Client wanted to hire a new attorney so Mr. Foley withdrew.

Charges:

Expired driver’s license more than 4 months

Result:

Expired driver’s license more than 4 months – N/A


Internal Reference #6029

Facts: The officer responded in reference to a DUI investigation. Deputy S. advised that he heard the ∆’s vehicle eastbound because there was no left tire left on the vehicle. Deputy S. observed ∆ effect a wide right turn failing to maintain his lane traveling onto the extreme inside lane.

The deputy activated his emergency lights to effect a traffic stop and made contact with the ∆. While speaking to the ∆, the deputy noticed an odor of alcoholic beverages on him, his eyes were bloodshot, speech was slurred and he wasn’t really sure what he had hit.

Officer observed the ∆ seated inside of his vehicle. While speaking to the ∆ I noticed an odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. Bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. I asked the ∆ about his tire and he advised that he must have hit a pothole or something. The ∆ further advised that he just got the vehicle and thought that he had purchased a lemon. The ∆ was wearing a white club band on his wrist from where he advised he was coming from a club.

Officer advised the ∆ that officer was conducting a DUI investigation and requested that he submit to field sobriety tests. The tests were performed on a blacktop surface which appeared to be flat and level, free of debris and adequate lighting.

The ∆ advised that he was not taking any medications, he had no medical conditions, he was not a diabetic and was not wearing contact lenses or glasses.

HGN: Both eyes exhibited lack of smooth pursuit. Both eyes exhibited sustained and distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation & onset of sustained and distinct nystagmus was at approximately 40 degrees. VGN was present. Pupils and tracking appeared to be equal and normal.

Walk and turn: missed heel to toe on his 7th step.

1LS: no clues observed.

Based upon officer’s total observations, it was in officer’s opinion that ∆ was under the influence to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired, placing ∆ under arrest. Officer advsed the ∆ of his arrest and requested that he submit to a breath test. The ∆ advised that he would submit to testing.

Administered breath test: .123/.127

Process: ∆ wanted to take case to trial. However, Client disappeared. Mr. Foley could not get in contact with client, filed motion to withdraw.

Charges:

DUI (316.193-2a2a)

Vehicle damage road surface (316.2051)

Disobeying/avoiding traffic device (316.074(1))

Result:

DUI (316.193-2a2a) – N/A

Vehicle damage road surface (316.2051) – N/A

Disobeying/avoiding traffic device (316.074(1)) – N/A


Internal Reference #6030

Facts:

Process:

Charges:

Driving with license suspended with knowledge

Speeding

No proof of insurance

Result:

Driving with license suspended with knowledge – Nolo contendere, adjudication withheld

Speeding – nolo contendere, adjudicated guilty

No proof of insurance – nolo contendere, dismissed


Internal Reference #6031

Facts: Officer observed vehicle heading south with burnt out passenger side brake light. Officer conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle and made contact with the ∆. Officer asked the ∆ for license and registration. ∆ stated he did not have his license on him but then provided officer with false name. That driver license was valid. Officer then conducted a DAVID check on the provided name and the picture did not match. Officer then conducted a DAVID check on the registered owner of the vehicle and that picture matched the ∆ and it revealed that he was classified a Habitual Traffic Offender and his license was revoked for 60 months. The ∆ was placed under arrest and read Miranda, which he stated he understood and wished to waive. ∆ stated he knew he was a Habitual Traffic Offender and that is why he lied. He also stated that the name he provided is for his cousin. The ∆ was transported to the police station.

Process:

Charges:

Driving while license revoked

Resisting/obstructing without violence

Result:

Driving while license revoked – 12 months probation, adjudication withheld

Resisting/obstructing without violence – Dismissed


Internal Reference #7003

Facts: The defendant is being charged for the above listed charges TO WIT: While on routine patrol, Officer F was contacted via dispatch to respond to a location in reference to a vehicle crash at the above listed location involving a red in color car and a white in color SUV. Upon arrival, Officer F made contact with the driver of the white in color SUV. Upon contact, Officer F observed the driver to be seated directly behind the steering wheel of the vehicle whole it was running and stationary. As Officer F made verbal contact with the driver, the driver identified himself as the defendant via Florida Driver’s License, which he provided upon request. The defendant was asked if he had sustained any injuries, to which he stated in a loud tone “No man!” The defendant also stated that he did not require the assistance of fire-rescue. As the defendant spoke, he appeared to maintain an inconsistent speech pattern, by stopping and then continuing his sentence fragments, and not concluding his sentences. As the defendant spoke, he slurred unintelligible sounds and could not be understood by Officer F. Officer F asked the defendant if he suffered from a speech impediment and he stated “no.” The passenger compartment where the defendant was seated emitted a strong odor consistent with that of an alcoholic beverage.

Service Aide D was the responding officer at the location and initiated an investigation regarding the traffic crash mentioned above (see traffic crash report). Once Service Aide D concluded her traffic investigation, Officer F then began a criminal investigation. Officer F advised the defendant of such and the defendant stated “ok, go right away, ok?” Office F acknowledged the defendant’s declaration and began his investigation promptly.

The defendant was asked if he would perform a series of voluntary roadside sobriety exercises to which he agreed to perform. Officer F demonstrated each of the sobriety exercises clearly and concisely, to which the defendant verbally agreed and understood.

The following persons were present and did observe the following field sobriety exercises:

Officer W, Sgt. V, and Officer D.

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus(HGN) Defendant’s eyes showed lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes, distinct nystagmus in both eyes at maximum deviation. Onset of nystagmus in both eyes were present prior to 45 degrees.

Walk and Turn: The defendant was unable to maintain his balance in the starting position and swayed to and from as he was given the instructions. The defendant began the exercise before he was instructed to begin. The defendant stepped off of the line at steps 4,5,7,8 and 9 on the first set, and o the second set, was advised to conclude the exercise for concern that he would injure himself due to his instability on his feet and severe loss of balance. The defendant did not walk heel to toe on steps 4,5,7,8, and 9 on the first set.

One Leg Stand: The defendant could not maintain his balance during the starting position and once instructed to begin, used both arms for balance. Defendant placed his right foot down on eight separate occasions, and did not count out loud. The exercise was terminated by Officer F out of concern for the defendant’s well being. The defendant swayed to and from repeat ably. and nearly fell to the ground.

The defendant was asked if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages throughout the course of the day and he stated “Yes I have, I had a couple of beers at a friends house, and I just want to go to my fucking house man!”

Based on Officer F’s observations, the defendant was placed under arrest for D.U.I. The defendant was transported to the BAT facility. Upon arrival, Officer F read the defendant implied consent warnings on video. The defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

Based on the totality of the circumstances regarding the above incident, the above listed defendant was impaired to the extent that his normal faculties were affected, making it unsafe for him to operate a motor vehicle.

Charges:

DUI 2 nd Offense

Violation of Traffic Control Device

Results:

DUI 2 nd Offense – Adjudicated, 9 months probation, DUI school, 5 years license suspension, 10 days of jail on the weekends with 1 day time served

Violation of Traffic Control Device - Dismissed


Internal Reference #7011

Facts:

Charges:

Driving While License Suspended

Result:

Driving While License Suspended – Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed


Internal Reference #7012

Result: NA ADMINSTRATIVE


Internal Reference #7016

Facts:

Charges:

Permit Unauthorized Person to Drive

Failure to Wear Safety Belt/Oper

Result:

Permit Unauthorized Person to Drive(Traffic Criminal)- Misdemeanor - Dismissed

Failure to Wear Safety Belt/Oper – Adjudication Withheld – Fines.

Click on the following reviews to see what clients are saying about us
Client Reviews
I was charged with Domestic Violence few years ago and I was referred to Roger Foley from a family member! Roger is a BULLDOG! He was great and very aggressive in helping me beat this bogus case. Case was dismissed! He was on top of everything until the end!!
Now again in need of his help and wouldn't go anywhere else!
HIGHLY RECOMMEND
★★★★★
My wife (Mother of Stepson) and I Hired Mr Foley to represent my stepson in a minor criminal case. We would highly recommend as it is obvious to us That Mr Foley Genuinely cares and wants to do the Best he can for you which he did for us. Also has a great rapport with all parties in the courtroom..... Steve
★★★★★
Roger P. Foley got me reinstated. Also he got my COS waived, an got me to still be terminated off of probation on my expected termination date. I feel very comfortable with the decision my lawyer made for me. Also i would refer him to anyone who has a criminal felony or misdemeanor case. Jamar
★★★★★
Roger is a very compassionate person, he truly cares about his clients. He helped me with my case and was there for me every step of the way even if it was just reassurance that I needed. I would recommend him to anyone, he is absolutely the best! Cassandra G.
★★★★★
I think your firm did a great t job on 3 cases that were 28 years old. The results are better than expected. I truly appreciate the hard work that you and your firm put forth in obtaining the results that we did on this case. Jim
★★★★★