DUI/DWI Case Results

Internal Case Reference #1002

Arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated 316.193-2A2A), Traffic-Proof of Insurance Required (316.646-1), DUI Property Damage (316.193-3C1), Leaving The Scene Of An Accident (316.061), Careless Driving (316.1925-1)

Facts : On October 21, 2011, at 2339 hours, Officer W responded to the location in regards to a hit and run. The complainant advised that as she traveled eastbound on Sample Rd, a silver Acura struck the right side of her vehicle at about the 4700 block of Sample Rd. The complainant car sustained a black scrape on the right side, rear bumper down to the right rear passenger door and a small, baseball size dent on the rear quarter panel. After the collision the Acura tried to leave the scene of the accident. The complainant advised that she followed the Acura, which first came to a stop at the intersection of Sample and Lyons Rd., because of a red light. Complainant then exited her vehicle and walked up to the silver Acura and asked the driver if he realized that he had hit her car. The male driver of the Acura, who was later identified as defendant (via his driver’s license) replied, “he was sorry.”

Complainant then asked defendant to pull into the Shell gas station at the northwest corner of the intersection The light changed and defendant made a U-turn as if he were going into the gas station. However, defendant continued westbound on Sample Rd. Complainant again had to follow defendant in order to get him to pull over. Defendant stopped at the location after he realized complainant was still following him.

Defendant was positively identified by complainant as the person driving the 2000 Acura that hit her car. Before Officer W could Mirandize Defendant, he stated that complainant was the one who hit his car. Based on both complainant and defendant statements, Officer W was able to determine that defendant was the sole occupant and was in actual physical control of the Acura at the time of the accident. Officer W then advised defendant that the crash investigation was over and that Officer W was not conducting a DUI investigation. Officer W then asked defendant if he would submit to roadside exercises to determine his ability to operate his motor vehicle. Defendant agreed to do the roadside exercises. Defendant displayed the following during the exercising:

Exercise 1: (Walk & Turn) – Defendant could not stand as instructed, Officer W had to explain to him more than three times to place his left foot on the line and his right foot in front of his left foot. Defendant also tried to do the exercise before the instructions were completed. Once Officer W was able to complete the instruction, Defendant counted to ten going forward, improperly turned, counted to ten coming back and stepped off the line from on stops 6-10.

Exercise 2: (One leg stand using right leg) – Defendant again tried to start the exercise before the instructions were completed. Officer W had to explain the exercise three times to defendant. He swayed while standing, failed to count the first two times, stopped and said he could not do the exercise, agreed to continue the exercise, began counting “1005, 1004, 1005…, hopped during the exercise, used arms for balance and dropped foot more than once during the thirty second period.

Exercise 3: (Finger to Nose) – Swayed while standing, had to be told to put his hand back down nearly every time, missed nose on the first, second, and 5 th try, and continued to open his eyes.

The roadside exercises were recording by Officer W’s dash cam and are available for viewing.

Based on my observations, defendant, did unlawfully drive, or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, to-wit: 2000 Silver Acura 3.5, while he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

Officer W placed defendant under arrest for Driving While Intoxicated. I then asked defendant if he would submit to an Intoxilizer breath sample. Defendant shook his head as if to say no. Officer W explained to defendant that Officer W needed for him to answer the question, but he did not. Officer W then read the Florida Implied Consent Warning to defendant, which explained the consequences of a refusal. After doing so, Officer W again asked defendant for a sample of his breath and again Defendant did not reply. Officer W warned defendant that not answering his question would indicate that he is refusing to give a sample of his breath. Defendant still did not answer.

Officer W placed the defendant in the back seat of his marked Police unit and transported him to the police station for processing. Defendant was medically cleared and transported to jail.

Result: Defendant plead no contest and received an adjudication of guilt on DUI and Leaving the scene accident. Counts 2, 4 and 5, were dismissed. During the discovery, Mr. Foley’s office inquired in the jurisdiction where the defendant had allegedly three prior DUI convictions and received a written letter indicating that the clerk in that jurisdiction had destroyed the defendants previous files, and therefore was unable to forward certified copy of the disposition to Mr. Foley’s office. Accordingly, the state was unable to secure the three certified dispositions and therefore could not prove a fourth DUI. So the defendant received a probationary sentence on a first DUI. The victory in this case was that this was the defendants 4 th DUI charge, however the state was unable to prove his prior 3 DUI’s therefore, he received a probationary sentence as opposed to incarceration.


Internal Reference # 1004

DUI

Facts (as alleged in the police report): On 03/28/09 at or about 0126 hours at the location of 6000 Buchanan St, which is located within the Jurisdictional limits of the city of Hollywood, within Broward County and the State of Florida, the defendant did commit the violation of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The defendant did then and there unlawfully drive, or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, to-wit: 2000 Toyota, silver in color, while he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage to the extent that his/her normal faculties were impaired, or with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent To-Wit; .180/.176.

On 3/28/09 at approximately 0126 hours, Officer H was on routine patrol in the area. While traveling southbound on SR 7, he observed a silver vehicle in front of him, swerving all over the southbound lanes of SR 7. As the officer approached the vehicle he observed the tag which came back to a 2000 silver Toyota. As Officer H was following the vehicle and noticed that the vehicle left the roadway two times and began straddling the lane markers which separate the two southbound lanes of SR 7. As we approached Johnson St, the vehicle started to drift to the outermost lane of SR 7. As we approached Johnson St, the vehicle started to drift to the outermost lane of SR 7 and then left the roadway, almost striking a parked vehicle. The driver corrected to avoid the parked vehicle, but then drifted once again and went up on the sidewalk just north of the location. The officer after observing the vehicle drive on the sidewalk initiated a traffic stop. As the officer approached the driver, later identified as the defendant, Officer H made the following observation of the driver: blood shot watery eyes, normal pupil, normal color face, strong odor of an alcoholic beverage present on his breath and person, his speech was mumbled and slurred, and his attitude was cooperative.

Officer H then asked the driver to step out of the vehicle. Upon stepping out of the vehicle, the driver walked with an uneven gait and stumbled a few times. Officer H requested that the driver follow him to a solid yellow line, which is located in the middle of Buchanan St, just west of SR 7. Officer H advised the driver that he was conducting a criminal DUI investigation. The driver stated that he understood. Officer H asked the driver if he would voluntarily submit to some field sobriety exercises, to which the driver stated yes. Officer H then asked the driver some basic information. Illnesses or medical condition and he stated none. Prescriptions or any other medications and he stated none. No injuries, and if he was under a doctor’s care and he said no. Disabilities; None. After entering the basic information, Officer H instructed and demonstrated the following exercises:

Walk and Turn. 3 clues

*Doesn’t touch heel to toe

*Starts before instructions are finished

*Steps off the line once or more times

Note: The driver acknowledged he understood all the instructions prior to beginning the exercise and stepped off the lines four times and started before the instructions were finished and he lost his balance while in the instructional position.

One Leg Stand. 2 clues

*Puts foot down 6 times

*Moves arms more than six inches to maintain his balance

Note: The driver acknowledges that he understood the instructions prior to beginning the exercise. The driver failed to count out loud and place his foot down six times and hopped on one leg to maintain balance also by raising arms more than six inches to maintain balance.

Rhomberg Balance. 1 clue

*Sways back and forth, forward and backward approximately six inches

Note: The driver understood the instructions prior to beginning the exercise. My wristwatch was used to estimate the time, the driver’s internal clock estimated 13 seconds as thirty seconds.

Finger To Nose. 2 clues

*Missed the tip of his nose with his index finger

* Forgets to remove finger

Due to the totality and the circumstances, I placed the driver into custody for driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. I asked the arrestee if he would submit to a breath test, the arrestee stated yes. The Arrestee was then transported to Breath Alcohol Testing Facility for the breath test. While en route to the BAT center, the odor of an alcoholic beverage was emanating from the arrestee’s breath and was present in my police vehicle.

Officer H and the Bat Technician conducted the 20 minutes observation on the arrestee beginning at 0211 hours. Bat tech administered the breath test. Breath test sample #1 was administered at 0233 hours with the result of .180 and at 0236 hours breath sample #2 was conducted with the result of .176. For further refer to the DUI test report, DUI alcohol influence report and the three citations listed above. Supplemental reports will be done by Officers SI and Officer SC. No DUI video was available. Arrested and charged with DUI UBal>.15 or Accom by person <18YOA(316.193-4B1), Fail drive in single lane (316.089(1), Drive on sidewalk/bike path (316.1995)

Result: Mr. Foley filed a defendant’s motion to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion to begin a DUI investigation, which was denied. Mr. Foley ultimately filed for a plea and the defendant was given the minimum sentence to a DUI; 6 months of probation and license suspended for 6 months, community service hours. The defendant was also ordered to complete 50-community service hours, along with 10 day interlock.


Internal Reference # 1007

Facts : Defendant was charged with a DUI with a blood alcohol above 0.20 and had received probation. Unfortunately he picked up two new charges for driving on the revocation of his drivers’ license. He was facing 9 months of jail.

Result: Mr. Foley was able to get probation reinstated in place of any jail time.


Internal Reference # 1008 same Defendant as 1007

Facts : Defendant was previously charged with a DUI in another case. Defendant was given probation in previous DUI case. Defendant was charged with Violation of Probation for driving on suspended license and driving with license expired for more than 6 months.

Result: Defendant was charged with driving on suspended license and driving with license expired for more than 6 months. The win in this case was the Withhold of Adjudication and Court Costs and no jail on the VOP.


Internal Reference # 1022

FELONY DUI

Facts : On 9/27, while on routine patrol in a parking lot, Officer G observed a dark sedan in the western side of the parking lot driving in the parking lot with no lights activated at night. Officer G drove his marked patrol unit to the western side of the parking lot and attempted to conduct a traffic stop on the vehicle, A 2008 Black Honda Civic. At 2238 hours, Officer G activated his overhead patrol lights to stop the vehicle and observed the brake lights of the vehicle in question activate and the vehicle come to a stop. Officer G then stepped out of his marked police unit, collected his flashlight, and began to approach the vehicle. Officer G traveled about as far as the hood of his marked police unit before the driver of the vehicle in question took her foot off of the brakes, causing the brake lights to deactivate and the vehicle to begin to roll northbound through the parking lot. Yelling as loudly as he could, Officer G implored the driver of the vehicle to stop but the vehicle continued to roll northbound through the parking lot.

Officer G walked back to his vehicle and began to follow the vehicle in question with his overhead lights activated. The Honda eventually stopped again at the very northern edge of the parking lot, at the entrance/exit for NW 31 st T. Officer G again opened his vehicle door and was in the process of stepping out of his vehicle when the Honda again turned left and began rolling westbound on NW 31 st St CT. He again re-entered his marked police cruiser and began to follow the vehicle. This time he used his public address system to implore the driver to stop her vehicle. Using his police radio, he advised dispatch that the vehicle he was attempting to stop was not stopping; he requested a backup unit. The vehicle in question finally stopped for the third time at an intersection. This time he ran to the vehicle and ordered the driver to put the car into park and to take the keys out of the ignition. He observed that the driver of the vehicle, later identified as the defendant, began to search the interior of her vehicle for the great shift in order to put the car into park. After several seconds of searching, the defendant finally located the gearshift in between the driver and passenger seats and put the car into park. He asked the defendant to produce her license and registration. The defendant muttered a reply that was not audible. He asked the defendant to repeat what she said and had to place his head near her head in order to hear her reply, which was, “I don’t have one”. At this time, he could smell the odor of the impurities of an alcoholic beverage emitting from her breath as she spoke.

Officer D then arrived in the capacity of a backup officer. Officer D advised that he would administer the standardized field sobriety tests on the defendant. He asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle and had to wait while she took several seconds to locate the handle that would open the driver’s side door. The defendant slowly lumbered out of the vehicle, her legs unsteady beneath her as she did so. The defendant immediately had to brace herself against her vehicle using her left hand as a brace in order to stand without falling. The defendant then slowly walked to her the rear of her vehicle, using both hands to hold herself up against her vehicle and to keep from stumbling as she walked. The defendant briefly spoke with Officer D and advised him that she did not wish to perform any roadside sobriety tests. The defendant admitted to Officer D that she had “One Drink” at Payzins restaurant and bar. The defendant also admitted to Officer D that her Driver’s license was suspended for DUI. The defendant also stated that she was not injured, sick or diabetic. Officer Dixon advised Officer G that he too could smell the impurities of an alcoholic beverage emitting rom her breath as she spoke and also observed that the defendant was unsteady on her feet.

A teletype check of the defendant’s driver’s license revealed that the defendants license was suspended on 3/31 for driving with unlawful BAL (.08% or above); The teletype check also revealed that the defendants license was revoked for 5(five) years on 6/12 for driving under the influence. A later criminal history check and D.A.V.I.D. check revealed that the defendant had convictions for DUI on 10/09 and 06/12.

Based upon the defendant’s driving pattern, my observations of the defendant, Officer D observations of the defendant, and the teletype check, The defendant was arrested for DUI and Driving while license suspended. The Defendant was transported to the police department for booking and the breath test. While inventorying the contents of the defendant’s purse, a bar receipt from a Bar and Restaurant was found for the time period of 9/27 at 2025 hours. An additional receipt for another restaurant was found for the time period of 09/27 2026 hours. A copy of these receipts was included with the offense report.

On 9/27 at 2353 hours, the defendant was brought into the DUI room and placed on video. The defendant again refused to perform field sobriety exercises. Officer D read the defendant implied consent and at 2356 hours, the defendant refused to provide a breath sample. The defendant was later transported to jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Felony DUI and Driving while license suspended, and Vehicle without lights night

Results : The defendant was given 1 year of community control and 30 months probation. Mr. Foley had the charge of Vehicle Without Lights at night dismissed. No Prison, No Jail.


Internal Reference #1023

Facts : On the listed time and date, Officer M was dispatched to the stated location to make contact with the listed taxi cab driver (witness), in reference to a hit and run crash to his cab.

Upon arriving in the area, Officer M observed the defendant, walking northbound from a location on the west side of a restaurant walking to Sunrise Boulevard and 18 avenue with a female. Officer M noticed that the defendant was walking, but unable to keep his balance. Officer M continued to the incident attempting to locate the taxi cab driver. He located him behind the restaurant in the parking lot standing by his taxicab. He was behind the black jeep. Officer M made contact with him; and he told him that he was eastbound on East Sunrise Boulevard in the right thru lane approaching Northeast 18 Avenue. Suddenly the black jeep who was also east bound but in the left thru suddenly made a right hand turn in front of the taxi cab driver. The cab driver was unable to avoid the collision. The right side of the black jeep collided into the front left corner of his cab. Both vehicles suffered damage. The black jeep fled without stopping at all. The cab driver followed the black jeep to the parking lot where the defendant parked it. When the cab driver got out of his vehicle, the defendant did not give the cab driver any information for the report. The defendant and the female ignored the cab driver and walked north on 18 Avenue away from the cab driver. The cab driver describes the couple to Officer M. It was the same two persons walking when he came into the area. The cab driver was told by a security guard that the couple was trying to get a taxicab to leave the area.

Officer G and Officer P arrived and went to the crash scene and made contact with both parties. The cab driver also went to the scene of the stop and positively identified the defendant as the driver of the jeep as well as the female as the passenger. Both were brought back to the scene.

Officer M began to speak to the defendant about the crash; the defendant stated that he does not want to get in trouble. He stated that he had some alcoholic beverages. He has a strong smell of that of alcoholic beverages upon his breath. He had a flushed face and glassy eyes. Officer M asked him for the keys to the Jeep. He fumbled through his pockets several times trying to find the keys. He went over and into the same front left pocket three times to get his keys but his manual dexterity was slow. His speech was slurred when he spoke.

Officer M advised dispatch to contact a D.U.I unit.

Officer D arrived to the scene within five minutes. He had the defendant conduct a series of roadside sobriety activities. Upon doing so, Officer D placed the defendant into custody.

Charges:

1.2 counts of DUI Blood Alcohol Above 0.20

2.Leaving the scene of an accident

3.Attend Veh/More (more then $50 damage)

4. Fail to use Due care

Results : Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Quash Arrest for Lack of Probable Cause. Prior to arguing the Motion to Quash, the state offered the following plea and the defendant accepted:

Count 1 DUI - Reduced to reckless driving and withhold of adjudication

Count 2- Leaving the scene of an accident - Dismissed

Count 3- Attend Veh/More (more then $50 damage) - Withhold of Adjudication, 9 months of probation concurrent with count on

Count 4 – Fail to use Due care - Withhold and court costs

Result: No Jail, No Adjudication, DUI reduced to reckless driving.


Internal Reference #1026

Facts : The defendant was the operator of the listed vehicle which was stopped for committing a traffic violation by Officer Y. Officer Y made contact with the defendant and requested Officer W to respond to his location due to the likelihood of the defendant being intoxicated. Upon making contact with the defendant. The undersigned detected an odor similar to that of an alcoholic beverage being emitted from the defendant’s person, specifically from the defendant’s mouth. The odor is described as strong and distinct to the point where Officer W deemed the odor offensive. The defendant spoke with slow slurred speech and was extremely unsteady on her feet as she stood. The defendant’s appearance can be described as disheveled and mismanaged. The defendant’s button fly jeans were also unbuttoned (three buttons). The defendant also displayed extreme mood swings ranging from laughing, joking, and praising to pure anger. The defendant was made aware that the undersigned was conducting a D.U.I investigation and agreed to participate in voluntary field sobriety exercises. During H.G.N, the defendant’s eyes were observed to be bloodshot and glassy. Both pupils appeared equal and tracking appeared equal. The defendant’s eyes had a lack of smooth pursuit. A distinct and sustained nystagmus was detected at maximum deviation and the onset of nystagmus was detected prior to (45) degrees. No glasses or contacts were observed. During the walk and turn exercise, the defendant was unable to keep her balance after being placed in the initial stationary position. The defendant also began the exercise prior to being instructed (three times). The defendant was unable to walk heel to toe in any fashion and repeatedly raised her arms for balance and aid. The defendant completed the first half of the exercise by taking her tenth step. The defendant completed the second half of the exercise by taking her tenth step. The defendant did not keep her foot on the line while turning and stopped walking after executing the improper turn. During the one leg stand, the defendant was observed to dramatically sway from right o left, and front to back. Furthermore, the defendant could not lift her left leg off the ground without stumbling and narrowly avoided falling to the ground by placing her right arm against an adjacent patrol vehicle. The officer then discontinued that exercise fearing that the defendant may harm herself. The officer did not request the defendant to perform the finger to nose exercise fearing that the defendant may fall to the ground if requested to close her eyes and tilt her head back. As a result of the above investigation, the defendant was placed under arrest and transported to the B.A.T facility. Prior to transport to the post implied consent warnings; the defendant consented to a breath test in order to measure the alcohol content of her breath. Post Miranda Warnings, the defendant stated that she had consumed 1 glass of wine while spending time at a friend’s house at approximately 0000 hours. It should be noted that the traffic stop on the defendant’s vehicle was conducted at 2320 hours yet the defendant advised that she stopped consuming alcohol at 0000 hours. At the B.A.T. facility, the B.A.T technician documented and recorded a Breathalyzer reading of .224 and .230. Video footage was captured via Watch Guard In Car Digital Recording System and was also burned to a DVD for courtroom presentation. The defendant was then transported to jail for detention.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Driving Under The Influence of Alcohol -1 st offense (316.193(2)A(2)A and Driving Under The Influence/B.A.C Greater Then .15(316.193(4)B(1).

Result : The defendant pleaded Nole Contendre to DUI and received only 9 months of probation due to Mr. Foleys negotiations with the prosecutor.


Internal Reference #1038

Facts : Upon arrival, Officer H contacted Officer S, who stated she responded to the area in reference to a crash. Officer S said during the crash investigation it was determined that a vehicle was in the intersection, when the vehicle traveling S/B on entered the intersection and hit the driver side of the second vehicle, the crossed the N/B lanes of traffic and hit a residence. Officer S stated while talking with the driver of the vehicle traveling S/B on N Ocean Blvd she observed the following signs of impairment: an odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from her breath, rapid speech, flush face and low/unsteady movements. Officer S said the driver kept stating, “I was driving, but I did not hit the car”. Officer S said the defendant had been checked out by EMS and had refused treatment.

Officer H then contacted the driver, who was standing on the sidewalk next to her vehicle. Officer H noticed that the defendant had burn marks on the inside of her forearms consistent with an airbag deployment. Officer H also noticed that the defendant had a steering wheel imprint on her upper chest, which was clearly visible above her shirt. While standing there, Officer H noticed that the defendant swayed while standing. While talking with the defendant, Officer H observed the following signs of impairment: strong odor of alcoholic beverage emitting from the defendant’s breath, glassy/bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a flush face. After making these observations, Officer H requested the defendant to submit to the standardized field sobriety exercises, which she did with the following results: (No injuries/illnesses/medications)

Officer H contacted both witnesses, who advised they arrived on-scene and observed one vehicle in the middle of the roadway in the S/B lanes of traffic and a second vehicle against a residence on the Eastside of the N/B lanes of traffic. The witnesses advised that they contacted the driver in the vehicle against the residence. They said the defendant was the only person in the vehicle at the time of the crash and that when she exited her vehicle she had to use the passenger side door to exit. They advised that they asked the defendant several times if anybody else was in the vehicle with her at the time of the crash, the defendant replied no each time.

*Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): (6/6)

Lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes.

Eye-nystagmus distinct and sustained at maximum deviation in both eyes

Eye-nystagmus distinct prior to 45 degrees in both eyes

*Kept moving head, had a hard time following the stimulus.

*Walk and Turn: (6/8)

Lost balance while listening to instructions

Started prior to instructions

Subject paused while walking (on first nine steps)

Did not touch heel-to-toe (missed 7 on first nine & 3 on second nine steps)

Stepped off line (once first nine steps)

Incorrect number of steps (12 on first nine and 13 on second nine steps)

*One Leg Stand: (2/4)

Swayed while balancing

Put foot down (1 time)

After being arrested, the defendant was asked if she would provide a breath sample, the defendant stated she did not understand. After being transported to the BAT unit, the defendant was asked in Spanish if she would take a breath test, the defendant stated “no”. The CSA then read the defendant the Florida Implied Consent Warning and explained it to her and made sure she understood. The defendant was again asked if she would provide a breath sample, she stated that she would take the breath test. The defendant then provided two breath samples with the following results: First sample:0.148 g/210L, Second sample: 0.137g/210L.

While at the BAT, the defendant stated asking questions, when Officer H explained that he did not speak Spanish, the defendant would ask the question again in English.

The defendant was arrested and charged with:

DUI Alcohol or Drugs 1 st Offense (316.193-2a2a)

DUI with Damage to Property or Person of Another (316.193-3c1)

DUI with Damage to Property or Person of Another (316.193-3c1)

Fail to Use Due Care (316.185)

DUI with Damage to Prop or Person of Another (316.193-3c1)

Results : Mr. Foley withdrew form the case due to disagreements between the client and attorney. The client could not decide whether she wanted Mr. Foley to share all of her information with her husband and/or boyfriend/boss. Mr. Foley does not deal with drama. Motion to Withdraw granted.


Internal Reference # 1041

Facts : On 10/20 at approximately 22:40HRS(10:40 PM) Officer B observed a Blue Truck traveling at a high rate of speed west on Northlake Blvd in Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Palm Beach County. Officer B got behind the truck and pace clocked it traveling at 65 MPH then traveled from the right through lane, across the center lane and into the left through lane without using a turn signal in moderate traffic. Officer B, being in a marked police vehicle, conducted a traffic stop. The truck had a Florida tag. The truck turned onto a road and stopped. The driver and only occupant were found to be the defendant. He was identified by his driver’s license. The defendant showed signs of impairment, odor of an unknown intoxicating beverage abut his breath, eyes bloodshot and water and speech slurred. Officer B summoned this officer, Officer C to the scene to conduct an investigation for Driving Under The Influence. Upon Officer C’s arrival, the defendant was in the driver seat/ behind the wheel of his vehicle. After receiving the information from Officer B reference to driving pattern and traffic stop, Officer C approached the driver’s door of the truck. Officer C introduced himself to the defendant and explained he was summoned to the scene to conduct an investigation for Driving Under the Influence. Officer C asked the defendant if he would step out of his vehicle and do some roadside tasks. He explained that failure to do the roadside task would be used against him in the court of law. The defendant stated, “No I will not do any tasks.” Officer C observed the odor of an unknown intoxicating beverage about his breath, eyes bloodshot and watery, and speech slurred. With the evidence provided by Officer B and Officer C’s observations, Officer C placed the defendant under arrest for driving under the influence. The defendant stumbled and staggered as he exited his vehicle and walked to the rear of the cab. After a pat-down search, the defendant was handcuffed, which were checked for fit and double locked, and placed into the backseat of Officer C’s police vehicle. Officer C transported the defendant to the breath-testing center at the jail. After the twenty-minute observation period, the defendant was asked to take the breath test. He stated “No.” Officer C read implied consent. The defendant stated he understood the implied consent. Again he was asked to take the breath test. Again he stated “No.” Officer C issued the defendant a Notice to appear for driving under the influence, F.S.S. 316.193(1) Officer B issued the defendant a Uniform Traffic Citation for speeding (316.189(2). Officer C escorted the defendant to the intake area of the jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Driving Under The Influence (316.193(1)).

Results : Trial by jury. Defendant was found guilty. We Lost. Judge Gave a Probation Sentence rather than incarceration


Internal Reference # 1045

Facts : The defendant was being escorted out of a bank by security. The defendant started to run out of the building through the parking lot to another building Officer T followed the defendant to another building. Officer T saw the defendant go up the stairs to the third floor. At that time, the defendant started to kick a door of an office. The defendant then climbed over the stairwell to the second floor. The defendant went down the stairs to the courtyard area, where Officer T gave verbal commands to go down the ground, the defendant refused. The defendant displayed signs of intoxication, was sweaty and not wearing a shirt. Officer T then displayed his Taser at which time the defendant complied with verbal commands. The defendant made a spontaneous statement that he drank a beer of Smirnoff. Officer M responded to the scene and arrested the defendant. While en route to the holding cell, the defendant began to rant about being a CIA officer and how the world is coming to an end. While at the holding cell, he continued his rant. Officer M processed him, and then transported him to jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Disorderly Intoxication at Public Place Cause Disturbance (856.011).

Results : The charge of disorderly intoxication for the defendant was Nolle Prosequi( dismissed).


Internal Reference # 1047

Facts : The defendant was found asleep behind the driver’s wheel of his vehicle with the engine running, transmission in drive, and keys in ignition. The defendant pants were unbuttoned and down. He was not wearing a shirt and was missing one shoe. The vehicle was found on the front lawn of a church, having left the roadway and being driven up over the raised concrete curb. The defendant had to be assisted to his feet as he was unable to stand on his own and had an unsteady gait. The defendant’s speech was mumbled and slurred and often not understandable. The defendant’s eyes were watery and his face flushed. There was a strong smell of an alcoholic type beverage coming from the defendant’s person. The defendant was asked three times what he had to drink and each time replied with a list of places where he had been, not what he had been drinking as asked. The defendant indicted hat he had “five” drinks. The defendant was unable to provide an answer and stared blankly ahead when asked what city he was in. The defendant was asked three times if he knew what road he was on and each time replied “north from home.

Officer S demonstrated the following roadside sobriety tests to the defendant. Romberg Balance, One Leg Stand and Finger to Nose. The defendant was unable or unwilling to perform any of the tests repeating “I’m sorry, at this time in my life” and staring away from Officers. The defendant was read Implied Consent by Officer G but refused to submit to breath and urine testing.

The defendant was placed under arrest and transported to the police department for processing. When placed in a holding cell, the defendant immediately stripped down to his boxer shorts and fell asleep.

The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI (316.193(2)(a) and DUI- Refusal to submit breath/urine (314.1939(1)).

Results : After unsuccessful negotiations, the case went to a jury trial. The defendant was acquitted by a jury of his peers. All charges dismissed.


Internal Reference # 1051

Facts : Officer E was westbound on the road. He observed the defendant driving a Black Chevy in lane #1. The Defendant was visually estimated to be in excess of the posted 50MPH Speed Limit. Officer E paced the defendant at 69 MPH in the posted 50 MPH zone. The defendant drove approximately 8/10 of a mile except for 2 instances with her tires (left sides) outside the yellow lane division line. On both stances the defendant’s tires slowly crossed into lane #1, for approximately 150-200 feet and then slowly drifted back outside the yellow division line. Officer E activated his emergency lights and sounded his siren. The defendant slowed down but did not stop. Officer E sounded his siren several more times and the defendant finally came to a stop in lane #1. The defendant had to be told, VIA P.A. three times to move off the road to the right, the defendant eventually complied. Officer E approached the passenger’s side window since the defendant had stopped with her vehicle partially in lane #3. Officer E asked the defendant for her DL, Registration and Insurance. The defendant handed Officer E a debit card. He asked for all the documents and the defendant only provided a drivers license. Officer E could smell an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle so he asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle. Officer E noticed the defendant had blood shot eyes, slurred speech and confirmed the odor of the alcoholic beverage was coming from her breath. The defendant did not complete SFST’S to standards (See DUI Test Report) and was arrested. Officer D transported the defendant to the police station for further DUI testing.

The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI (316.193(1))

Results : After entering a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of DUI. The defendant was adjudicated guilty by the court. The Defendant was sentenced to 6 months probation, 100 hours of community service, License revoked for a period of 6 months, completion of a DUI course, and fines. The win in this case was that Mr. Foley avoided jail time for the defendant and a reduced probation time.

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
★★★★★