While an Officer was working off duty at a local bar/restaurant, he observed the defendant driving on the wrong side of the road in a parking lot. The officer then approached the vehicle and allegedly observed the defendant to have bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol and burnt cannabis emanating from the vehicle as well as an open beer container in the vehicle. The officer then placed the defendant in handcuffs because he was allegedly verbally aggressive and had severe mood swings. When a backup officer arrived, the handcuffs were taken off of the defendant and he was read his Miranda rights. The defendant was placed under arrest after he completed field sobriety exercises. The defendant was charged with DUI, Possession of Cannabis and Driving While License Suspended.
Outcome: Mr. Sobel successfully argued that the actions on the part of the officer were illegal. The DUI investigation, the cannabis and the information obtained by the officer were all suppressed. The state subsequently dropped the charges
Case Number: XX-XXXXXXXXXXThe defendant was pulled over while driving for having illegal tint on his back windows. A teletype check showed that there was an active warrant for the defendant. Once the warrant was confirmed, the defendant was placed under arrest and a search of the vehicle was conducted. Cannabis was recovered from the center consol of the vehicle and the defendant was arrested for possession of cannabis.
Outcome: Mr. Sobel filed a sworn motion to dismiss arguing that eventhough the vehicle was driven by the defendant, the defendant was not the registered owner and that there was a passenger in the vehicle as well. Mr. Sobel used these facts and supporting case law to show that there was no evidence linking the defendant to the cannabis. After reading the motion, the state dropped the charges.
Case Number: XX-XXXXXXXXXXThe defendant was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. It was alleged that the defendant used a baseball bat to beat the alleged victims vehicle's windshield and windows while the victim was in the vehicle.
Outcome: A jury found the defendant not-guily in 10 minutes. During cross examination, Mr. Sobel was able to expose inconsistancies in the alleged victims testimony as well as establish a motive for the defendant to fabricate the story.
Case Number: XX-XXXXXXXXXXThe Defendant was pulled over for a traffic stop in which the officer said the defendant was speeding and made an improper turn. When the officer approached the vehicle, the defendant became upset and questioned why he was stopped. The officer alleged that he believed that the defendant was impaired and requested him out of his vehicle to conduct a DUI investigation. The officer also said that he observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes. After the defendant exited the vehicle, the Officer observed what he thought was a machete protruding from under the driver seat. The defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. A DUI investigation was never even conducted.
Outcome: Mr. Sobel successfully argued to the Court that the discovery of the machete should be suppressed, resulting in the case’s ultimate dismissal.
Case Number: XX-XXXXXXXXXXFlorida Highway Patrol Trooper XXXXXXX was dispatched in reference to a traffic accident. After speaking to several witnesses, the trooper determined that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The trooper made contact with the defendant who was being treated for minor injuries by Fire-Rescue. While questioning the defendant, the trooper made physical observations that led him to suspect that the defendant was under the influence. The trooper then requested the defendant to perform field sobriety exercises, to which the defendant refused and was subsequently arrested. Post arrest, the trooper requested Fire-Rescue personnel take a blood sample from the defendant. The blood test revealed that the defendant was under the influence and the defendant was charged with DUI.
Outcome: Mr. Sobel wrote and filed a motion to suppress the blood results in this case. After reviewing the motion and the binding case law, the state conceded to the motion and the blood results were suppressed.
Case Number: XX-XXXXXXXXXXHollywood Police Officers received a dispatch concerning a fight between several black males at a certain location. When the officers arrived, there was nobody at the aforementioned location. The officer discovered two black males down the block who were speaking in a loud tone. The officers approached the two individuals to conduct an investigatory detention. After observing the officers approaching, one of the men ran into a local apartment and refused to exit when requested to do so. The defendant was eventually arrested and charged with resisting arrest without violence and disorderly conduct.
Outcome: Mr. Sobel successfully argued that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant. As a result of his motion, the State Attorney entered a dismissal on the case.
In Florida, it is illegal to operate or drive a car while under the influence of drugs or alcohol to the extent that your normal facilities are impaired. If you are found driving...
More Info...That initial decision, bail or release, can and often sets the tone for the entire case. We work to secure every client's freedom as early as possible by bringing family to the...
More Info...