Criminal Defense Strategy | Changing the Focus

December 14, 2014 by
DUI Investigation

DUI Investigation Phase II

Direct Examination and the State’s Evidence

Throughout the course of a criminal prosecution, the state will repeatedly draw attention to all of the things that a defendant did wrong during the string of events that led to his or her arrest.  The prosecution will only seek to elicit information from the witness that is damaging to the defendant.

Traditional Cross-Examination

The purpose of cross-examination is to test whether or not the witnesses sincerely believes that he or she is telling the truth.  Terence MacCarthy, renowned expert on cross-examination, states that the traditional method of cross-examination occurs in three phases.  1) traditional incantations; 2) begging and 3) demolish, destroy and devastate.  Defense attorneys are simply trying to get an individual to change their story when they use a traditional method of cross-examination.  Nobody ever gets what we call a “Perry Mason Moment” when they are cross examining a witness.  When that fails(begging) attorneys turn to the third step, which typically consists of acting like a…………lawyer.  Accusing an individual of lying due to hyper technical grammatical arguments and arguing over the definition of the word “is.”

Effective Cross-Examination

The traditional cross-examination is typically not effective.  The most effective form of cross-examination is to focus your cross-examination on everything that your client did right and to have the State’s witness agree with you the entire time.  In one of my more memorable jury trials the prosecutor warned the police officer ahead of time not to argue with me.  The police officer agreed with me on each and every point that I made regarding the roadside sobriety exercises.  After the officer completed her testimony and the jury was excused, the officer went to speak with the assistant state attorney who didn’t even look at her and said “Go out in the hallway and pepper spray yourself in the face!”

Example of Changing the Focus

It is usually pretty easy to focus on things that your client did right in DUI cases.  I have never seen a case where a defendant exhibited every single cue listed in the NHTSA guidelines.  Most often a defendant only exhibits 2 or 3 indications of impairment.  Read the motion which illustrates how to frame your cross examination to focus on what your client did right:

[gview file=”https://yourfloridacriminalattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Suppress-Phase-II.pdf” save=”1″]

The chart on page 4 lists all 13 cues that an officer is trained to detect during Phase II of a DUI stop.  In that specific case, the officer could only cite to “slurred speech” as an indication of impairment.  A defense attorney is able to effectively bury one or two cues of impairment by focusing on all of the cues that were not exhibited as opposed to arguing with the officer over the specifics of the cues he claims to have observed.  A good cross for the referenced chart would go something like this:

Q:     “You are trained to look for 13 different cues of impairment during phase II of a DUI investigation?”

A:     “Yes.”

Q:     “You are trained to listen for inconsistent responses?”

A:     “Yes.”

Q:     “***Defendant’s*** responses were consistent?”

A:     “Yes.”

Q:     “Abusive language is an indication of impairment?”

A:     “Yes.”

Q:     “***Defendant*** was civil and polite?”

A:     “Yes.”

Result = 92.4% Correct.  A instead of F!

By focusing your cross examination on the cues that your client did not exhibit, you make the one cue that your client did exhibit appear to be trivial.  In closing you can hammer home that your client did not exhibit 92.4% of the cues of impairment.  In what world is a 92.4% a failing grade?

This approach can be used throughout the case.  It works in motion practice just the same as it works in trial.  As for the sample motion in this matter, the motion forced the state to reduce the charge to a reckless driving and a withheld adjudication.

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

 

 

Filed Under: Cross Examination, DUI Lawyer, Motion Practice, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

The Role of a Grand Jury in Florida Criminal Law

November 24, 2014 by

What is a Grand Jury’s Role in a Criminal Case

There have been a lot of headlines recently regarding a grand jury in St. Louis County, Missouri investigating Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.  People have a lot of questions about exactly what a grand jury is and what is its function.  To sum it up, a grand jury is a panel of citizens that determines whether there is probable cause that 1) a crime has been committed and 2) the crime was committed by the accused.  In order to fulfill its job as a quasi investigatory agency, a grand jury has subpoena powers and can compel witnesses to testify.  The grand jury can also request that an agency, individual or company produce documents and records.   There is typically no judge and the prosecutor presents what evidence he or she wants the grand jury to hear.  The grand jury can ask questions and request more information.

Unlike other court proceedings, grand jury proceedings are private. An individual under investigation by a grand jury does not have the right to a public grand jury.  The lack of transparency in the grand jury system is one of the main complaints in the Michael Brown matter.   Another difference between grand jury proceedings and public trials is that the rules of evidence do not apply in grand jury proceedings.  Much like a finding of probable cause by a court, the grand jury is permitted to take into account evidence that will not be admissible at trial.  Certain evidence, for example hearsay, is regularly excluded from trial testimony, but regularly used to determine probable cause.  In addition, the prosecution can use evidence that might later be excluded because it was seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Once the grand jury has heard the evidence, the grand jury either issues a “true bill of indictment” or “no true bill of indictment.”  A true bill of indictment is a document formally charging an individual with a criminal offense.  No true bill of indictment is a document stating that there is no probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a criminal offense.  Remember that the standard of proof is “probable cause” meaning more likely than not or by a preponderance of the evidence.

Grand Juries in Florida Criminal Cases

Florida does not require that all felonies be charged by use of a grand jury.  Florida is what we call an “information jurisdiction.”  Instead of summoning a grand jury to issue an indictment, the Office of the State Attorney can simply review the probable cause affidavit submitted by the arresting agency and if the prosecutor reviewing the affidavit determines that there is probable cause, the prosecutor issues an “information” which is the formal charging documents for the crime.  A criminal defendant in Florida can still challenge the finding of probable cause by submitting a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause prior to his or her arraignment.

A grand jury is only required to charge individuals with capital offenses pursuant to Article I, Section XV of the Florida Constitution.  This means that a prosecutor can not use an information to charge an individual with a crime when the suspect could receive the death penalty if convicted.  However, Article I, Section XV of the Florida Constitution does not limit the role of a grand jury to only charging capital cases.  Rather, Article I, Section XV limits the ability of The Office of the State Attorney in its ability to file an information.

A grand jury has exclusive authority to charge a capital crime, the state attorney has concurrent authority to charge other crimes.  Often times this leads to non-capital cases being presented to a grand jury.  For example, public corruption cases are often referred to a grand jury to avoid any appearance of impropriety.  All police involved shootings, at least in Broward County, go to a grand jury for investigation whether or not the police or state attorney believe the officer acted appropriately.  Again this is done to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

A Grand Jury Will Indict a Ham Sandwich

The first time that I ever heard this was with regard to the JonBenet Ramsey case when the parents were not indicted for her murder.  I have significant experience representing individuals who were charged by a grand jury from my time as a practicing attorney in North Carolina.   An attorney is typically retained after the initial arrest, but prior to the grand jury hearing.  Out of the hundreds of felony cases that I handled in North Carolina, ranging from low level felonies to drug trafficking and attempted murder, I never had 1 client that was not indicted.  I personally never saw “Not a True Bill” marked on the charging instrument.  So the statement that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich is a rather humorous way of saying that it is not very difficult to get the grand jury to issue a true bill.

Does the grand jury ever get it wrong?  Absolutely.  When they do get it wrong is when they indict somebody for a crime that later gets dismissed or the defendant is found not guilty.  Based on my experience, the standard of proof required to indict is so low and the rules are so relaxed that true bill of indictment is a virtual guarantee if there is even a hint of evidence that an individual broke the law.

What Does this all Mean?

A grand jury is a group of citizens that are summoned as an investigatory body to determine if there is probable cause to charge an individual with a crime.

My Prediction on the Michael Brown Case?

No idea.  I haven’t followed it closely enough to have an educated opinion.  I won’t be surprised either way.

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Filed Under: Criminal Lawyer, Grand Jury Tagged With: , , , , ,

Drugged Driving | Why DUI Drug Impairment is Difficult to Prove

October 22, 2014 by
Drugged Driving | DUI Drug

Drugged Driving | DUI Drug

Drugged Driving | DUID

The following post, as well as the entire website, is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon for either legal or medical advice.  The author of this post has no medical training. 

Florida Statute 316.193 is Florida’s DUI statute.  An individual is only considered impaired if that individual is impaired by 1) alcohol; 2) a chemical substance under Florida Statute 877.111 or 3) a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893 Florida Statutes.  The State must prove impairment and name the specific substance in order to get a conviction for DUI under a drug impairment theory a/k/a drugged driving.  The State is required to prove the specific substance because the substance must be listed in Chapter 893.  Proving the specific substance causing impairment is becoming a more difficult task as more “designer drugs” or “legal highs” hit the market.

Drug Testing

Drug testing is a two step process.  The first step is the preliminary screening.  Positive screens are sent for a confirmatory test.

Preliminary Screen

The majority of Florida DUI drug cases will involve a urinalysis.  The preliminary drug screen typically consists of a 10 panel immunoassay test.  This is commonly known as a dipstick test.  The preliminary screen detects biological markers indicative of exposure to or use of certain drugs and/or classes of drugs.  For example, a 10 panel immunoassay test can test for cocaine, which is a specific drug, as well as benzodiazepines, which are a class of drugs.  An immunoassay test can identify the characteristics of a substance, but is typically not able to determine the exact substance.

Confirmatory Test

The second step of the process is the confirmatory test.  The confirmatory test is typically a GC/MS or gas chromatography mass spectrometry test.  The GC/MS separates the molecules so the exact chemical compound can be determined. While a immunoassay test will show positive for benzodiazepines, the GC/MS is can determine whether the benzodiazepine is alprazolam a/k/a Xanax or diazepam a/k/a Valium.  For more information regarding GC/MS testing, please see Frederic Douglas’ article by clicking this link: Scientific Criminal Defense.

Chapter 893 Florida Statutes

If it is not a listed controlled substance in Chapter 893 Florida Statutes, it is not capable of causing impairment as defined by Florida Statute 316.193(1)(a).  A specific example of this is zolpidem a/k/a Ambien.  Ambien is a powerful sedative hypnotic drug.  It is a federally controlled substance.  However, an individual cannot be convicted for a DUI based on being impaired by Ambien since zolpidem is not listed in Chapter 893 Florida Statues.

Designer Drugs and Research Chemicals

Certain “designer drugs” or “research chemicals” are within a class of drug detected on the 10 panel immunoassay, but are not scheduled controlled substances under Federal or Florida Law.  Some of the more common “designer drugs” are benzodiazepines.  There are several high potency benzodiazepines that are unscheduled under Florida and Federal Law.  Impairment via an unscheduled benzodiazepine may not be impairment as defined in Florida’s DUI statute.

For example, pyrazolam is an extremely potent benzodiazepine derivative that is not a scheduled controlled substance under Florida Law.  Accordingly, even if the State is able to prove that a driver is physically impaired by pyrazolam, the individual is not legally impaired for purposes of Florida’s DUI statute.  The reason why is because pyrazolam is not listed in Chapter 893 Florida Statutes and has no metabolites that are listed in Chapter 893 Florida Statutes.

Amature Chemists Beware

One of the problems with “legal highs”, “designer drugs” and “research chemicals” is that there isn’t much information available on the specific substances.  There is little to no information available on the short and long term physical and mental effects on humans.  Additionally, there is little to no information regarding the metabolism of a specific substance.  What information we do have on research chemicals is frightening.

Diclazepam is currently being marketed as a “research chemical” which is “not intended for human consumption.”  Some of the more intellectually honest websites are marketing it as a “legal high.”  Nevertheless, it is clear that the substance is a benzodiazepine and is not a scheduled controlled substance under Florida or Federal Law.  It should be noted that an individual could be prosecuted for buying, selling or possessing diclazepam under the federal analogue act under certain circumstances.

The limited studies concerning diclazepam show that it metabolizes into three main active metabolites after ingestion.  The three metabolites are lorazepam, delorazepam and lormetazepam.  All three of the active metabolites are controlled substances listed in Chapter 893 Florida Statutes.  An involuntary intoxication defense to DUI would not be permitted if an individual ingested diclazepam, but was impaired by any of the three active metabolites.  Although the approximate detection time limit for a single dose of lorazepam is 5 days, studies show that an individual who ingests diclazepam  may still test positive for lorazepam 19 days after ingestion.

For Lawyers

Make sure that the confirmatory test states a specific substance.  If you are unfamiliar with the substance, check Chapter 893 Florida Statutes.  Do not assume that the substance is included.  Cannabinoids is not a drug, it is a class of drugs.  Benzodiazepines are not a drug, it is a class of drugs.

For Others

All that is required for you to be arrested is probable cause.  If the officer has reason to believe that you are under the influence of a scheduled controlled substance while you are operating a vehicle, you will be arrested.  There is an inherent risk with any type of criminal litigation and you might be convicted.  In the event that you are not convicted, you will still go to jail and you will still have to pay for an attorney.  An attorney who can handle this type of case will not be cheap.  Additionally, just because you are not criminally liable does not mean that you would not be subject to civil liability in the event that somebody gets hurt or killed.  In addition to the legal consequences, intentionally ingesting unstudied chemicals from an anonymous internet based drug dealer/chemist is recklessly placing your physical and mental health in harms way.  Just because it is legal doesn’t mean that it is safe.

For more information on drugged driving or other criminal defense matters, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

 

Filed Under: Ambien, Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Criminal Lawyer, Designer Drugs, DRE, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI Drug, DUI Drug, DUI Lawyer, Metabolite DUI, Research Chemicals, Urinalysis, Zolpidem Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Convention on International Road Traffic

October 14, 2014 by
International Driving Permit

International Driving Permit Pursuant to the Convention on International Road Traffic

Convention on International Road Traffic, How to Turn a Misdemeanor into an International Conflict

If you practice criminal law in South Florida, you will defend people who are not residents or citizens of the United States.  Treaties between the United States and various countries are fertile ground for finding affirmative defenses to some common criminal offenses.  Pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution States “all Treaties made,or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”  To put it simply, treaties between the United States and another country which are 1) signed by the President and 2) ratified by the Senate trump state law.

So what happens when a treaty, being the supreme law of the land, and state law conflict?  The answer is simple, the treaty prevails.  I have had the privilege of representing individuals who were not US Citizens or residents that were cited or arrested for having no valid Florida Drivers License.  All of them were in the United States on business and 3 of the 5 had an “International Driving Permit” in their possession.  An International Driving Permit(hereinafter “IDP”) is a document that arose out of the Convention on International Road Traffic.  It simply provides a translation of an individuals license in his or her native language into English.  It is important to note that an IDP may or may not be required for the affirmative defense under the treaty, but it is good to have.

The Convention on International Road Traffic permits an individual who is licensed in one of the signatory countries to legally drive in any of the other signatory countries without having to be re-licensed in that country.  Possession of a valid foreign drivers license from a signatory country is an absolute and complete defense to the charge of driving with no valid license because the treaty trumps Chapter 316 Florida Statutes.

Personally, I file this motion as a Motion to Dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 for lack of probable cause.  The Judge dismissed the case for “no probable cause” in 4 out of the 5 cases in which I filed the Motion.  The one exception was an Israeli gentleman who did not have an IDP, but presented the court his drivers license from Israel.  Unfortunately, the Judge could read Hebrew and motion was denied because his Israeli drivers license had expired.   The case was later dismissed on other grounds.

Treaties are not just for traffic cases.  There are numerous treaties involving family law, criminal interrogation and enforcement of foreign civil judgments.  It is a good idea to see what treaties are on topic when you are representing a foreign nation.

[gview file=”https://yourfloridacriminalattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Motion-to-Dismiss-IDP.pdf” save=”1″]

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 E Broward Blvd #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Filed Under: Criminal Lawyer, International Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

DUI Checkpoints | What is the Law? | What are Your Rights?

September 24, 2014 by
DUI Checkpoints Constitutional

DUI Checkpoint Ahead

DUI Checkpoints, Your Rights and The Law

I have seen a lot of articles and videos recently regarding DUI checkpoints.  I have been asked a lot of questions regarding checkpoints.  People want to know their rights.  What do they have to provide to the police?  Do they have to roll down their window?  I will get to the answer right away and then the analyze the issues.

The Answer under Florida Law:

“Moreover, as the state points out, a driver who is lawfully stopped for a DUI checkpoint is under a legal obligation to respond to an officer’s requests for certain information and documents, and the driver’s refusal to respond to these requests may constitute the misdemeanor offense of obstructing or opposing an officer. See § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (1991). See also Burkes v. State, 719 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); K.A.C. v. State, 707 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); In the Interest of J.H., 559 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); M.C. v. State, 450 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). If a driver engages in obstructive conduct, in violation of section 843.02, then standard police detention and arrest procedures, rather than checkpoint guidelines, would govern the officer’s handling of the situation.”  Rinaldo v. State, 787 So.2d 208 (Fla. App., 2001)

Issue 1: Cop Baiting | Don’t be Stupid

The vast majority of the checkpoint videos that I have recently seen on Youtube involve what I call “cop baiting.”  “Cop baiting” is when an individual does something stupid with the intent on getting under the cops skin and then turning around and acting like a victim when the officer gets upset.  Cop baiting is not the simple act of being disrespectful towards a police officer.  Cop baiting is going out of your way to intentionally provoke a response from a police officer.  I have no sympathy for anybody who intentionally provokes a response from a police officer whether it be foul language or a smack upside the head.

Most of the videos that I have seen involve individuals refusing to roll down their windows, refusing to provide their license and refusing to answer questions claiming that the checkpoint is somehow unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.  I won’t post any of those videos here because I don’t want to spread their idiocy.  Many people have been arrested and convicted of resisting an officer in the performance of his official duties, or similar statutes, by refusing to cooperate with officers at a DUI checkpoint.  If you choose to resist or obstruct an officer at a checkpoint you will probably get arrested.  When you do get arrested, you will have to post bail and hire an attorney.  So your 1 minute of looking like an idiot on Youtube just cost you $5,000.  It will cost you $5,000 even in the unlikely event that you beat the charge.

Issue 2: Checkpoints Are Permissible Under the United States Constitution

The United States Supreme Court case ruled that checkpoints are permissible under the 4th Amendment in Michigan Dept. State Police vs. Sitz in 1990.  The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that a state has a “substantial government interest” to stop drunk driving, and that checkpoints are rationally related to achieving the goal of stopping drunk driving. The Court also ruled that the impact on drivers from being stopped at a checkpoint was de minimus, that the time a motorist is delayed from reaching his or her destination is negligible, and that brief questioning  in order to determine if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a driver is impaired also is not a significant impairment of the drivers’ Fourth Amendment right. The court balanced the interest of the state in combating drunk driving with the individuals Fourth Amendment rights and held that checkpoints were permissible.

There have been further cases which restrict how checkpoints can be conducted.  In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361(1979). The Supreme Court stated that the trial court must look to “(1) the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, (2) the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and (3) the severity of the interference with individual liberty.”   Other cases that significantly modified how a checkpoint can be conducted are:

  • Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40-42, 121 S. Ct 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333, 343(2000);
  • Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 81, 121 S.Ct. 1281, 1290, 149 L.Ed.2d 205, 218(2001);
  • Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427, 124 S.Ct. 885, 890, 157 L.Ed.2d 843, 852(2004).

However, all of the foregoing cases involve how the checkpoints were setup and operated.  This is information that your attorney will get after you are arrested.

Issue 3: State Laws can be More Restrictive

Ironically, when Michigan Dept. State Police vs. Sitz was remanded to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution for the State of Michigan provided additional protections for drivers than the United States Constitution.  Consequently, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints were not permitted pursuant to the State Constitution rather than the United States Constitution.

The states are also free to implement legislation regarding checkpoints as long as the legislation more restrictive towards the state as opposed to attempting to overturn the Supreme Court by state legislation.  In my opinion, a perfect example of this prohibited legislation is found in North Carolina Statute 20-16.3A(d).  The statute states, “The placement of checkpoints should be random or statistically indicated, and agencies shall avoid placing checkpoints repeatedly in the same location or proximity. This subsection shall not be grounds for a motion to suppress or a defense to any offense arising out of the operation of a checking station.”

This legislation is designed to avoid motions to suppress based on an allegation that the checkpoint was not narrowly tailored to meet its objectives.  I no longer practice law in North Carolina and can not give any legal advice regarding North Carolina law.  However, it appears that one Judge agreed with me that the law was unconstitutional.

[gview file=”https://yourfloridacriminalattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Order-Granting-Motion-to-Suppress-DUI-Checkpoint.pdf” save=”1″]

So What Are My Rights?   What do I do if I am Stopped at a Checkpoint?

Assuming that checkpoints are legal in your state, you must comply with the officer’s requests.  For example, providing drivers license, registration and proof of insurance.  The Sitz case makes it very clear that the officer’s have the right to ask you limited questions.  As I wrote above “brief questioning  in order to determine if there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a driver is impaired also is not a significant impairment of the drivers’ Fourth Amendment right.”

So they can ask, but you do not have to answer if your answer may incriminate yourself.  You still have your 5th Amendment rights.  If you haven’t been drinking or you aren’t coming back from a bar, simply tell them you are coming back from grocery shopping(tell the truth) and be on your way.  If you feel that your answer may incriminate you, don’t answer.  In some circumstances, they may let you go and in some they may arrest you on an obstruction charge or maybe a DUI.  There is nothing you can do to help yourself at that point.  Let your attorney handle it.

Most importantly, ROLL DOWN THE WINDOW!  This seems to be all the trend on the cop baiting videos.  The police officer cannot ask you questions with your window rolled up.  If it is cracked the officer will claim he couldn’t hear you.  Maybe you interfered with the states right to determine reasonable suspicion because he couldn’t tell if there was an odor of alcohol.  Who knows what the police officer will say, but if you obstructed, you get arrested.

So do as follows:

  • ROLL DOWN YOUR WINDOW so the officer can communicate with you;
  • Be polite;
  • Provide the police officer with your license, registration and insurance;
  • If the answers won’t lead towards incriminating yourself, answer the questions and be on your way;

DO NOT DO AS FOLLOWS:

  • Enter into a debate with the police officer over the constitutionality of checkpoints;
  • Make any incriminating statements.  If where you were or what you were doing had to do with anything that could be perceived as illegal, simply state “I am not going to answer any questions without a lawyer present.”  You may get arrested anyways, but that is what attorneys are for.
  • Do not take the roadside sobriety exercises.  You are under no obligation to do so.  Simply say “No thank you officer.  I am not going to take any tests.”
  • I don’t think that I am allowed to advise anybody NOT TO TAKE THE BREATHALYZER, if it is a second refusal or more, refusing to take the breath test is a criminal offense.
  • If you are going to shut up, then shut up.  The more you talk the more evidence the police will have;
  • DO NOT GO ON COP BAITING EXPEDITIONS!

Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney, Michael Dye, represents individuals charged with all types of felonies and misdemeanors including, but not limited to contempt of court.  For more information, please contact Mr. Dye at his Fort Lauderdale or Miami office:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: 4th Amendment, Criminal Lawyer, DUI Checkpoints, DUI Lawyer, Search and Seizure Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,