Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney

Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney

You Can Afford the Attorney You Need
No Credit Check

DUI Charges are Complex and UniqueDUI cases are some of the most difficult cases to handle.  Your DUI attorney needs a strong knowledge of a wide variety of legal and scientific issues.  DUI cases are the only criminal cases that involve field sobriety exercises and breathalyzer testing.  DUI cases are one of very few criminal charges that can involve a toxicological evaluation of urine and/or blood.  For that reason you need a criminal attorney with significant DUI experience and training.    Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney, Michael Dye, has the training, knowledge and experience to effectively defend your DUI charge.  Call us now at (954)990-0525 for a price quote and to see if you qualify for our extended 60 month payment plans.

Our Knowledge and Training Sets Us Apart

Michael Dye has obtained significant additional training in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests used by the police to determine whether an individual is impaired.  Mr. Dye has a strong knowledge of the scientific issues and limitations of DUI chemical testing.  In addition, Mr. Dye has extensive training and experience in cases involving the use of the Drug Recognition Experts.  Due to his extensive knowledge and experience, Mr. Dye has been able to obtain acquittals and dismissals in cases involving drugs and alcohol levels of .06 to .23.

Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney Michael Dye’s Results

All cases have different facts and circumstances and past success is not indicative of future success or any guarantee of a specific outcome.  The following are a small portion of cases that we have handled.  For additional information on our qualifications and experience please contact us directly.

12004452MM10A – DUI Reduced to Reckless Driving

Client was charged with DUID or DUI by drug impairment.  Client provided a urine sample which was tested on, at least, 3 different occasions by 2 laboratories and all 3 tests yielded similar, but different results.  The State’s expert conceded, during deposition, that the laboratory results were inconsistent, that the substances found in the urine exhibit similar symptoms and that it was not possible to determine whether the symptoms were a result of ingestion of a controlled substance.

08CR015261 – DUI Trial – Not Guilty 

Client was driving his vehicle at a high rate of speed on an interstate and lost control of his vehicle.  The vehicle flipped multiple times.  Client was taken to the hospital.  An investigation revealed open containers in his car.  Police arrived at the hospital and requested that the client submit to a breath test and he refused.  The officer was legally permitted to draw blood with a warrant, but choose not to do so.  The case resulted in a not guilty verdict because there was no evidence of impairment.

09CRS008969 – DUI Trial – Not Guilty 

Client pulled up to a stop sign and waited for a police car to go to the intersection.  The police officer had the right of way so the client had to wait.  After approximately 30 seconds, the police officer flashed the car lights at the client signaling for him to go.  The police officer thought that this was suspicious behavior and followed the client for over 1 mile.  Client parked at a residence and went inside.  The police officer stayed and observed the residence for a substantial amount of time.  The officer noticed a broken taillight as the client began to drive away and made a traffic stop.  The client passed all roadside sobriety exercises, refused to take a portable breath test and was arrested for DWI.  Client made a smart remark when asked to take  the breath test and the officer in his discretion stated that the smart comment was a refusal.  The jury acquitted the client because there was no bad driving pattern, no indications of impairment and “you don’t have to be drunk to be a jerk.”

 06CR047654 – DUI Trial – Not Guilty 

Client was driving through a drive through window late at night.  Client passed out after ordering food and crashed into the drive through window.  Client was found by the police hanging out of his window, unconscious, vomiting and with money clinched in his hand.  When the client regained consciousness, he refused a breathalyzer test.  The client had previously been convicted of habitual DWI and would receive a long prison sentence if convicted.  After the State presented its case, the Judge entered a verdict of Not Guilty.

09CR202825 – DUI Trial – Not Guilty

Client was driving on the interstate weaving across lanes of traffic.  He took approximately 2 miles to pull over after the officer initiated the traffic stop.  When the officer approached the vehicle the client was wearing a speedo bathing suit and drinking a Corona.  After determining that the client was not impaired by alcohol, the client consented to a blood draw which identified multiple impairing substances in his blood.  During trial, we were able to have the blood test evidence excluded because the State could not lay a proper foundation for the admission of the blood test.  As a result, the client was found not guilty.

08CR083715 – DUI Trial – Not Guilty 

Client drove into an intersection while light was red and drove her car around in circles before turning back onto the same street that she came from.  When the officer stopped the vehicle, the client turned up her radio, got out of the car and started dancing in the street.  As the officer approached her to question her, the client asked if the officer would dance with her to which he responded “no.”  The client refused roadsides and became belligerent when she was placed under arrest for DWI.  The client spit at the breath test operator when requested to provide a breath sample.  During a search of her car incident to arrest, the police officer discovered full bottles of antipsychotic medications.  Due to this officer’s specialized training in the area of mental health, he recognized these as psychiatric medications.  The officer testified honestly at the hearing that he did not know whether the client was impaired by alcohol or suffering from an acute psychotic episode at the time of the arrest.  As a result, the client was found not guilty.

10CR007978 – DUI Trial – Not Guilty 

Client was stopped for traveling 80mph in a 55mph zone.  The defendant made inconsistent statements to the officer and admitted drinking “straight” vodka.  Defendant was not offered an opportunity to take the roadside sobriety exercises and blew a .13.  At trial, we highlighted the fact that he was in complete control of his vehicle, was able to understand and follow directions and otherwise showed no signs of impairment whatsoever.


Mr. Dye has also consulted with other attorneys regarding drug and alcohol testing issues with successful results.  Case numbers are withheld due to the limited role of consulting.

DUI Cocaine Intoxication – Reduced to Reckless Driving

DUI Violation of 6th Amendment Right to Counsel – Motion to Suppress Granted

DUI Impairment by Oxycodone – Not Guilty at Trial

DUI Impairment by Oxycodone – Reduced to Reckless Driving

DUI Blood Draw – Motion to Suppress Granted

DUI Head On Collision .22 Blood Draw – Reduced to Reckless Driving

DUI Impairment by Marijuana – Not Guilty at Trial

DUI Alcohol Impairment – Motion to Suppress Denied, Reversed on Appeal With Instructions to Grant Motion to Suppress.  Case was Dismissed.

DUI Impairment by Ambien – Reduced to careless and reckless.  Please note that, in Florida, you cannot be convicted for DUI based on ambien alone.

Felony DUI – Motion to Suppress Granted based on Illegal Stop