Case Results

Facts: Police stopped our client for allegedly running a red light. The stopping police officer made contact with our client, along with her children who were seated in the back seat, at which time the officer allegedly noticed an odor of alcohol coming from our client’s breath, along with other indicators of impairment. Upon removing our client from her vehicle and completing field sobriety exercises, police arrested our client for DUI.

Outcome: Upon our office obtaining all discovery from the State, including multiple police reports along with body worn camera video captured from multiple police officers, we immediately got to work. Attorney Eric van Vonno reviewed hours of body worn camera video footage and noted multiple inconsistencies between the police reports and the video footage. Based on these inconsistencies, we filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that police did not have the right to order our client out of her vehicle for the purpose of conducting a DUI investigation. Attorney Jeffrey Grossman argued the motion to suppress before a Broward County Judge, and during the hearing, the multiple videos were dissected one at a time. It quickly became apparent to the presiding Judge that the police officer’s account of what occurred on the night of our client’s arrest did not match up with what appeared on the videos. Our motion to suppress was granted by the court, and the State subsequently dropped all charges against our client.

Facts: Hollywood police officers responded to a Party City store in response to a 911 call regarding two black males breaking into the store. Upon arriving on scene, officers were told that the suspects had left the store, however the officer’s decided to enter the store anyways to “further investigate.” Upon entering the store, police came into contact with our client and his friend who were at the cash register purchasing a costume. The officers wrote in their police reports that upon attempting to pat down our client and escort him out of the store, he intentionally lowered his shoulder and struck one the officers while walking out of the store. Officers arrested our client for Resisting with Violence, Battery, and trespass.

Outcome: Immediately upon being retained for this case, our paralegals contacted the Party City store where this incident occurred and requested a copy of their store video footage from the night of this incident. Party City staff informed us that they had already provided a copy to Hollywood Police Department and that they no longer had a copy of the video in their possession. Neither the State of Florida nor the Hollywood Police Department had provided a copy of this video to our office, so we conducted depositions of all of the responding police officers and questioned them regarding this missing video. After deposing five police officers, our attorneys were able to discern which police officer obtained the video, and upon deposing that officer, he denied having a copy in his possession. Our office then filed a motion to compel discovery in court, and the presiding Judge issued an order requiring the Hollywood Police Department to turn over a copy of the video footage. Upon finally receiving a copy of this missing video, it was clear that the police officer’s had not been truthful regarding the events that occurred, as the video made it very clear that our client did not intentionally strike any police officer, nor did he resist with violence as alleged. Upon bringing this video to the attention of the State and speaking with the assigned prosecutor, the State agreed to drop the Resisting with Violence felony charge as well as the misdemeanor Battery charge.

Facts: Police stopped our client for allegedly weaving over a lane divider multiple times. Upon coming into contact with our client, police allegedly noticed indicators of alcohol impairment and requested our client perform field sobriety exercises. Our client agreed to perform the exercises, however, upon completing them, she was arrested for DUI. Our client refused to take a breath test at the police station.

Outcome: Upon completing the deposition of the arresting police officer in this case, it became apparent that a motion to suppress needed to be filed arguing an unlawful traffic stop by the police officer. Upon filing the motion to suppress and presenting an oral argument in court, the presiding judge agreed with our attorney’s arguments and granted a motion to suppress all evidence obtained by police following the unlawful traffic stop in this case. All charges against our client were subsequently dropped by the State.

Facts: Police alleged that our client made a post on Twitter threatening to blow up the Coral Springs Police Department with a rocket-propelled grenade. This tweet was seen by a Coral Springs employee, and although it was immediately taken down, the employee was able to save a copy and ascertain which username posted the tweet. Police executed multiple subpoenas for records from twitter as well as the phone company from which the tweet was allegedly made and eventually came up with a phone number and address that at one time belonged to our client. Upon responding to our client's home address, an experienced detective began interrogating our client without reading his Miranda rights and ultimately obtained a full confession from our client regarding the tweet. Our client was arrested for threatening to discharge a destructive device, a second-degree felony.

Outcome: Upon being hired for this case, the media had already begun reporting on it, making it important to keep our client as under the radar as possible. We immediately filed a motion to modify our client’s pretrial release conditions, including having a GPS monitor removed from our client’s ankle, which was ultimately granted by the presiding Judge. After completing the deposition of the lead Detective, as well as obtaining copies of our client’s alleged confession, it was clear that the Detective had violated our client’s Constitutional rights by failing to read our client Miranda warnings. A motion to suppress our client’s confession to the Detective was drafted and sent to the assigned prosecutor along with an email requesting that the State reduce the charge to something less than a second-degree felony, which would have made our client a convicted felon. After extensive negotiations with the prosecutor, we were able to convince the State to reduce the charge to Filing a False Police Report, and the second-degree felony threatening to discharge a destructive device charge was dropped by the State.

Facts: Our client was allegedly involved in a single-car accident during which he hit a median and a street sign. An out of jurisdiction police officer responded and detained our client while waiting for a police officer with jurisdiction to respond. Upon an officer with jurisdiction responding, it was unclear what occurred between the two police officers based solely on police reports, however ultimately our client was arrested for DUI following a police investigation. Unfortunately, there were no body-worn camera videos available to shed more light on what transpired leading up to our clients arrest.

Outcome: Due to the lack of clarity in the police reports provided by the State, our office immediately set the two police officers involved for a deposition. Upon completing the depositions, it became apparent that the first officer to arrive on the scene, who did not have territorial jurisdiction to conduct a criminal investigation, did in fact conduct the entire DUI investigation and arrest, even though an officer with jurisdiction was seated in his car on scene. A motion to suppress all evidence was filed by our office, and Attorney’s Jeffrey Grossman and Eric van Vonno argued the motion before the presiding Judge. During the motion to suppress hearing, it became apparent that the State could not proceed, and the State dropped all charges against our client.

Facts: A police officer stopped our client's vehicle for a traffic infraction and upon making contact with our client, the officer alleged smelled and odor of cannabis emitting from the vehicle. Upon opening the driver's side door, the officer observed a firearm sitting in the door pocket in plain view. The officer immediately ordered our client to exit his vehicle, and subsequently arrested him for carrying a concealed firearm, and 3rd-degree felony.

Outcome: Upon hiring our firm, we immediately requested discovery from the State and learned that an in-car video existed from the police officers' vehicle. Upon obtaining a copy of the video from the police agency, it was clear that the firearm was not concealed, as it was clearly visible to the officer immediately upon him opening the door. After extensive research on this topic, our attorney’s drafted and filed a motion to dismiss the carrying a concealed firearm charge, and the motion was set for a hearing. On the morning of the motion to dismiss hearing, the State conceded the motion and dropped the felony charge in its entirety.

Facts: A business owner alleged that our client, his ex-employee, had stolen money from his company in the form of taking payment for jobs and depositing it directly into his account, rather than bringing the payment back to the business at the end of the workday. He alleged that our client did this at least two times, and the total amount of loss was approximately $1300. As a result of this business owner’s allegations, our client was arrested by police for Grand Theft.

Outcome: Upon speaking with our client, it became clear that this business owner was not being truthful with police upon making this police report, and in fact, this business owner was attempting to have our client pay him money in order to drop the charges. Our office set deposition in this case and served the business owner with a subpoena to appear for a deposition. Upon receipt of this subpoena, a lawyer representing the business owner contacted our office and advised that the business owner had no intention of proceeding with this case, and now wished to have the charges against our client dropped. Upon putting the business owner’s attorney in touch with the assigned prosecutor, the felony Grand Theft charge was dropped by the State.

Facts: A black male called 911 alleging that another black male in a red vehicle shot a firearm multiple times into his vehicle then sped off. The alleged victim reported that our client had a verbal altercation with the victim as a result of road rage leading up to the shooting. Upon stopping next to each other at a stoplight, the alleged victim stated that as he was driving forward upon the light turning green, our client discharged his firearm multiple times shooting into the alleged victim's vehicle. The alleged victim denied making any threats to our client and denied having any weapon or firearm at the time of the shooting. Upon locating our client and questioning him, our client told police that the alleged victim actually had made verbal threats and even pointed a firearm out of his window in our client’s direction before our client ever discharged his firearm. Our client maintained that he discharged his firearm in self-defense as he feared death or great bodily harm was imminent based on the alleged victim’s acts. Police searched the alleged victim’s vehicle and located a large amount of ammunition along with a holster, however, no firearm was recovered. Police forwarded the case to the Broward State Attorney’s Office, who decided to file these serious felony charges against our client nearly eight months after the shooting occurred. These two charges alone carried a minimum mandatory prison sentenced due to the severity of the charges filed against our client.

Outcome: Based on the unique facts of this case, attorneys Jeffrey Grossman and Eric van Vonno decided that a stand your ground motion needed to be filed in order to have these charges dismissed. After taking a deposition of the alleged victim and obtaining all of the police reports and other discovery, in this case, we filed a motion to dismiss alleging immunity from prosecution based on Florida’s stand your ground law, pursuant to Florida Statute 776.032. Upon having this motion set for hearing, preparing for oral argument, and showing up on the morning of court, the State decided to drop the charges against our client entirely.

Facts: According to police, a driver called 911 after our client allegedly pointed a firearm at him and threatened to kill him as a result of a road rage incident. Upon the 911 caller giving a tag number to police, they eventually responded to our client’s address and arrested him for aggravated assault with a firearm, a second-degree felony. No statement was taken from our client, so police never heard our client’s version of events.

Outcome: Upon meeting with our client, it became apparent that the 911 caller’s version of events did not match up with our client’s version. This was going to be a classic he-said-she-said case as there were no other witnesses. After multiple attempts to serve the alleged victim for deposition, and his failure to appear for deposition, the case was ultimately set for trial. Our attorney’s contacted the assigned prosecutor multiple times in an effort to secure a change of charge to a lesser, however, the State refused to make an acceptable offer. After preparing extensively with our client and upon appearing the morning of trial, the State offered a misdemeanor improper exhibition of a weapon, and our client took the State’s offer. The felony aggravated assault with a firearm charge was dropped by the State.