Attorney William Moore defended the following cases, and many others as well. Contact The Law Offices of William Moore today if you have any questions.

CASE NO.: 08-006878TC10A - NOT GUILTY

The firm's client was charged with driving while license suspended resulting from a previous DUI suspension or refusing to submit to an intoxilyzer. DUI charges were pending when an officer stopped the defendant's vehicle for a traffic infraction and found that he had sustained a suspension. The state attorney's office had offered a plea of 30 days in the Broward County jail which was promptly rejected.

RESULT

A trial on the merits of the case was demanded upon our realization that the charging document filed by the state was, in fact, faulty. Upon the resting of the state's case, these issues were brought to the attention to the judge who promptly rendered a ruling in favor of our client.

CASE NO.: 08-002267MM40A - NOT GUILTY

Our client was charged with a misdemeanor. This client was a police officer who was forced to resign after the allegations were brought by local law enforcement and the state attorneys' office. An issue that made this case so threatening to our client was the fact that a conviction would result in a denial of his pension. Furthermore, any certification to obtain employment as a law enforcement officer would be revoked.

RESULT

Taking an aggressive stance in this matter, the defense pushed forward for trial catching the state attorney off guard and unprepared. Being forced to go forward with very little to no evidence, the state attorney's office went forward. A not guilty verdict was obtained.

CASE NO.: 07-002126MM10A - Breakdown to Reckless Driving

Client was pulled over for traveling 95 MPH in a posted 45 MPH zone. Upon making contact an officer from the Florida Highway Patrol noticed an open container (rum and coke) in the cupholder of client's automobile. When asked to perform roadside exercises, signs of impairment were detected by the officer during the following exercises: HGN, walk & turn test, one leg stand and finger to nose. Client was brought to the breath alcohol testing facility where he refused to provide a breath sample. Client can audibly be heard on the videotape stumbling over his words explaining that he was not going to further participate in any exercises or tests designed to help the state determine impairment.

RESULT

Client suffers from a condition that causes him to stutter which may have otherwise led the law enforcement officer to believe he was impaired by alcohol due to speech challenges. The admissibility of his refusal to submit to chemical testing was also challenged via a Motion to Suppress which was to be heard on the day of trial. Believing that the State would be unable to secure a conviction in this matter, a breakdown to reckless driving was offered and accepted by our client.

CASE NO.: 07-006630MM10A - Prosecution Declined

After a thorough review of the case, the State Attorney declined prosecution on the DUI.

CASE NO.: 07-006630MM10A - Charges not filed

The State Attorney's office, believing that they did not have enough evidence with which to pursue a conviction, declined pursuing charges against the Firm's client.

CASE NO. 07-021674MM10A

Client charged with driving under the influence - Charges dismissed.

RESULT

After thoroughly investigating the case and preparing all necessary defenses, the State Attorney's office voluntarily dismissed the DUI charge against our client.

CASE NO. 07-001714MM10A

Client retained our law firm after being charged with driving under the influence. The state's case was very strong in that defendant was pulled over at 4:00 in the morning traveling at a high rate of speed on A1A away from the direction of his home. Allegations also included that the defendant could not maintain a single lane and swerved across two lanes of traffic. Upon being pulled over, our client threw his keys in an effort to hide them and consistently said on DUI investigation video that he had not been operating the vehicle. When pushed further by the responding DUI investigator, defendant admitted he had been driving, he was the only person on the scene, and it was his automobile that had been stopped by a previous officer. Defendant slurred as he spoke and swayed from side to side. Despite the list of damaging facts against our client, he proceeded to trial due to the fact that a conviction for DUI would cause him to lose his job and give up his career selling pharmaceutical supplies nationwide.

Strategy - Jury selection that allows for sympathy on the part of the jurors towards the defendant is key to avoiding a verdict of guilty. Juries frequently hold the state attorney's office to a high burden of proof.

RESULT

After jury selection, the judge stated that the firm of William Ryan Moore did an excellent job in choosing tryors oriented towards the defense. The judge stated (unofficially) that the breaking down of the charge by the state attorney's office may be a good idea to consider. This suggestion was not taken. William Ryan Moore, at closing argument, explained that defendant's knowledge of police officers meant that he felt that he could not trust the police regarding DUI investigations. He had also taken some bad advice from other police officers concerning admission of facts while being recorded. The jury's verdict was that the defendant was not guilty.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 - Case Dismissed

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his automobile which was parked slanted and occupying two parking spaces in his residential development. Prior to the police being called on the scene, State witnesses allege that they had seen the Firm's client operating the vehicle, and that he had passed out with the door open and an alcoholic beverage by his side. Upon making contact with the Defendant, officers observed him to be incoherent, having slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and in need of medical treatment. Paramedics were called to the scene.

RESULT

Upon fully investigating the claim and presenting witnesses, the defense established inconsistent evidence that challenged the State's eyewitness testimony as to the events that occurred on the night of Defendant's arrest. Confronted with contradictory testimony that Defendant had not been operating the vehicle on the night of his arrest, the Assistant State Attorney agreed to breakdown the DUI charge to reckless driving, and the Firm's client was not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO. 06-25795MM10A - States Evidence

Client was observed failing to maintain a single lane, weaving across marked roadway lanes. DUI video of the Firm's client on the night of his arrest showed clear evidence of intoxication in the form of slurred speech, inability to answer questions or perform roadside sobriety exercises. Due to the client residing out of state, a request was made to have this matter special set for trial before a jury, as opposed to being placed on standby.

RESULT

On the day of trial the State Attorney's Office amended the charge from DUI to reckless driving based on the belief they could not succeed in obtaining a conviction with the evidence available to them. Client was not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO. 6155XAE - Case Dismissed

Client was in an alleged accident wherein she made an improper turn in front of an oncoming vehicle causing impact. Subsequently client was charged with one count of DUI/property damage. Upon conducting an accident investigation, law enforcement officers called DUI task force to the scene after observing the Defendant with a flushed face, red eyes, slurred speech and otherwise being unsteady on her feet.

Roadside sobriety exercises were administered whereby the Defendant gave several signs of impairment. Our client refused to participate in any chemical testing and would not provide a breath sample to determine the alcohol content of her blood.

In preparing client's defense it was determined that certain trees planted by the city in the median of the intersection where the accident took place prevented out client from adequately seeing oncoming traffic. Exhibits were prepared of the intersection for use at trial to establish that the accident was not the fault of the client.

RESULT

On the day of trial the State Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against our client, believing that they would be unable to obtain a conviction in this matter. The Firm's client was not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO. 0961XAV - DUI reduced to reckless driving

The Firm's client was arrested for DUI after being found passed out behind the wheel of an automobile at an intersection. Upon making contact with the Firm's client, law enforcement described her as having a flushed face, red eyes, and slurred speech with a strong odor of alcohol. Roadside sobriety exercises were administered whereby the Firm's client was unsteady on her feet, swayed, used her arms for balance and was unable to complete and/or understand the tasks given to her by DUI taskforce.

On the day of trial the state attorney offered a breakdown from DUI to reckless driving due to the fact they believed they would not succeed in obtaining a conviction against the Firm's client.

RESULT

The Firm's client was not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO. 489798X - DUI broken down to reckless driving

The Firm's client was involved in an altercation while leaving a nightclub in Miami Beach, FL. Law enforcement officers claimed that he appeared to have been drinking and stopped him after he left the premises operating his motor vehicle. Upon making contact with the Firm's client, law enforcement indicated that he had slurred speech, red eyes, a flushed face and was unsteady on his feet. The Firm's client was unable to complete roadside sobriety exercises, nor was he able to follow the law enforcement officer's instructions. The Firm's client refused any chemical testing.

On the day of trial the State Attorney's Office, believing they would be unable to obtain a conviction for DUI, offered a breakdown of the charges to reckless driving.

RESULT

The Firm's client accepted the breakdown and was not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO. 06-025087MM10A - Treatment in lieu of jail

The Firm's client was facing DUI charges and a mandatory jail sentence.

RESULT

The Firm's client was permitted to receive treatment for his alcohol abuse as opposed to serving a mandatory jail sentence.

CASE NO. 06-022666CF10A - Felony counts dismissed

The Firm's client was charged with DUI and battery upon a law enforcement officer when said arresting officer alleged that the Firm's client had attempted to kick him while being arrested and lunged at his groin area.

RESULT

After a thorough investigation of all facts in the case the State Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss the felony count against the Firm's client believing they would not succeed on a conviction if the case proceeded to trial.

CASE NO. 06-07871MM10A - DUI dismissed

Defendant was arrested for DUI following an accident whereby it was alleged that the Firm's client, while traveling at a high rate of speed, veered off the road, went through hedges and into two parked cars at the front of a residence. Law enforcement officers arriving at the scene believed that the Firm's client was under the influence of illegal narcotics and subsequently requested a blood test, to which the Firm's client agreed.

The result of chemical testing revealed the presence of several narcotics, including opium-based narcotics and cocaine in high levels in the client's bloodstream at the time of his arrest.

A motion to suppress was filed by this office alleging that the Firm's client was not under arrest at the time the request to test his blood was made, and therefore inadmissible as a matter of law. After hearing all of the evidence and reviewing the defense motion to suppress, the court entered an order suppressing any chemical evidence performed on the Defendant, rendering the state unable to proceed in good faith with trial.

RESULT

The State Attorney's Office dismissed all charges pending against the Firm's client.

CASE NO.: 06-015912MM10A - Case declined

Client was pulled over by law enforcement and suspected of operating her vehicle while impaired by alcohol. DUI task force was called at which time the Firm's client was unable to perform road sobriety exercises and refused to provide a breath sample. After contacting the State Attorney's office William Moore indicated severe deficiencies in the State's case, as well as the violation of the client's constitutional rights, the State Attorney's office declined filing any action against the Firm's client.

CASE NO.: 92-026090MM10A - The Charges Were Reduced

Upon initiating a traffic accident investigation law enforcement officers discovered our client behind the wheel of his 1955 Buick. The client's vehicle suffered extensive front end damage and the occupants in the vehicle hit by our client suffered significant injuries. Law enforcement officers detected a "very strong odor of alcoholic beverage" and the client was mumbling incoherently. The client was also swaying side to side and was asked to perform roadside sobriety exercises on video. The DUI video depicted our client as having to use both arms to maintain his balance, and he was unable to perform the one-leg stand. Client ultimately refused to submit to the Intoxilyzer test. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus indicated impairment.

RESULT

State attorney voluntarily agreed to reduce the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 04-022533MM10A - Charges broken down

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his pick-up truck at a green light with the doors locked and the engine running. Law enforcement officers surrounded the vehicle and ordered the Firm's client out of his car and proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation. Defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol prior to driving, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. Upon being read implied consent, Defendant agreed to submit to a breath test which showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08.

Maintaining his innocence, Defendant demanded a trial on the merits. The State responded by breaking down the DUI to Reckless Driving, believing that they would not succeed in a conviction.

RESULT

Client not convicted of DUI.

CASE NO.: 05-023805MM10B - Case Dismissed

Upon arrest, Defendant was found to have possessed marijuana which was taken into evidence and tested by the BSO Crime Lab. The State Attorney's Office voluntarily agreed to dismiss this Count resulting in a favorable resolution to our client.

CASE NO.: 06-CT037871AXX - Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested after being found unconscious behind the wheel of his automobile. While submitting to a breathalyzer test, the Firm's client blew three times the legal limit and was charged with Aggravated DUI. Through research of the new Intoxilyzer 8000, certain defects in the software rendered the reading unreliable.

RESULT

The State Attorney's Office declined pursuing aggravated DUI (blood alcohol level above .20).

CASE NO.: 06-004136MM10A - Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested by members of the Broward County Sheriff's Office after making an illegal turn and nearly crashing into a Deputy's patrol car. A DUI investigation ensued, whereby it was alleged by law enforcement that the Firm's client had red, watery eyes, a flushed face, and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his person. The Defendant also admitted to having consumed alcohol, which was evidenced by several alcoholic beverage containers throughout his van. The Defendant complied with limited roadside sobriety exercises and submitted to giving a breath test, the results of which were a .197 and .200-over two times the legal limit.

Defense Asserted

A Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the turn conducted by the Defendant was, in fact, legal and the officer's explanation that the Defendant almost caused an automobile accident was an effort to bolster justification for the unwarranted traffic stop. Additionally, as our client spoke limited English, a language barrier prevented him from fully understanding instructions given to him regarding roadside sobriety exercises. Finally, as the new Intoxilyzer 8000 Unit was used, the reliability of said tests were put into question, as was the availability of this evidence to the State should they fail to provide statewide and local breath technicians. Following Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson's review of all testimony at hearing, an Order was entered suppressing all evidence following the illegal stop.

RESULT

With no evidence to proceed, the State dismissed all charges against our Firm's client.

CASE NO.: 06-007871MM10A - Case Dismissed

Defendant lost control of his vehicle, tore through some bushes and into several parked cars. Upon law enforcement officers making contact, they observed signs of impairment leading them to believe that our client was under the influence of controlled substances and alcohol. The arresting officer asked Defendant if he would submit to a blood test, to which he agreed. Testing of said sample revealed the presence of high levels of Cocaine, Xanax, Hydrocodone and Oxycodone. The State Attorney's Office filed formal charges against our client seeking a conviction on the evidence obtained on the night of his arrest.

The State Attorney assigned to prosecuting the matter offered a conviction for DUI and one year of probation in an effort to resolve this case. Our client refused, and a motion to suppress was filed alleging that the blood evidence collected by investigators on the night of the arrest was obtained illegally and in violation of our client's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

RESULT

After having a hearing on the motion before the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson, the Court reserved ruling for over one month before finding in favor of our client. The inability to use the very damaging blood alcohol evidence against our client rendered the State unable to proceed with DUI charges, which were ultimately formally dismissed.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 - Charges broken down

The State Attorney assigned to this case agreed to break the charge down to reckless driving after the defense presented witnesses that were willing to testify the client was not driving the automobile he was discovered in with engine running.

RESULT

DUI charge broken down to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 - Driving while license suspended

Prior to having his case resolved, our client was charged with driving an automobile on a DUI license suspension.

RESULT

The State Prosecutor agreed to dismiss all counts in addition to breaking the initial DUI charge down to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 04-022533MM10A - Charges broken down

Our client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his automobile by law enforcement officers. Upon making contact, officers observed that the client had bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. After being arrested, the Intoxilyzer 5000 was administered and our client blew above a .08 (legal limit).

RESULT

After almost two (2) years the assigned Prosecutor agreed to break the charge of DUI down to reckless driving after being unable to produce the breath technician who administered the breath test at an adjudicatory hearing.

CASE NO. 04025247MM10A - Charges reduced

Client was pulled over after being observed swerving across lanes and driving with his high-beams on. Upon making contact, officers detected an odor of alcohol on the client's breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. The patrol car video depicted the client swaying from side to side and falling on to the ground while attempting roadside sobriety exercises.

Upon investigating the case, William Moore learned that one of the officers participating in the DUI investigation had previously been untruthful in his reporting of an incident involving another officer. Mr. Moore additionally alleged in a motion to suppress that the stopping officer's reason for "pulling over" his client's car was illegal.

RESULT

Before the conclusion of the motion to suppress, the state prosecutor agreed to break the case down from DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 04019346MM10A - Dismissed

After a thorough investigation of all facts and circumstances, a motion was filed alleging that the stop and detention of the Firm's client just prior to his arrest for DUI was without probable cause and otherwise illegal. After the State's failure to produce any law enforcement officers involved in the arrest on three (3) separate occasions, the Court granted the motion without hearing any evidence.

RESULT

With no evidence whatsoever to seek a conviction the State voluntarily dismissed the charges. The State filed a notice of appeal which was later withdrawn.

CASE NO. 006504MM10A - Dismissed

Despite the Firm's client having crashed into a guard rail on interstate I-595 in front of an off-duty police officer at 4:00 a.m., William Moore filed an appropriate motion to suppress any and all evidence alleging that the eyewitness testimony afforded by law enforcement was not creditable. After presenting photographic evidence of damage to the vehicle which conflicted with that of the officer's testimony, the Court suppressed all evidence rendering the State unable to proceed.

RESULT

As a result, the State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

CASE NO.05002246MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Upon learning that the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test client's blood alcohol was taken out of service shortly after being used on the night of his arrest, in addition to a perceived lack of evidence on the State's part, a trial by jury was demanded when the prosecuting attorney refused to make an offer that was acceptable.

RESULT

Just prior to the potential jury being brought in for selection, the State Attorney voluntarily agreed to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 0406666MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

DUI check point case. Upon failure by the State to break down the charges filed against the Firm's client, the offer of the lowest permissible sentence (for the offence of DUI) was rejected and a trial by jury was demanded.

RESULT

Faced with having to present their case in chief to a jury, the assigned prosecutor broke down the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO. TT04000397LW397 - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was stopped by officers after they observed him run a red light in response to a car behind him aggressively motioning for him to advance at a quicker speed. On making contact, officers detected an odor of alcohol on the client's breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. An appropriate motion to suppress was filed seeking to exclude any observations of impairment alleged by officers in addition to all statements made.

RESULT

Being unable to defend the motion on the date of the schedule hearing and denied additional time to prepare by the presiding judge, the case was voluntarily broken down from the charge of DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 04-011658MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Law enforcement officers found client asleep in his vehicle with a bottle of liquor by his side in a mall parking lot. Upon officers making contact with him, the client claimed that he was a law enforcement officer and became argumentative with police. Upon investigating the case, it was determined that a motion to suppress the stop, detention, and arrest of the Firm's client was appropriate, and William Moore requested that any observations or statements be excluded from State's evidence.

RESULT

Believing that he would be unsuccessful in eventually obtaining a conviction in the matter, the prosecuting attorney agreed to break down the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 04-021260MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

After a thorough case review it was determined that the stop of Defendant's vehicle was without probable cause and an appropriate motion to Suppress was filed seeking the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained from the illegal police activity.

RESULT

When faced with defending said Motion to Suppress, the State Attorney's office broke the charge down from DUI to reckless driving.

CASE NO.04006600MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was unable to accept the State's offer of 90 days in Jail when faced with his fourth DUI charge. In an effort to reduce the State Attorney's overwhelming amount of evidence, an appropriate motion to suppress (the stop of the vehicle, the roadside sobriety exercises as well as the officer's observations following the stop,) was filed.

RESULT

Being caught off guard and unable to defend this motion the State Attorney offered to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving without any jail time.

Additionally, many cases that were filed were dismissed voluntarily by the Prosecuting Attorney. In other cases, Minimum mandatory sentencing was avoided.