Alexandra Mulhearn

The Defendant was driving at night without her headlights on. After being stopped she through her cigarette out the window and was alleged to have red, watery eyes, very slurred speech and an odor of alcohol coming from her. She was asked where she was coming from and kept saying she was going through a tough divorice and coming from a bar. She was asked to step out of the car, being that it was 2:45 a.m. and perform roadside exercises. She was alleged to perform poorly on them and was arrested for DUI. She was taken to the breath facility and she refused a breath after being told her license would be suspended for a year for doing so. The Sate offered the first offender program, a reckless. Our client turned it down. We attempted to convince the state that the facts were not sufficient to support a criminal conviction. The state disagreed. Our firm announced ready for trial. Mr. Bell, the managing partner of the firm, was lead counsel on the case with Ari Goldberg, another partner with the firm. After closing arguments were concluded, the jury came back finding our client not guilty of DUI.

The Defendant was charged with Felony Possession of Controlled Substance, punishable by 5 years in prison, and Driving Under the Influence, a second DUI offense within five years of a prior DUI conviction which carries a mandatory jail sentence and a five-year driver’s license revocation. The Defendant’s vehicle was stopped by Officer Malave of the Sunrise Police Department for repeatedly stopping and starting his vehicle near an intersection and for violating a flashing yellow light by stopping and remaining stationary at the intersection. Officer Malave approached the vehicle and made contact with the Defendant. Upon making contact with the Defendant, the Officer noticed that the defendant had the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech ; and the Defendant was incapable of formulating complete sentences. The Defendant would nod off in mid-sentence and was completely incoherent at times. After making those observations, Officer Malave, a female called for the assistance of two male officer’s due to the Defendant’s condition and physical size. The male officers loudly ordered the Defendant out of the car on multiple occasions, but the Defendant would not comply. The Officers attempted to forcibly remove the Defendant from the vehicle, but the Defendant resisted those efforts by bracing, pulling and stiffening his body so that the officers could not move him. The Defendant was slammed to the ground, which the officers took as a refusal to perform roadside exercises and then incorrectly read the Defendant implied consent, which only applies to breath tests. Officers noticed that there ere three cans of beer in the vehicle as well. The Defendant was arrested for DUI and was NOT taken to the Breath Testing Facility and DUI Room, but only the Broward County Main Jail. The Defendant was never asked to submit to a breath test. After the Defendant’s arrest, Officers discovered 27 pills located in a tackle box in the Defendant’s vehicle which ultimately were revealed to be anabolic steroids. Partner, Lawrence Meltzer of Meltzer & Bell prepared for trial. During preparation, the firm filed several Motions in Limine (Motions to Exclude Evidence) that asked the court to exclude any reference to roadside exercises or the Defendant’s alleged refusal top perform them as the Defendant was not offered the roadside exercises and, thus, never refused them. Additionally, the court was asked to exclude any mention of a refusal to submit to a breath test or failure to give on as, again, one was never offered. Finally, the court was asked to prohibit the State from discussing the anabolic steroids as such pills, although a controlled substance, are not those of an impairing or intoxicating nature. After receiving the Motion, the state conceded and was compelled to drop all DUI related charges. Meltzer & Bell was also able to have all felony drug charges dropped as well.

The Defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence. Officers of the Davie Police Department were alerted by a concerned citizen that our client was leaving The Billiard Club, a pool bar, in an extremely intoxicated state and about to drive. The Officer approached the vehicle as the car was in reverse, ordered the Defendant to stop the vehicle and conducted a wellness check and noticed the Defendant had bloodshot eyes, the odor of an alcoholic beverage, and extremely slurred speech. Based on those observations, the officer asked the Defendant to perform roadside sobriety exercises, to which the defendant refused. The Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI and was asked to submit to a breath test, but, again refused. Lawrence Meltzer of Meltzer and Bell began to prepare for trial and researched case law in an effort to suppress or throw out the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle and all evidence that followed the stop as being unconstitutional and based upon a lack of reasonable suspicion as the Defendant had done nothing to justify her vehicle being stopped. The firm and Mr. Meltzer researched a similar factual scenario in State v. Sliviak in which the stop was suppressed based upon a lack of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in an almost identical situation. This case law was presented to the State prior to trial. Upon receiving it, the State agreed and dropped the DUI charge.