A Gainesville Police Department Officer responded to 4706 NW 34 Street, in reference to a traffic crash. The officer observed a vehicle that was on top of an electrical box, the officer also driver exit the vehicle through the passenger side.
While speaking with the driver the officer noticed that he had bloodshot watery eyes and a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath. The officer asked the driver if he would perform field sobriety exercise. Ultimately, the driver agreed to perform the exercise. The first test the officer performed was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and stated he observed a lack of smooth pursuit, distinct and sustained nystagmus prior to the onset of 45 degrees and at maximum deviation. The officer also noted that he observed five (5) out of eight (8) clues on the walk and turn test and observed three (3) out of the four (4) clues on the one leg stand test.
The driver was placed under arrest for driving under the influence and transported to the Gainesville Police Department to provide a breath sample. Upon arrival at the PD station, another GPD officer requested the driver provide a sample of his breath, which the driver agreed too and blew 0.188 and 0.186. The driver received a DUI citation and his license was suspended for an unlawful breath alcohol sample.
The driver hired Meldon Law. The attorney’s at Meldon Law filed an application for a Formal Review Hearing through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle (DHSMV) to challenge the basis of the driver’s license suspension. During the hearing, the attorney from Meldon Law made objections to documents that were entered into the record and made a motion to invalidate the driver’s license suspension based on the failure of a material witness to appear. The hearing officer later issued an order setting aside the license suspension.
Call Meldon Law at (352) 373-8000 if you face DUI charges or a license suspension, write to us using our online contact form.
DISCLAIMER: The results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the clients’ cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. (Date of Suspension: February 24, 2019).