Gilchrist County Driver Pulled Over for Speeding

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.

A Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Deputy was traveling northbound on county road 337 when he observed a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. The Deputy estimated that the vehicle was traveling around 80 miles per hour (MPH) in a 55 miles per hour zone, the deputy activated his radar unit and clocked the vehicle at 82 miles per hour.

The Deputy conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle. While speaking with the driver of the vehicle the Deputy stated he could smell a strong odor of alcohol coming from the driver. The deputy also noticed that the driver’s eyes were bloodshot and watery. The Deputy asked the driver to perform field sobriety exercise, which the driver agreed to do. The Deputy had the driver perform the walk and turn, one leg stand and checked the driver’s eyes for Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus which the Deputy stated he observed at maximum deviation and prior to the onset of 45 degrees.

The deputy, based on the driver’s performance on the FSE’s as well as the odor of alcohol, placed the driver under arrest for DUI 2nd Offense and transported to the Gilchrist County Jail, where the Deputy requested that he provide a breath sample, the driver refused to provide a breath sample.

The driver hired Meldon Law. The attorney’s at Meldon Law filed a motion in limine, prepared the case for trial, as well as discussed potential issues with the DUI investigation. The attorney at Meldon Law was able to successfully negotiate a plea to a reduced charge of reckless driving with alcohol.

For more information, call Meldon Law at (800) 373-8000, or 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 Arrest: November 12, 2017).