.png){kind=spacer}
DUI — DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OR PERSON (WITHOUT SERIOUS INJURY) (F.S. 316.193); LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH — PROPERTY DAMAGE (F.S. 316.061(1))
DUI REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING
Santa Rosa County, FL
27 de mayo de 2025
Client — a retired, elderly gentleman — was charged in Santa Rosa County, Florida with DUI causing damage to property or person (F.S. § 316.193(3)(c)1) and leaving the scene of a crash involving property damage (F.S. § 316.061(1)). A DUI conviction of this kind threatens serious consequences for someone in his position: possible incarceration, heavy fines, license suspension, long-term insurance and mobility impacts, and reputational and practical harms that are especially acute for older adults. The arrest report shows the officer’s case rested heavily on two things: (1) field observations of impairment at the scene and (2) the client’s post-Miranda admission that he had taken prescribed medication the prior night (the report records that Mr. Golden admitted to taking prescription sedatives). Notably, breath testing at the jail registered 0.000, and the client had difficulty producing a urine sample — gaps that undermined any chemical-proof theory. The officer’s observations and the client’s admission of lawful, prescribed medication were, in the prosecution’s view, enough to charge DUI; for us, they were the starting points for a rigorous factual and medical defense.
We responded by immediately preserving and testing the record. Our defense team secured the arrest and SFST documentation, the breath/urine testing logs, video (where available), and the officer’s notes; we obtained the client’s medical records and prescribing information to show legitimate, physician-directed use of medication and to explain timing, dosage, and expected effects. We then attacked the State’s narrative on multiple grounds: the reliability of field sobriety observations (especially with an older adult on lawful medication), the absence of corroborating chemical evidence, and the failure to account for medical or age-related factors that can mimic impairment. We also negotiated using a trial-ready posture that made clear we would test every element of the State’s case in court.
That approach paid off. Rather than take the case to verdict, the prosecution agreed to a substantially improved disposition: the DUI exposure was amended to Reckless Driving with a short probationary sentence (three months), and the more damaging charging consequences were avoided or not prosecuted to their full extent. Practically speaking, this result avoided a DUI conviction, minimized license and sentencing exposure, and spared the client the harsher collateral consequences that would have followed a DUI conviction — a particularly important outcome for an older, retired person whose livelihood and mobility could have been severely affected.
Why this mattered: we turned a case the officer treated as a straightforward DUI into a negotiated, non-conviction-equivalent result by exposing the weak chemical evidence, presenting medical context, and making clear we were prepared to litigate. The case demonstrates how careful fact work, medical documentation, and a trial-ready posture protect clients — especially vulnerable older adults — from punishments disproportionate to the actual, provable conduct.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This summary is general information, not legal advice.