FAIL TO STOP / REMAIN AT CRASH INVOLVING INJURY (F.S. 316.027(2)(a));
NO VALID DRIVER’S LICENSE (F.S. 322.03(1))

1) Identification was far weaker than the initial report suggested.
The reporting officer conceded in deposition that the driver identification was not made by direct, contemporaneous observation of the driver at the crash scene. Instead, the officer’s identification was tied to post-crash investigation steps (follow-up interviews and vehicle/registration queries) rather than an unmistakable eyewitness ID at the scene. That admission destroyed the prosecution’s clean, on-the-scene ID narrative and made it difficult for them to say they could prove who was driving to a jury. 2) Large gaps and delays in on-scene preservation and evidence collection.
The deposition revealed the officer did not preserve or promptly obtain certain scene evidence (surveillance canvass, cell-tower/phone logs, or targeted video checks) that would have corroborated the timeline. The officer acknowledged there was no immediate, documented attempt to secure all possible video evidence from nearby businesses/intersections, which a jury would expect in a hit-and-run investigation. Those procedural gaps let the defense plausibly argue that exculpatory evidence may have been lost or never sought. 3) Critical witness statements were inconsistent and the officer admitted the inconsistencies.
During deposition the officer had to acknowledge variations among witness reports — and that those variations were not fully reconciled in the file. The officer admitted that key witness recollections about where the driver was seated, the timing of events, and the direction of travel were inconsistent. Exposing those inconsistencies in the deposition undermined the prosecution’s ability to present a single, credible timeline to a jury. 4) The official narrative relied on secondary sources rather than primary, contemporaneous proof.
The officer acknowledged that some of the report’s strongest-sounding facts were based on post-hoc statements and registration lookups rather than physical, contemporaneous scene evidence. That meant the State’s case would have to lean on testimonial reconstruction rather than demonstrable physical linkage — a hard sell when credibility is attacked on cross-examination. 5) Documentation and chain-of-custody weaknesses with respect to the vehicle and related evidence.
In deposition the officer conceded gaps in documentation and in the chain of custody for the vehicle and other evidentiary materials. Those concessions gave defense counsel concrete grounds to move to exclude (or at least heavily impeach) physical evidence the State had hoped to rely on. With the physical trail weakened, the remaining testimonial case became much less reliable.6) Tactical courtroom leverage: we were plainly trial-ready and used the deposition to set the table.
The deposition didn’t just produce factual concessions — it materially changed the strategic posture. We made it clear at deposition and in follow-up litigation that we would press these admissions in court and put the State to the test. The combination of documentary holes and the officer’s concessions created real trial-risk for the prosecution, which is precisely the leverage that produced a later dismissal rather than a high-risk trial. Result & why it mattered:
Although initial discovery made the case look strong, the deposition exposed fundamental weaknesses in identification, scene preservation, witness consistency, and evidence custody. Those strategic victories — factual concessions the officer could not credibly walk back — destroyed the prosecution’s ability to present an airtight case at trial. The prosecution ultimately concluded it could not meet its burden of proof and the matter was dismissed. That dismissal spared the client exposure to the statutory penalties associated with the charged offenses (note: operating without a valid license is typically a misdemeanor with up to 60 days of incarceration under F.S. § 322.03 for a basic violation; leaving the scene involving injury is prosecuted as a felony with substantial multi-year exposure depending on the subsection and injury severity) and, more importantly, vindicated an approach that paired aggressive fact-finding (depositions) with relentless trial readiness.