321.593.0222

Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations

abstract road

DUI Wins

Our Recent Victories

Nov 29, 2016 Case: A0Z1CGP Judge Wolfson
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officers arrived at the scene, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. He then performed the field sobriety tests and exhibited several clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .187 and .181 in the breath machine.
There were issues with the defendant's breath test as one of the control tests was reading high. Thus, his breath readings could have been skewed higher than what was actually in his system.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 17, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-007096 Judge Bell
The defendant was stopped for running a red light and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to having consumed beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .098 in the breath machine.
Since there is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two test results could have been under the legal limit.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 16, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-001899 Judge Blechman
The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have a pale face and appeared to be confused. No odor of alcohol was observed. The defendant's speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot. Believing the defendant may be impaired, he was detained at the scene. While he was being detained, the officer had called for K-9 units. As the dogs sniffed the car, they alerted the officers. A small amount of marijuana was found. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition exam) was conducted to determine if the defendant was under the influence of drugs. He then submitted to a urine sample which later tested positive at the toxicology lab for marijuana.
Under Florida case law, a defendant cannot be detained longer than necessary for the officer to write a traffic citation when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, on video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he didn't appear to be confused. There was no odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's person, nor any odor of alcohol. After doing the research, the case law was clear that the defendant was detained on video tape longer than necessary for the officer to have written the citation for an obscured tag. Also, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI) to justify detaining him as the video contradicted the officer's report. The officers never charged the defendant with possession of marijuana. Due to the unlawful detention, the DUI was Dismissed.
The DUI was Dismissed.
Nov 10, 2016 Case: 2016-CM-004139 Judge Lefler
The defendant was stopped as she entered the middle of an intersection at a steady red light. The officer, who was at the intersection and observed her infraction, then stopped the defendant. Upon approaching the car, he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's car and her person. He also observed a green leafy substance in the defendant's mouth and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was off balance, unsteady, and swayed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, she performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she provided a urine sample. That sample came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana.
The officer's reports were contradicted by the video. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. However, on tape it appeared she never stepped off the line. The officer also wrote that she was unsteady. However, on tape, she appeared to be standing normally. In addition, the officer wrote that the defendant had an odor of alcohol, but he never even asked her for a breath test. These examples, plus many other contradictions, were brought to the State's attention a week before trial.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 9, 2016 Case: 16-001582CT Judge Martin
The defendant was stopped for driving in the wrong lane of travel. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red eyes. While talking to the defendant at the car, the defendant stated to the officer that he "had a little bit to much drink." He was then asked to performed field sobriety tests. He then responded "that he would fail. " After unsuccessful attempts to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, he was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test.
The defendant denied making those statements. In addition, he told the officer he had recent head trauma issues which would cause him to be off balance and fail any physical tests. This created doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his head trauma.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-006984 Judge Miller
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick/rambling speech, and his gait was jerky and very unsteady. The defendant told the officer that he had drank a bucket of beer. He then performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .127 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
The officer gave the defendant misinformation about the penalties of refusing a breath test. Thus, by misstating the law, he coerced the defendant into taking the breath test.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-010873AXXX-XX Judge Koons
The defendant was stopped after a caller on 911 stated that the defendant was driving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated he had drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI.
The defendant stated on videotape that his legs were almost totally disabled from the military. Yet, the officer still had him perform the physical tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. The defendant did not perform well on tape , however, it was unclear from the video whether any impairment was due to alcohol vs. his disability. Due to the conflict in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 1, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-009442 Judge Farr
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. Once stopped by the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, droopy eyelids, and a sleepy appearance. The defendant stated she had drank a margarita and was swaying outside the car. She then agreed to perform HGN (eye test). After that test, she refused to perform any other field sobriety tasks and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test.
On video, the defendant was not swaying and did not appear to be sleepy on video. She was responsive, coherent and answering all the officer's questions. Thus, the officer's reports were contradicted by the in car camera. The defense announced ready for trial and just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Nov 1, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-041815 Judge Garagozlo
The defendant was stopped for driving up on a curb. When stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred/mumbled speech and he fumbled with his license. No odor of alcohol was observed. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by something, asked him to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant performed poorly. For example, on the one leg stand, he used his arms for balance and put his foot down. On the walk and turn, he did not count out loud, did not touch heel to toe, and had difficulty maintaining his balance. He was then arrested for DUI.
Under Florida law, a person has to be impaired by a alcohol, a specific chemical, and/or controlled substance to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove by what specific substance the defendant was impaired. After reviewing the discovery, the firm then pointed this out to the State and the DUI was dismissed.
The DUI was Dismissed.
Oct 31, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-006428 Judge Lefler
The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed and making an improper lane change. He allegedly came within seven feet of the officer's bumper who then initiated a traffic stop. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he used his door for support, and swayed while standing. The defendant admitted to having drank 3 beers. He then performed the field sobriety tests on video. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down numerous times and could not keep his balance. On the finger to nose, he left his finger on his nose without removing it as instructed and also missed the tip of his nose on all attempts. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was never paced clocked and no radar device was used to show that the defendant was driving over the speed limit. Also, the defendant never interfered with the safe operation of the officer's patrol car as required by Florida Statutes. Thus, the defendant did not violate any traffic laws and the issue of the defendant having being unlawfully stopped was brought to the State's attention. The State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 31, 2016 Case: 15-029720MU10A Judge Gottlieb
The defendant was found by the officer passed out in his car in a travel lane. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. When the defendant was asked how much he had to drink, he replied "too much." The defendant made threatening comments and movements towards the officer so no roadside tests were conducted. He was then arrested for DUI.
The firm conducted a pretrial investigation into this arresting officer's background. It was discovered that he had a history of incidents of misconduct, including incidents involving untruthfulness. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dismissed.
The DUI was Dismissed.
Oct 27, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-005429 Judge Bell
The defendant was stopped after an officer saw him hit a shopping cart being pushed by a pedestrian. He then caught up to the defendant and observed an odor of alcohol and he had a difficult time walking. A DUI unit was called. That officer observed an odor of alcohol, droopy eyelids, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had maybe 2, 4, or 6 drinks. He then performed the roadside tasks. On the one leg stand, the defendant almost fell over and the exercise was stopped. On the walk and turn, he used his arms for balance, stepped off the line, and did not understand many, if not all, of the instructions. The defendant was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI and Second refusal to submit to a breath test.
The arresting officer's report, which stated that the initial officer saw the defendant driving, was not true. That initial officer had stated that he heard the sound of a crash and then saw the defendant walking down the road. Thus, the two officers contradicted each other and no witness observed the defendant either driving or in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 25, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-006266 Judge Wilson
The defendant ran a red light and collided with another car. When the police arrived, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, and droopy/red eyes. He was also staggering and stumbling around. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance, counted incorrectly, and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
On video, the officer is seen and heard reading the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant requested a lawyer, however, the officer then proceeds to tell the defendant that he is "still required" to perform the roadside tests under the law. That statement was misinformation and a misstatement of the law as roadside tasks voluntary. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 24, 2016 Case: 8622-XEQ Judge Wolfson
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Due to discovery violations committed by the State, Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the day of trial, there was a speedy trial violation due to those discovery issues and the DUI was Dismissed.
The DUI was Dismissed.
Oct 13, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-002508CTAXMS Judge Hitzeman
The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/incoherent speech, and he was lethargic. The defendant leaned against the vehicle for balance and also had bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance, put his foot down, and he hopped. On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, and took an incorrect number of steps. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton discovered several inconsistencies in the officer's police reports and brought them to the attention of the prosecutor. After discussing the case with the State, they Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no crimina
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 13, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-009566 Judge Weis
The defendant was found asleep in his car in someone's driveway. 911 callers alerted police to the vehicle after they observed the defendant driving all over the road. When the officer arrived, he found the defendant passed out in the driver's seat. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant was not making any sense while talking and was incoherent. He was very off balance and had trouble standing. The defendant was only able to perform the finger to nose test. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton argued that despite being found in the driver's seat, the defendant did not have the capability to operate the motor vehicle at the time the officer arrived. As a result, the defendant was not in actual physical control of the motor vehicle in the presence of the officer.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 11, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-017045 Judge Koenig
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant also had bloodshot/watery eyes and his movements were "slow and deliberate." When asked to exit the vehicle, the defendant used the car to maintain his balance and he swayed while standing outside the car. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks and to provide a breath test. He refused both and was arrested for DUI.
Under the law, a defendant who refuses the field sobriety tests must be advised of the "adverse consequences" for refusing. Here, the defendant was never told of any consequences for refusing. Also, under Florida law, a defendant can only be asked to take a breath test "after" being lawfully arrested. In this case, the defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath "prior" to being arrested for DUI in violation of the law.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 11, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-007634 Judge Jeske
The defendant was stopped for drifting back and forth over the lane markers on at least five different occasions. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 2 to 3 Blue Moon draft beers. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks on video tape. After performing the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand tests, he was arrested for DUI.
On video, the defendant told the officer prior to performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tasks, he had very bad knees and may have trouble doing them. The officer still proceeded the have the defendant do them. It was unclear on tape whether any alleged impairment cues observed by the officer were due to alcohol or his bad balance from having two bad knees. Those physical exercises were contradicted by his performance on the non-physical finger to nose exercise.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 11, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-021995AXXX-XX Judge Clarke
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, slurred/confused speech, and a red face. The defendant told the officer she had a few beers with dinner. The defendant used the steering wheel for support upon exiting the car and struggled to remove her seat-belt. Upon being asked to perform the roadside tests, the defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and refused to perform any others. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred which contradicted the officer's report. Also, the defendant was not told of the consequences for her refusal to perform the rest of the field sobriety tests which was in violation of Florida case law. Thus, her refusal would have been excluded as evidence.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 5, 2016 Case: 2016-CF-001190 Judge Briggs
A person called 911 alerting police that the defendant was highly intoxicated at a gas station. Officers arrived on the scene and came into contact with the defendant as he was pulling out. As one officer approached the defendant, his window was down, and the officer smelled an odor of alcohol. He also observed bloodshot eyes and slurred/mumbled speech. The officer asked the defendant to then step out of the car. The officer observed the defendant to sway, have poor coordination, and he admitted to drinking beer. Due to the heavy rain, all three officers on scene asked the defendant to step in front of the gas station entrance to perform roadside tasks in a dry area. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance and put his foot down a number of times. On the walk and turn test, he missed heel to toe, lost his balance during the instructions, and raised his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test. The defendant was charged with a Felony DUI since this was this was his Fourth DUI.
The firm took pretrial depositions of all three officers. Two officers on scene, including the DUI unit, had in-car cameras in their patrol vehicles, however, they were not utilized. The DUI officer testified under oath that she couldn't use her camera because it was raining so hard during the roadside tests and she could not get back to her car to turn it on. However, one other officer stated in deposition that the rain had stopped prior to ever even asking the defendant to perform the tests. He also had a camera in his car and when asked why he didn't utilize it, his answer was "I don't know." Also, the arresting officer stated "I don't remember" multiple times when being questioned about specific details of the field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officers contradicted each other on many aspects of the defendant's alleged impairment such as whether he actually had slurred speech or was even unsteady. The State, after reading the deposition transcripts, Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-007574 Judge Farr
The defendant was found passed out in his car in his neighbor's driveway. The neighbors had called 911 not knowing it was the defendant. When the officer arrived and awoke the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and dilated pupils. The defendant was extremely loud and uncooperative. The defendant did not perform to standards on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .119 and .121 in the breath machine.
No one ever observed the defendant driving. Thus, the State could not prove the defendant was in "actual physical control." Since he was sleeping in the car, he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle under the applicable Florida Statute.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2016 Case: 16-CT-500193 Judge Hayward
The defendant was found passed out in his car in a condominium parking lot after a 911 caller noticed him slumped over the wheel. The officers attempted to wake the defendant up by knocking on the windows several times. Once he awoke, the car began to move forward until he finally put it in park. Officers noticed the defendant have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a dazed look. Once out of the car, he was swaying and appeared sleepy. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) since he had back injuries which prevented him from doing any other tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Pursuant to Florida Rule 3.220, the State has the obligation to disclose all evidence within their possession. This requirement extends to police agencies as well. Parks & Braxton determined that the police failed to adequately turn over the entire evidentiary packet. The discovery violation was brought to the attention of the Court.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2016 Case: 15-026416MU10A Judge Brown
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, red eyes, and mumbled speech. The defendant told the officer that she had drank wine that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn task, the defendant missed heel to toe, used her arms for balance, and could not maintain her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down, used her arms for balance, and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .135 in the breath machine.
The defense brought to light an error that occurred in the machine as a result of radio frequency interference (RFI). The RFI occurred three times prior to the defendant providing her result of a .135. This RFI happening multiple times could have skewed the defendant's result to appear higher than what was her true breath alcohol level (BAC). On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Sep 27, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-032143 Judge Koons
The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the painted stop bar at a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Once out of the car, he swayed and appeared to be "unsure." The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton, in discussing the case with the prosecutor, pointed out that on tape, there was no slurred speech, no sway, and the defendant appeared to be totally coherent. Also, although the officer attempted to exaggerate the defendant's performance on the tests in his reports. The specific details written by the officer were contradicted by video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Sep 23, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-502058 Judge Swett
The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost striking a curb. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had drank a glass of wine. The defendant appeared sluggish and avoided eye contact with the officer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line numerous times and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she stumbled and almost fell. She was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .105 and .095 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out that with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit (ie. .095). Also, the officer's reports about the defendant's extreme level of impairment was inconsistent with her breath test results. There was no in car camera.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Sep 21, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-001732 Judge Mcginnis
The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the stop bar at a red light and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech,and dry lips. Upon exiting the car, the defendant appeared off balance and unsteady and he stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests and was eventually arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, the defense and State had discussions about the case. The officer wrote a very vague report. The defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not described in any detail and there was no video tape at the scene. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Sep 14, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-005701 Judge Greco
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and hitting a curb. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish/clumsy movements. The defendant stated he had been at a club and had a couple of long island iced teas. He also stated that he was a little buzzed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Parks & Braxton pointed out that on tape, the defendant was not clumsy or slow. In fact, he was being responsive and coherent. Also, he had no issues getting out of the car or walking around. Furthermore, the defendant's video contradicted the officer's reports as to his level of alleged impairment. It should be noted, the firm also represented the defendant on his last case four years ago and got that DUI Dropped too. In that case, he had blown a .14.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Sep 13, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-002236 Judge Hitzeman
The police were alerted to the defendant's truck by a 911 caller. The caller stated that the defendant and his passenger were passed out in a turning lane. When officers arrived, they found the defendant and his passenger asleep. The defendant was in the drivers seat, the engine was running, and the truck was in drive. When the officer reached in the truck to turn the truck off, the defendant awoke. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, a flushed face, and slow/mumbled speech. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests while still seated in the truck. He refused and was asked to exit the vehicle. The defendant was slow, lethargic, and leaned on the truck for balance. He was then placed under arrest for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton, during the pretrial discovery process, got the DUI video tape. On tape, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing the roadside tests as required by Florida law. Also, the defendant's speech was not mumbled and he did not appear off balance nor unsteady. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Aug 30, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-000957CTAXMX Judge
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking 2-3 beers and staggered while walking. The defendant then performed the field sobriety exercises on video tape. She performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton watched the video tape during the discovery process. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and she spoke normally. Also, she never staggered and was never off balance or unsteady. Also, the alleged weaving was not captured on video tape.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 17, 2016 Case: 16-CT-501227 Judge Swett
The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also had a dazed look. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests. He refused and was advised of the adverse consequences for refusing. The defendant still refused and was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The officer who arrested the defendant was wearing a department issued body camera. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what was written in the police reports. Also, on video, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 17, 2016 Case: 16-CT-501242 Judge Swett
The defendant was observed by two civilians weaving on the roadway in front of them. All of the sudden, the driver's door opened and the defendant, who was the driver, fell out of the car onto the ground. The car kept going for a bit, until it ended up in a ditch. Police were called and the defendant was transported to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. Due to the defendant's high level of intoxication, no roadside tests could be conducted. The nurse told the officer that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .394 (nearly five times the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to various discovery issues during the pretrial process, the State was never able to retrieve the defendant's medical records. Thus, without the actual records, they wouldn't be able to introduce that blood alcohol result. On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 16, 2016 Case: 16-CT-008093 Judge Lefler
The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car in a parking space. When the officers awoke the defendant, they asked him to step out of the car. Once outside of the car, the officers smelled an odor of alcohol, observed bloodshot and watery eyes, and the defendant staggered as he stood. When asked for his driver's license, the defendant gave the officer his bank card. At the request of the officers, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests which were captured on a body camera. According to the officers, he did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton received the body camera in discovery. Based on the video and the audio of the officers ordering the defendant to exit the car, there was no reasonable suspicion of crime (ie. DUI ) to justify ordering him out of the car. Thus, all evidence observed when the defendant was outside the car would have been excluded.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 15, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-002272 Judge Cameron
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and the defendant had to grab the door for support while exiting the vehicle. The defendant admitted to consuming Johnnie Walker Black and beer. The defendant then attempted to perform the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, the officer had to explain the instructions 8 times. Based on the defendant's confusion, the officer proceeded onto the one leg stand. The defendant had to be explained the instructions numerous times once again. He did not perform that test either and was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and he also charged with a second or subsequent refusal to submit to breath testing. It should be noted, at the breath testing facility, the defendant was on video falling asleep and had his head down the entire time.
Parks & Braxton, learned through discovery, that the officer who stopped the defendant, conducted the DUI investigation, and made the arrest, was outside of his jurisdiction. He was supposedly part of a DUI saturation patrol pursuant to a mutual aid agreement. However, the mutual aid agreement was vague and did not specify whether an officer who was outside their jurisdiction had the right to conduct a DUI investigation, nonetheless arrest a suspect for DUI. The State agreed, Dropped the DUI, and the defendant received no criminal convictions. In addition, the refusal charge was dismissed.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 8, 2016 Case: 14-8982MU10A Judge Lerner-Wren
The defendant was stopped by the police after an anonymous BOLO (be on the lookout) went out about a driver (ie. the defendant) being passed out behind the wheel. When the officer saw the defendant's car, he conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and she admitted to drinking vodka with red bull. The defendant could not stand up without leaning on her vehicle. The defendant then performed the roadside tests and showed several signs of impairment. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .173 and .172 in the breath machine, over twice the legal limit.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the traffic stop was unlawful. We argued that under Florida law, there needs to be corroboration when the tip is anonymous. Here, not only was the defendant awake when the officer came into contact with her, but also there was no allegation of criminal activity. The Judge Granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State then Dismissed the DUI.
The DUI was dismissed.
Aug 2, 2016 Case: 2016-302779MMDB Judge Schuman
The defendant was seen by the police in a heavily occupied pedestrian area while on his motorcycle. The defendant abruptly applied his brakes and the motorcycle fell over, along with the defendant. The officer then went up to the defendant to see if he was alright. Upon contact, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slow/slurred speech. The defendant stated he had just drank a few beers. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests at the officer's request. He then performed the HGN (eyes test), Rhombeg balance (estimate 30 seconds), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor prior to setting the case for trial. We pointed out that since there was no video tape of the DUI, we had to rely on the officer's reports. In this case, the officer wrote only a half page report with no supplements. He wrote only one brief vague line describing the defendant's performance on each of the tests. The officer did not write one specific detail pertaining to any of the exercises, only vague statements.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 2, 2016 Case: 15-023982MU10A Judge Brown
The defendant was stopped for speeding and drifting within his lane of travel. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow and sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking tequila. At the request of the officer, the defendant performed the roadside tests. The defendant performed very poorly according the officer and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he also performed the roadsides on video tape at the Sheriff's sub station. Subsequent to performing them again, he then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant’s performance on the roadside tests on video tape contradicted the level of impairment the officer allegedly stated he observed, which was not on camera. Also, the defendant 's speech was normal and clear on video versus the slurred speech that the officer wrote he noticed in his reports. On the day of jury trial the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 2, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-004951 Judge Farr
The defendant was stopped for continuously weaving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick tongued speech, and a blank stare. The defendant stated she had nothing to drink and was swaying. The officer only performed the HGN (eye test) on the defendant and then she refused to perform any other tests. She was then arrested for DUI and then subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State just prior to trial. On video, the defendant was not swaying and her speech was clear as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 2, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-001007 Judge Farr
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. After performing the roadside tests on video tape, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .117 and .113 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We discussed with the State, that on video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred at all. Also, we pointed out that based on the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower than .08 at the time of driving.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 1, 2016 Case: 1806-XDZ Judge Hague
The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car collision, whereby he side swiped another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking 4 long island iced teas and also admitted to being buzzed. He then performed the roadside tests. On the one leg stand test, he put his foot down 7 times and lost his balance. On the walk and turn exercise, he stepped off the line a number of times, used his arms for balance, and was very unsteady. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .193 and .184 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle at the time of the crash, as required by Florida law.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 1, 2016 Case: A4AC7AE Judge Seraphin
An anonymous person called 911 stating they observed a possible drunk driver who ran off the road. The police spotted the defendant's vehicle, which was the suspected vehicle, and conducted a traffic stop. Upon contact with the defendant, they observed her to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a flushed face. The defendant was unsteady, used her car for support, and swayed all over. She then performed the road side tests. The defendant exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI.
Park & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Our legal basis for the motion was that under Florida case law, the officers must corroborate either a driving pattern or other facts indicating that the defendant may be intoxicated when the tip is anonymous. Here, there was none and the State agreed the stop was unlawful. The DUI was Dismissed.
The DUI was dismissed.
Jul 27, 2016 Case: 48-2015-CT-001250-E Judge Martinez
The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and he spoke with a "heavy tongue." The defendant 's movements were slow and deliberate and he admitted having two glasses of wine at a bar. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, in pretrial talks with the prosecutor, we pointed out that the officer did not write or document any specific details of the defendant 's performance on the field sobriety tests. He wrote a very vague report and there was no on scene video tape. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State Dropped the DUI.
Jul 15, 2016 Case: A0Z0BVP Judge Newman
The defendant was stopped for driving eastbound in the westbound lane. Cars had to brake to avoid a collision. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick tongued speech, and a flushed face. The defendant stated he drank three glasses of wine and appeared very unsteady. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After is arrest, he blew a .205, .184, and .204 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had to provide three breath samples instead of the legally required two. There were issues with the defendant's breath testing procedure. The State then Dropped the DUI after reviewing the breath materials.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 11, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-000222-A-O Judge Cameron
The defendant was stopped for failing to use his turn signal on two separate occasions. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and it was sometimes not even coherent. The defendant had an orbital sway and was unable to look at the officer in the eyes. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. He exhibited several clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .166 and .166 in the breath machine.
Parks Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that since no traffic was affected by the defendant 's actions of not signaling, the stop was unlawful. The State agreed after reviewing the applicable case law and then Dropped the DUI on the day of the motion hearing.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 11, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-027593 Judge Lefler
The police responded to a call about a reckless driver. The caller had stated the defendant was driving on the sidewalk a few times. The defendant was then found by the police in a parking lot and detained. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was swaying heavily. The defendant was stumbling while walking and also had watery eyes. Officers also saw a case of miller lite beers in the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. Since there was a minor in the car, she was charged with enhanced DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out that the initial contact (seizure) of the defendant was unlawful as the police could not corroborate any driving pattern as required by law.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 6, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-045187 Judge Babb
The defendant was stopped for traveling 96 mph in a 60 mph zone and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated she had consumed a few drinks earlier in the night. She then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. She performed the walk and turn, HGN (eyes test), one leg stand, finger to nose, alphabet, and rhomberg balance exercises (estimate 30 seconds). According to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused to take the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. A week prior to the trial date, the defense pointed out to the State that the officer's written descriptions of her performance on the roadside tests was totally contradicted by the video tape. One major contradiction in the case was that although the officer arrested her and had told her that she failed the tests by not following his instructions (both physically and mentally), he then wrote in report that her ability to understand instructions was "good." On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 17, 2016 Case: 05-2015-CT-037509AXXXXX Judge Presiding Judge: Division 6 (Formerly Judge Murphy's Division)
The defendant was parked behind a closed business. An officer spotted her car, drove around near it, got out of his car, and yelled “sheriff’s office.” There was no indication that the defendant ever saw or heard him. The defendant then drove away. The officer then got back in his car to stop the defendant to conduct a loitering and prowling investigation. While behind her, he observed her to be driving 30 mph in a 45 mph zone and she was allegedly swerving within her lane. Once stopped, the defendant was ordered out of her car at gun point by several officers and she was immediately handcuffed. She was cuffed for at least eight minutes or so and taken off camera. While off camera, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a clumsy demeanor. She also swayed and had bloodshot eyes. Once the cuffs were finally removed, the loitering and prowling investigation then turned into a DUI investigation. The defendant then performed several field sobriety tests on video tape. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put her foot down several times and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn exercise, she took the wrong number of steps, never touched heel to toe, and lost her balance. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was never arrested nor charged with loitering or prowling.
Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of any crime. In the other motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully arrested for loitering and prowling by the officer's actions of immediately handcuffing her, keeping her cuffed for a long period of time, and ordering her out of her car at gun point. At the motion hearing, the Officer could not remember any specifics of the alleged swerving such an the number of times she swerved, distance, or time frames. The judge Granted the illegal stop motion and threw out all the evidence. Thus, there was no need to ever argue the second motion. Without any evidence left, the State Dismissed the DUI.
The DUI was dismissed.
Jun 16, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-016396 Judge Cunningham
The defendant made an illegal u-turn and struck other vehicle. An off duty officer observed the crash. He then called for officers who were on duty. Upon their arrival, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant stated he had drank gin and juice. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the DUI officer, the defendant failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .091 and .084 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the officers in the case. At the depositions, the officers contradicted each other's testimony. For example, one officer stated that the defendant's speech was slurred, while the other testified it was normal with no slur. Also, the officers couldn't remember numerous details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tasks as there was no video tape.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 14, 2016 Case: 2016-MM-000728 Judge Steele
The defendant was involved in a two car crash whereby he rear ended someone. The defendant then drove down the road and stopped. When officers arrived, they came in contact with the defendant and immediately arrested him for leaving the scene of an accident. After that contact, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of marijuana coming from his person, dilated/watery eyes, and he was speaking slowly. They then added a charge of DUI. In a search incident to arrest, the police found some marijuana in the defendant's car. The police then added another charge of possession of marijuana. Later at the police station, the defendant refused to provide a urine test.
Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that the defendant was the one who actually called 911 about the crash. Thus, he was not trying to leave the scene at all and simply pulled his car a little further down the road to get to a safer place. Also, the officers never even inquired of the defendant as to why he had driven down the road. Furthermore, as for the DUI, the officers never attempted to conduct any type of DUI investigation such as asking the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The State Dismissed the DUI and leaving the scene of an accident charges. The defendant also received no criminal conviction at all for the possession of marijuana charge.
The DUI was dismissed,
Jun 13, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-002254-O Judge Cameron
The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he hit a parked car while leaving a parking lot. The defendant did not stop and continued driving. The incident was observed by a witness who notified police. When the police finally stopped the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a red face, and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank beer that day. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. He performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. After his arrest, he blew a .166 and .163 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State prior to trial. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction for the leaving the scene of an accident charge.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 10, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-000007AXXX Judge Bonavita
The defendant was involved in a crash in which his car went off the road into a canal. His dog had jumped onto his lap causing him to swerve. He and the dog got out of the car and swam to safety. When the police arrived, the defendant was soaking wet and fire rescue took him to the hospital to get checked. While at the hospital, the police came to talk to the defendant. They observed him to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to perform the roadside tasks outside the hospital. The defendant initially refused and then agreed to do them. He exhibited several clues of impairment on video and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .178 and .173 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer misstated the law as it related to performing field sobriety tests. Thus, the State agreed that based on the case law, all the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 9, 2016 Case: A0Z16AP Judge Krieger-Martin
An anonymous person called 911 stating that the defendant was passed out behind the wheel and in "distress." When officers arrived, the defendant was awake and talking on a cell phone. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. When asked if she had been drinking, the defendant stated "not a lot." After performing poorly on the the field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. While at the station, post Miranda, the defendant admitted to being impaired and that she should not have been driving. She then blew a .173 and .171 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under the law, when there is an anonymous tip, the officers must corroborate that tip. Here, the caller stated the defendant was passed out and in distress. However, when the police arrived, the defendant was awake and alert. Thus, there was no corroboration and the initial contact was unlawful.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 7, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-000326 Judge Mcginnis
Officers responded to a car that was smoking and had blown out tires. Upon arrival at the scene, the officers noticed burnout tire marks all over the road leading up to where the defendant was found in his truck. Per the officer's report, the vehicle was disabled. The officers could also smell burnt rubber. Upon contact with the defendant, as he was seated in the driver's side of his vehicle, the officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unable to form a complete sentence and stumbled over his words. A bottle of liquor was found next to the defendant. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. He refused to perform them and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that when the officers arrived, the vehicle was actually "inoperable." There was no proof the defendant had ever driven the car to that location "while impaired" prior the car becoming inoperable, as required by Florida law.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 3, 2016 Case: 2014-CT-008000AXXX Judge Hanser
defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car at a red light with the car running. Upon the officer awakening the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed a couple of beers. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted that this was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. The firm also represented the defendant on his first DUI a few years back. The firm got that DUI Dropped as well.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the defendant was never advised of any "adverse consequences" by the officer for refusing to perform the roadside tasks. The Judge granted the motion and excluded the refusal from evidence. Thereafter, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 31, 2016 Case: 2015-MM-007921 Judge Woodard
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and thick tongued speech. The defendant admitted to drinking a strawberry daiquiri and some cognac. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. On the walk and turn, she missed heel to toe and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, she hopped and put her foot down. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .121 and .120 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton was involved with pretrial litigation to exclude the breath test results. The Judge granted the motion to suppress and excluded the defendant's breath test results from evidence.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 31, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-003529 Judge Obrien
The defendant was stopped by police for blocking traffic. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed her to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a wet stain on the pants. Once out of her car, the defendant appeared uneasy, unsteady, and very carefree. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks. The defendant stated she takes various controlled substances for medical issues. According to the officer, she exhibited numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she was asked to provide a urine sample. She complied, and once the results from the toxicology lab came back, it showed three different controlled substances in her system.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 31, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-003529 Judge Obrien
The defendant was stopped by police for blocking traffic. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed her to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a wet stain on the pants. Once out of her car, the defendant appeared uneasy, unsteady, and very carefree. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks. The defendant stated she takes various controlled substances for medical issues. According to the officer, she exhibited numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she was asked to provide a urine sample. She complied, and once the results from the toxicology lab came back, it showed three different controlled substances in her system.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 31, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-003529 Judge Obrien
The defendant was stopped by police for blocking traffic. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed her to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a wet stain on the pants. Once out of her car, the defendant appeared uneasy, unsteady, and very carefree. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks. The defendant stated she takes various controlled substances for medical issues. According to the officer, she exhibited numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she was asked to provide a urine sample. She complied, and once the results from the toxicology lab came back, it showed three different controlled substances in her system.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 27, 2016 Case: 16-CT-500800 Judge George
The defendant was stopped for driving south in the northbound lane of travel. He was heading straight on toward a police car. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having a few glasses of wine. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. At one point, the defendant allegedly stated "he couldn't do them sober." According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .083 and .080 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged statement by the defendant about "not being able to do the field sobriety tests sober" was not captured on any video tape. Also, with the built in margins of error on the breath machine, both his test results could have been under the legal limit of .08.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 25, 2016 Case: A1G8HNE Judge Newman
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The defendant's car actually burst into flames upon contact. When officers arrived, the defendant was sitting on the back of a fire rescue truck. The defendant was uneasy on her feet, had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, she took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms to balance, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the other individual who was hit, never saw the defendant behind the wheel due to the car bursting into flames and the subsequent chaos at the scene. Since the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel, they Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 24, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-050687 Judge Babb
The defendant was pulled over for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. He performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). On the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and lost track of his count. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and then blew a .105 and a .094 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer was clearly a new officer in training. He was reading the field sobriety test instructions off some type of sheet, almost like a teleprompter. However, the officer kept saying contradictory things while giving the instructions causing clear confusion on behalf of the defendant. For example, he told the defendant he did not have to count out loud during the walk and turn and then told the defendant he was not counting out loud half way through the exercise. The defendant at one point even said, "do I count or not? " Also, with the margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath test results could have been lower than the legal limit.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 24, 2016 Case: 15-1910MU10A Judge Levey Cohen
The defendant was stopped for driving 92mph in a 70mph zone. The initial officer observed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot watery eyes. During the conversation the officer stated that the defendant could not stop shaking. The defendant was asked if she took any medication and she handed over a prescription bottle of hydrocodone. Upon exiting the car she allegedly stumbled. The officer also stated that the defendant was continuously unsteady on her feet. She performed several field sobriety exercises including the walk and turn as well as the one leg stand. The investigating officer stated that she performed poorly and arrested her for DUI.
The investigating officer arrived on scene with his camera on. However, rather than place the defendant on video, the defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests away from the camera. In addition, the officer who was operating the camera never placed his microphone on, and therefore none of the conversation was recorded. With no erratic driving and an investigation that was never captured on video, the State agreed to drop the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 18, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-022698 Judge Lefler
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a sway to his stance. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down and swayed. Also, on the walk and turn, the defendant did not touch heel to toe and stepped off the line. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .083 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant never stepped off the line on the walk and turn vs. what had been written in the report. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and he never swayed on video tape. In addition, there is a built in margin of error on the breath machine which could have put the defendant under the legal limit of .08.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 17, 2016 Case: 15-CT-504554 Judge Gagliardi
The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down a few times and counted improperly. On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe several times and stepped off the line. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. We pointed out to the State that on video, one could not even see whether the defendant was not touching heel to toe due to the position of the camera. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and clear on tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report about it being slurred. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 16, 2016 Case: 15-CT-505084 Judge Hayes
The defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks. He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He performed the HGN (eye test) and then when asked to start the walk and turn test, the defendant stated he did not want to perform any more exercises. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point did not contain the necessary criteria as set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in the case law. Also, we pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences of his refusal to perform the field sobriety tasks as required by law.
The DUI was dismissed.
May 9, 2016 Case: 2016-CT-000503AX Judge Singer
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had bloodshot eyes, mumbled speech, and dilated pupils. He was off balance, unsteady, sluggish in his movements, and he also had body tremors. No odor of alcohol was detected. The defendant denied smoking marijuana, however, the officer stated he smelled it coming from his mouth. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose exercises. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that what the officer had written about his observations of the defendant's eyes on the HGN (eye test), was not consistent as set forth in the DRE (drug recognition manual) for someone who is alleged to have been impaired by marijuana.
The DUI was dismissed.
May 9, 2016 Case: 14-2679MU10A Judge Robinson
The defendant was stopped for driving on three flat tires. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After a long discussion, the defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. On video, the defendant stepped out of the instructional stance and failed to touch heel to toe on the walk and turn test. On the one leg stand, the defendant dropped his foot several times. The defendant was arrested for DUI and refused to submit to a breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed several motions to suppress based on an unlawful stop as well no reasonable suspicion to request roadside tests. At the motion to suppress, the officer who stopped the defendant completely contradicted the testimony of the arresting officer. In addition, despite the presence of a Spanish speaking officer, the investigating officer refused to allow him to interpret. Many of the problems that the defendant had during the roadside tests were equally attributable to the language barrier.
The State dropped the DUI.
May 2, 2016 Case: 8622-GYZ Judge Seraphin
The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and driving on a rim. The officer observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes, fumbling around with his paperwork, and difficulty following instructions. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. No odor of alcohol was detected. The officer, believing the defendant may be impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, requested the defendant to perform roadside tasks. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and rhomberg balance exercises. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant provided an urine sample and subsequently tested positive for marijuana at the toxicology lab.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that marijuana can be in one's system for at least 30 days. Unable to prove that the defendant was impaired by the marijuana at the time of the driving as required by Florida law, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 29, 2016 Case: 15-CT-505083 Judge Adams
The defendant was stopped at a roadblock check point. Upon making contact with the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slow responses to the officer's questions, and he had to use the door to steady himself upon exiting. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant stepped off the line, did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The officer also observed nystagmus in the defendant's eyes while conducting the HGN (eyes test). The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton requested the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point from the State. Under Florida law, every individual roadblock must have a written set of guidelines. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, there must be specific criteria (factors) met by the police in each written set of guidelines or the entire roadblock becomes unlawful. In this particular case, the road block guidelines were defective in many areas pursuant to Florida case law. Prior to filing any motion to suppress the evidence based on the above, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 29, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-022803AXXX Judge Cohen
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking vodka and she also swayed while she stood. According the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We showed them that on the video tape, the defendants speech was not slurred and she was not off balance. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to the setting any trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 28, 2016 Case: 7342-XEM Judge Wolfson
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. After she did them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .096 and .089 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the margin of error of .02 in the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit. Also, the officer did not obtain and angle of onset on the HGN test before 45 degrees which indicated that the defendant may have also been under the legal limit at the time of driving pursuant to Tharpes formula. Also, the officer did not write one specific detail regarding the defendant's performance on the roadsides in his reports. The defendant received no criminal conviction at all on her record.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-023072 Judge Myers
The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car in a parking lot by police. Upon awakening the defendant, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking beers. The defendant refused to do the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" as he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle while he was passed out.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2016 Case: 15-CT-504769, 70 Judge Swett
The defendant crashed her car into a area full of trees. When the police arrived, the defendant was unresponsive and passed out. EMS was also on scene to see if the defendant required medical attention. Upon awakening the defendant who was very unresponsive, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unsteady on her feet once outside the vehicle. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks even after being made aware of the adverse consequences. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had made several requests, along with the prosecutor, to obtain a video tape of the DUI investigation. Since the police were ignoring all requests, there was a potential discovery violation. Prior to any evidentiary hearings on the issue, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2016 Case: 15-032125MU10A Judge Robinson
The defendant almost caused a head on collision by driving on the wrong side of the road. As the other car veered away, the defendant's car hit the rear bumper panel of the other driver's car. When officers arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and red eyes. The defendant's speech was not understandable. He was very unsteady, and could not focus on simple questions. He performed very poorly on the roadside tasks and showed several indicators of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .209 and .207 in the breath machine (almost three times the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton took sworn pretrial depositions of the officers involved in the case. Based on the answers given in their depositions, the firm developed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the arrest based on improper police procedure. The firm then met with State and they agreed with the issue based on case law provided to them.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 25, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-011030 Judge Bell
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and red blood shot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. Prior to roadside tests being administered, the defendant almost fell and stumbled onto the grass. According to the officer, she failed all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .113 and .115 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that the defendant was from another country, had a foreign driver's license, and her English was not good. No interpreter was ever called to the scene or the station. Thus, the defendant did not understand any instructions on the roadside tests, nor did she understand "implied consent" being read to her prior taking the breath test on tape. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 15, 2016 Case: 2013-MM-013483 Judge Hanser
An anonymous person called the police stating they noticed the defendant to be passed out in his car in their neighborhood. When police arrived, they found the defendant's car parked against the curb, the defendant was slumped over, and drooling from the mouth. The vehicle was in park with the keys in the ignition. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a red/flushed face. On video, the defendant could hardly stand and his speech was not even understandable. The defendant attempted the roadside exercises but did not complete them. He was then arrested for DUI. The police also found marijuana in the car in a search incident to arrest. After his arrest, he blew a .201 and .198 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Parks & Braxton were involved in pretrial litigation to try to exclude the breath test results based on improper maintenance procedures conducted by FDLE on this particular machine. Prior to the motion being heard, the State agreed with the issue and Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received no criminal conviction for he marijuana charge.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 15, 2016 Case: 15-004032MU10A Judge Brown
The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag and revving his engine. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer and was off balance on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant. The videotape of the DUI investigation at the scene contradicted what was written in the police reports regarding the defendant's level of impairment. Prior to the motion being heard, the State watched the videotape and Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 13, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-023325 Judge Gabbard
The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car crash. When the officer arrived on scene, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant appeared off balance and unsteady while talking to the officer. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests which included the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He exhibited several signs of impairment. There was no video tape of the DUI investigation. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .091 and .091 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that the air bags had deployed and hit the defendant in the face. Thus, any impairment could have been as easily attributed to the injuries from the airbag versus alcohol. Also, there is margin of error on the breath machine in which we were able to place the defendant under the legal limit.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 12, 2016 Case: 13-017965MM10A Judge Evans
The defendant was stopped for making a left turn on a red light. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face and slurred speech. Additionally, the officer located an open container in the center console. A DUI officer subsequently arrived on scene. In addition to the above observations, the DUI officer stated that the defendant was extremely lethargic. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand and HGN (eye test), the defendant was arrested for DUI.
Because of the inconsistency between the reports and the video, the State was unable to proceed.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 12, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-024375 Judge Jeske
The defendant was stopped for driving with no head lights. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/watery eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, she failed and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that on tape, the officer followed her as she was driving without head lights for over a mile without stopping her on a residential street. The officer let the defendant drive onto the highway with no head lights. Furthermore, although the officer could have stopped her and done roadsides on a residential street, he chose to have her do them ten feet from cars and trucks on an interstate highway. We pointed out that this, her fear of being killed by a car or truck, could have contributed to her alleged poor performance. The State agreed after watching the whole video tape.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 11, 2016 Case: 0506-XFE Judge Altfield
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer who stopped the defendant, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He then called for a DUI unit, who arrived and made similar observations. That officer then requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within a five year period.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the DUI officer did not write one detail about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. All he did was check off the boxes on the DUI test report. Upon questioning the officer prior to trial, he could not remember one specific. The State then Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 5, 2016 Case: 15-009347MU10A Judge Pole
The defendant was observed at a light screeching his tires as he proceeded forward. As he approached a second light, again the defendant proceeded forward while screeching and spinning his tires. Next, the officer observed the defendant failing to maintain a single lane. The defendant was subsequently stopped. As the officer spoke with the defendant, he detected a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, as well as slurred speech. He subsequently acknowledged coming from a bar and consuming a few beers. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose tests. He was arrested for DUI and blew a .136 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an improper stop. Specifically, screeching tires is not a violation of law. In addition, failure to maintain a single lane is only a violation if other traffic is affected. The officer testified that traffic could have been affected but could not recall if it was. In addition, he could not articulate how far the defendant veered or how many tires actually crossed over the line. The motion was granted and all of the evidence including the breath test was excluded.
The DUI was dismissed.
Mar 31, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-010642 Judge Bell
The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a "drunk stare." The defendant was fumbling with his documents and almost dropped his phone. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests which were video taped and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .163 and .160 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on tape, the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better than as described in the police reports. Also, the defendant's breath test level was contradicted by his performance on the field sobriety tests, thus, it was clear his breath alcohol level may have been lower at the time of driving.
The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 29, 2016 Case: 12-003426MM10A Judge Lerner-Wren
The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed a strong odor of marijuana. The defendant consented to a search which revealed burnt marijuana as well as a pipe. Upon exiting the vehicle the defendant allegedly had a "drunk-like" walk. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant acknowledged that she had three beers and was driving home. She subsequently performed several field sobriety tests on video and was arrested for DUI as well as possession of cannabis and paraphernalia. At the breath alcohol testing facility she blew a .115.
Upon a review of the video, the defendant's performance contradicted the investing officer's police report. Specifically, on the one leg stand the defendant was able to maintain her balance for 52 seconds. On the walk and turn test despite a stumble on the turn, she was able to walk in a straight line. As such, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The DUI was dropped and the defendant was not convicted of any charges.
The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 15, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-009578-A-O Judge Freeman
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. When officers approached the defendant after he pulled into a gas station, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and and glassy eyes. The defendant was then asked to step out of the car as the officers wanted to conduct a DUI investigation. The defendant refused several commands to get out of the car and after a couple of minutes was forcibly removed from the vehicle. Once removed, the defendant was immediately cuffed and arrested. He was then taken to the breath testing facility where he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Parks & Braxton had gotten a cell phone video from the client of the incident at the car. This cell phone video showed the cops at the defendant's car trying to get him out of the car. It also showed they never mentioned any DUI investigation, versus what was in the reports. Also, once they got him out of the car he was immediately cuffed. No roadside tests were ever even offered to the defendant on scene or at the station. The officers were aware the defendant was filming them. The firm turned the cell phone video over the prosecutor to prove there was no DUI investigation ever even attempted. Thus, there was a lack of evidence of impairment and contradictions between the officer's written version and cell phone video. The State watched the cell phone video and Dismissed the DUI.
The DUI was dismissed.
Mar 9, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-023628 Judge Koons
The defendant was stopped for driving too slow and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant swayed while standing and admitting to having consumed two beers. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests which were video taped. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .207 and .195 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State Attorney's Office over several months regarding issues about the case.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 26, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-022206 Judge GABBARD
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant was slow to react to the police lights in pulling over. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, flushed face, and watery eyes. The defendant was requested by the officer to perform the roadside tests. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. There was no video at the scene. After his arrest for DUI, the defendant admitted to drinking beer, feeling the effects of the alcohol, and smoking marijuana earlier that day.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the prosecutor. We not only pointed out how poorly written and vague the police reports were, but also that there were numerous contradictory statements throughout the reports. With no video tape, the officers' credibility was called into serious question prior to trial.
The DUI was dismissed.
Feb 25, 2016 Case: 14-023963MU10A Judge Solomon
The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a red light. The driving pattern, as well as the subsequent DUI investigation, was captured on video. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes as well as slurred speech. During a conversation with the defendant, he admitted to the officer that he was taking anti-anxiety medication as well as drinking. During the investigation, the defendant performed and subsequently failed the one leg stand, walk and turn and the finger to nose tests. The defendant was arrested for DUI and he blew a .178 and a .170 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton took depositions (sworn statements) of all of the officers involved. The arresting officer acknowledged that he would have to rely on his report and was unable to recall specific details concerning the circumstances surrounding the investigation. We filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the arresting officer based on a lack of any independent recollection of the investigation. In addition, a motion to suppress the arrest for lack of probable cause was filed. The State conceded the motion and dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 23, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-039322-AXXX-XX Judge ATKIN
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a pale face, and clumsy dexterity. The defendant was slow to exit the car and swayed while standing outside the vehicle. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. He showed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .156 and .156 in the breath machine. The defendant was also video taped at the police station blowing into the machine and speaking with the officers.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was an error on the breath test print out sheet with the defendant's results due to a control test being out of the accepted range. The officers are on video tape telling the defendant he needed to blow again due to an error, but would not tell him what the error was on the machine. The defendant can be heard over and over asking for an explanation. The defendant then refused to give any more samples in that same machine. The State, after watching the video at the station and hearing the conversation between the officers and the defendant, agreed to Drop the DUI just prior to trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 22, 2016 Case: 0436-XFE Judge WOLFSON
The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant failed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she did not touch heel to toe and took an incorrect number of steps. On the one leg stand, she swayed, raised her arms for balance, and put her foot down. After her arrest, she blew a .101 and .094 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm had the opportunity to talk to the arresting officer. The officer contradicted himself not only by stating opposite facts as to what was written in his report, but also by adding several facts to the case that were not written in his very vague reports. Based on that pretrial conversation, the State Dropped the DUI due to the officer's credibility being called into question.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 17, 2016 Case: 15-003751CTAXMX Judge ROBERTS
The defendant was stopped by the police after he was seen driving out of an enclosed area which had barricades and posted signs stating to not enter. The area was closed off due to an art festival. The defendant was stopped at almost 3 a.m.. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, mumbled speech, and he was swaying. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks. On video, the defendant showed several signs of impairment and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .228 and .224 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence for an unlawful traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to believe the defendant committed any traffic infractions, nor was there any reasonable suspicion of a crime as he was "coming out of the area," not driving into the enclosed area in disregard of any signs. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 12, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-001343-E Judge Starr
The defendant was stopped for speeding, swerving, and almost hitting a curb. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. When asked if he had been drinking by the officer, the defendant responded by telling the officer he had consumed 4 beers, 1 shot, and 1 mixed drink. According to the officer, the defendant admitted to being drunk. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests and showed several signs of impairment. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton had questioned the officers prior to a trial date being set. The officers who were on scene contradicted themselves. Since there was no video at the scene, their credibility was called into question. Also, the defendant appeared sober on video at the breath testing facility which contradicted the officers account of what happened at the scene of the arrest.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 10, 2016 Case: 14-044649MU10A Judge Levy Cohen
The defendant was involved in an accident which was witnessed by an off-duty officer. The officer approached the defendant's car and testified that he looked "out of it" but made no other observations. After several officers arrived on scene, a DUI investigation took place. The investigating officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. The defendant performed, and allegedly failed, the HGN (eye test), walk and turn as well as the one leg stand. However, none of these tests were captured on video. The officer stated that the defendant was off balance and unsteady throughout the investigation. The defendant was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton took a deposition (sworn statement) of the arresting officer. The officer acknowledged that with the exception of the odor of alcohol, all of the other characteristics of impairment could just as easily be linked to a person who was in an accident resulting in injuries. This testimony was brought to the attention of the Supervising Prosecutor who ultimately dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 8, 2016 Case: 7144-XEM Judge SERAPHIN
The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests. According to the officer, she did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .084 and .081 in the breath machine. Also, the police found marijuana in the defendant's car in a post arrest search.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the breath machine has built in margins of error which could have put the defendant's breath alcohol level lower than the legal limit of .08. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. Also, the possession of marijuana charge was dismissed.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 8, 2016 Case: 15-CT-017159 Judge LEFLER
The defendant was involved in a one car crash. The crash was witnessed by an off duty officer from a different jurisdiction. The off duty officer also observed the defendant weaving and almost striking another car prior to the crash. The defendant's car ended up in a ditch. When the officer approached the defendant to help, he noticed the defendant to have mush mouth speech and once he finally got out of the car, he almost fell. At that time, the defendant's wife had pulled up and they drove off to his house. Another local Deputy subsequently arrived on scene and then proceeded to the defendant's house. Once at the house, about 20 minutes later, the officer observed the defendant inside the residence to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and swayed as he stood. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .125 and .125 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under Florida Law, a defendant has to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving. In this case, since the initial officer never smelled any alcohol while the defendant was in his car at the crash scene, there was no way to prove that the defendant had been "driving" while under the influence of alcohol. It was not until 20 minutes later while the defendant had already been in his house did anyone smell any alcohol.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 3, 2016 Case: 14-038695MU10A Judge Gottleib
Two officers in different cars heard a loud noise coming from the defendant's vehicle. Ultimately, the defendant was stopped for driving on two rims. Upon questioning, the defendant admitted to drinking at a club. The officers both observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes as well as a flushed face. The defendant was unclear where he was. The defendant performed the walk and turn test whereby he consistently stepped off of the line. On the one leg stand test he kept dropping his foot on the ground. After two more failed sobriety tests he was arrested for DUI. He blew a .172 and a .175 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton took a deposition of each of the witnesses. Subsequently, the firm argued a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was pulled over unlawfully in violation of his fourth amendment rights. After testimony and argument, Judge Gottleib granted the motion and excluded all of the State's evidence.
The DUI was dismissed.
Feb 2, 2016 Case: 15-CT-502996 Judge HAYWARD
The defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint. Upon being stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having consumed three drinks that night. She was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests on video tape. The defendant started the one leg stand and could not do it and stated it was too hard. On the walk and turn, she stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .090 and .085 (both results above the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton got a copy of the written roadblock guidelines and procedures for this specific checkpoint. Prior filing a motion to suppress, the firm pointed out to the State that the written procedures in this case gave the officers on scene too much "discretion" at the checkpoint in violation of Florida Law. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 2, 2016 Case: 15-CT-502983 Judge HAYWARD
The defendant was found sleeping in his car on the side of the road. The officer could not awake the defendant by tapping on the window so he opened the door to see if he was ok. Once the defendant finally awoke, the officer smelled an odor of alcohol, noticed watery/dilated eyes, and the defendant had difficulty following instructions. The defendant's speech was slurred and he admitted to drinking bud light. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks and according to the officer he failed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was doing the right thing by sleeping on the side of the road versus driving around intoxicated. Also, the defendant was legally not in "actual physical control" of the car as he had no capability to operate the car while he was sleeping.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 28, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-002653 Judge HITZEMAN
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was unsteady and off balance while standing outside of her car. The officer even had trouble understanding her while she was speaking and noticed her to be very lethargic. The defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down a number of times. Finally, she said she could not do it and just stopped. She was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on video, the defendant did not appear off balance or unsteady. Also, on tape, the officer never asked her to repeat herself. Furthermore, the defendant was able to properly perform the walk and turn which contradicted her poor performance on the one leg stand.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 27, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-000963 Judge ISENHOWER
The defendant was found by the police sitting in her car. The car had two flat front tires and the vehicle looked like it had been in a crash. As the officer began to speak to the defendant, she was confused and her clothes were covered in vomit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was off balance upon standing outside the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we moved to suppress the refusal to perform roadside tests. We alleged that when the defendant refused to perform the tests, she was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing. In our other motion, we moved to suppress the refusal to provide a breath sample as the defendant was improperly read implied consent prior to being arrested for DUI. Prior to even setting a hearing date on the motions, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 22, 2016 Case: 2015-CT-015816 Judge BONAVITA
The defendant was stopped for weaving, almost striking a curb, and crossing into oncoming traffic. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant was fumbling with his items in the car. The defendant then refused to perform all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused to take the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The week before trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
3502 results found. Viewing page 16 of 36. Go to page 1 2 3  . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  . . . 35 36   Next

Obtain Immediate Legal Help

To save your license, you must act within 10 days. Get in touch with our firm by calling 321.593.0222, or fill out the form here.

Get in Touch Now