Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
After conversations with the prosecutor regarding the conflicts between the video tape and the written reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant had difficulty with the physical tasks such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. However, he performed well on the non-physical exercises such as the count backwards (69-42) and the 30 second estimation of time. Also, on tape his speech was normal and he did not appear unsteady. After several conversations with the prosecutor about the conflicts in the video and written report evidence, the State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
After conversations with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to having consumed beer. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest.
The firm raised issues as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to a vagueness of specifics.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and his movements were lethargic. He swayed while he stood and told the officer he had consumed thirteen (13) beers. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The State dropped the DUI.
There were numerous contradictions in the two officer's reports. For example, the first officer noticed slurred speech and no sway. On the other hand, the arresting officer noticed a sway and normal speech (not slurred). After conversations with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI and dismiss the leaving the scene of an accident charge.
The video contradicted the police reports. On tape, his speech was not slurred and he was not off-balance (never swayed).
The various medications found in the defendant's system were prescribed. We pointed out to the State that he had a bad reaction to the doctor's mixing various medications through no fault of his own.
There were three 911 calls. Oddly enough, one of the calls stated that they had no idea why police were pulling the defendant over as she did nothing wrong. This was immediately pointed out to the prosecutor. Also, although the stopping officer had a dash camera, it was never turned on for some unknown reason during the traffic stop to capture any alleged driving. Also, when a defendant refuses roadside tests, officers must advise the defendant of the adverse consequences for refusing. If they do not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer didn't give any consequences. In addition, the officers were very aggressive and rude towards the defendant on the body worn cameras for no reason. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
After several conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The written reports made the defendant out to seem very impaired. That was contradicted by the videotape evidence.
The video was clearly much different from the reports. Specifically, the police body worn camera shows four different officers pulling the defendant over at gunpoint. They immediately cuffed him. Parks and Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that the officers violated the defendant's constitutional rights by pulling him over at gunpoint for a traffic infraction. The state conceded the merits of the motion and subsequently dropped the DUI. The defendant received no conviction on his record.
The defendant was stopped for bouncing from the center lane to the fog line and her speeds were varying. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol and watery eyes. She then performed the HGN (eye test), began the walk and turn, and then stopped. She refused to finish the exercise, nor do any further tests. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
The defendant was attempting to leave a parking lot and subsequently struck two vehicles. The crash was witnessed by three officers who were working a detail at a bar. The officers ran towards the defendant and noticed that she was attempting to leave the scene. They immediately stopped the vehicle and made contact with the driver. The lead investigator asked her why she was attempting to leave the scene of a crash. The driver stated that she was not involved in an accident. The officers all observed an extremely strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. They asked the defendant to exit the vehicle, but she was unable to stand on her own and was placed back into the car. One of the officers located the owners of the two vehicles that were struck in the accident and brought them to the crash scene. In court, one of the owners stated that the defendant was extremely uncooperative and could not stand on her own. The defendant was eventually asked to perform field sobriety tests to which she refused. She stated that she was not in an accident and not "drunk." She was subsequently asked to provide a breath test and was arrested for DUI. The defendant blew a .168 at the police station and subsequently refused to provide a second sample of her breath.
Many observations on the field sobriety tests were contradicted by the videotape.
The defendant crashed his car into a ditch and collided with a tree line. A civilian witnessed the crash and ran over to help. When the first officer arrived, he noticed an odor of alcohol and vomit on the defendant's shirt. The defendant was then transported to the hospital where another officer met him there. At the hospital, that officer noticed slurred/thick tongued speech and the defendant appeared very confused about the crash. He did not smell any alcohol. A medical blood draw was done which later showed a .252 blood alcohol result (over three times the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers and the civilian. Due to conflicting sworn statements between the three witnesses, issues were raised by the firm about the lawfulness of the investigation leading up the blood draw.
After conversations with the State regarding conflicts between the videotape and the written reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, mildly slurred speech, and she appeared unsteady. Her face was flushed and her eyes were bloodshot. The defendant had a wristband on from a club. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, HGN (eye test), and one leg stand, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Many observations on the video contradicted the police reports. Her speech was not slurred, she did not appear to be moving slow, and she seemed responsive and coherent. The State Dropped the DUI after negotiations.
After conversations with the prosecutor about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was seen by an officer propping up his motorcycle after he had fallen. The officer went up to the defendant and noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and an unsteady gait. The defendant stated he had drank two beers. The officer told the defendant, "don't drive and take an uber or taxi" and you won't be arrested for DUI. About 30 minutes later, the officer spotted the defendant on his bike and moving it. At that time, the officer once again stopped the defendant and began a DUI investigation. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
After several negotiations with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Even though they found marijuana,. the State could not prove he was impaired by the marijuana. Officers noticed nystagmus in the defendant's eyes on the HGN (eye test). When one is under the influence of marijuana, there will be no nystagmus.
After discussions with the prosecutor about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. There was no odor of alcohol, but officers observed the defendant to have constricted pupils, lethargic movements, and slow/raspy speech. The defendant stated that she takes a variety of medicines, all prescribed. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she then performed various field sobriety tests. She was then arrested for DUI and later provided a urine sample. The sample came back from FDLE with positive results for amphetamines and Xanax.
Under Florida law, an officer must advise a defendant of adverse consequences if a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests. If they do not, the defendant's refusal would be excluded from evidence. Here, the defendant was not advised of any consequences.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving with no headlights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She performed poorly on roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Police were called as the defendant's car was stuck in a drainage ditch. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and she had stated she had consumed a few vodka drinks at the club. She then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, finger to nose, and alphabet. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .181 and .167 in the breath machine.
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.