Our Recent Victories

The defendant was detained longer than necessary for the initial officer to write the traffic ticket. Thus, the issue was raised by the firm whether he was unlawfully detained too long for the DUI cop to arrive.

Officers had on body worn cameras. On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and she did not appear unsteady. They it made it seem like her performance on the field sobriety tests was worse on paper than what appeared on tape. The firm brought all this to the prosecutor's attention.

There was no dash camera or body worn camera. Since the reports were vaguely written, the State Dropped the DUI.

Since the caller only described an alleged traffic infraction, the officer had to have seen some type of erratic driving pattern or infraction to seize the defendant. Since he did not, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

The firm advised the prosecutor prior to any motions being filed that there was no probable cause to stop the defendant. The State Agreed and Dropped the DUI to a civil infraction and the defendant received no conviction or points on the civil infraction.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. There were numerous inconsistencies in the officer's reports, as well as the video. Also, with the .02 margin of error on the breath machine, we were able to place the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit. On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

Under Florida law (Fla. Statute 316.193) to prove a DUI, the State must prove that a defendant be impaired by alcohol, and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the State could not prove either of the above. One cannot just be impaired to be convicted of DUI.

The officers’ reports contradicted each other. In one report, he wrote that the defendant had mumbled speech, but in another one he wrote the defendant had good speech. Due to the fact that the defendant was not the cause of crash, no roadsides were conducted, and the officer's credibility was called into question, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

Many of the observations written by the officer were contradicted by the dash camera video tape.

The defendant stated he had major back issues which would have contributed to any unsteadiness. In addition, his speech was not slurred on tape.

The officer did not see any driving pattern upon stopping the defendant. Thus, he had no corroboration to legally justify the traffic stop. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

English is not the defendant's first language. Officers made no attempts to get an interpreter to assist in the DUI investigation so the defendant could properly understand.

Under Florida DUI statute 316.193, the State must prove that a defendant is impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. One just can’t be impaired by something. The State could not prove the case and Dropped the DUI. The defendant received no criminal conviction.

Due to many inconsistencies in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

Many observations such as slurred speech and balance issues were contradicted by the defendant's video tape. This was brought to the State's attention by the firm. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.

When asking the defendant to perform roadside tests, the officer misstated the law by telling him that one consents to roadsides when they get their driver's license. Under Florida law, the only thing that pertains to one's consent when they get a driver's license is a breath, urine, or blood test.

On tape, officers had made statements to each other on the body cameras about whether the defendant was impaired by a mental illness or alcohol. This was not written in any police reports. Had the firm not watched the tapes, it never would have been discovered or brought to the prosecutor's attention. Thus, there was reasonable doubt as to whether she was impaired by alcohol or a mental illness.

On tape, the defendant's speech did not appear to sound slurred and he did not appear off balance or unsteady.

At the civil administrative DMV hearing, the officer testified under oath how the defendant was practically a falling down drunk. This testimony was contradicted by the video tape. The State Dropped her Second DUI and dismissed the refusal charge.

Due to a lack of specifies on the police reports as to the field sobriety tests, the State Dropped the DUI.

Many aspects of the video tape contradicted by the police reports.

The defendant's performance on video tape during the field sobriety test clearly showed that he was lower than .08 at the time of driving. Thus, he would have be absorbing alcohol when he blew into the machine.

The State could not prove how long the substances had been in his system. Thus, they couldn't prove he was actually impaired by those drugs.

Many observations of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were very vaguely written and hardly any specifics included.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that there was no probable cause to even arrest the defendant based on the video tape. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Due to inconsistencies in the reports pointed out by the defense, the State Dropped the DUI.

An officer can only request a breath and/or urine test after one has been arrested. Here, the officer read her implied consent and requested a urine test prior to arresting her which was unlawful. Thus, her refusal to provide a urine sample would have been excluded from evidence. In addition, the State could not prove by what specific chemical and/or or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by Florida DUI Statute 316.193. . The State Dropped the DUI to a civil careless infraction.

The observations both the arresting officer and the DRE officer made were inconsistent with someone being impaired by amphetamines. In fact, the DRE officer concluded that she was impaired by a CNS Depressant which was not only wrong, but on the opposite spectrum of amphetamines. Someone who is impaired by amphetamines will appear euphoric and excited and not slow and sluggish. In addition, someone who is impaired by amphetamines will not exhibit HGN (the eyes test), nor have equal pupil size, like the defendant did. In addition, when the officer administered the roadside tests, he covered his body worn camera with his forearm and clip board so one could not even see the defendant's performance.

Parks & Braxton got depositions granted of the two officers in question. Prior to the depos, in speaking to the officers, it was uncovered that when the officers found the defendant, he was sleeping in the bed of his truck. This information was not written in the police reports and would have never been uncovered if the firm did not attempt to take depos. The state could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control of the truck.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm pointed out many inconsistencies between the officer's reports and the DUI video tape. Just prior to jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Issues were raised as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to a lack of particulars.

There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that she was sick, injured, or impaired when the officer stopped her, since no traffic was affected and the driving pattern did not go on for a long time.

Due to a lack of specifics by the caller, the police did not corroborate any indicators of impairment prior to seizing the defendant by ordering him our of the car.

When the officer did the HGN (eyes test), he did not get an angle onset of 45 degrees or less in the defendant's eyes. Under Tharpe's Formula, if that occurs, it may mean that the defendant was under the .08 legal limit.

In order to conduct a DUI investigation, the officer must be indicia of impairment. Here there was none, as she exhibited no erratic drving, no speech issues, and no balance issues. Thus, were was a lack of reasonable suspicion to even conduct a DUI investigation.

The officer made it out in his reports like the defendant was a falling down drunk. Almost all of his observations that were written were contradicted by the video.

On tape, the defendant was arrested very fast after refusing the roadside tests. It gave the imrpession that the officer already had made up his mind that he was going to arrest the defendant whether he did the roadsdies or not.

The officer did not see any driving pattern upon stopping the defendant. Thus, he had no corroboration to legally justify the traffic stop Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

Based on the video tape evidence, the firm pointed out that there was lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

There was a lack of reasonable suspicion of a crime for the officer to even legally request field sobriety tests. There must be indicators of impairment to justify the request.

The defendant's video tape showed that she may have been lower than .08 at the time of driving and that she was absorbing alcohol. Her roadside performance contradicted her breath test results.

The defendant had some mental health issues which caused his speech to appear slurred and also caused him to get very nervous and appear impaired. There was doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his mental health issues.

Issues were raised by the firm as to whether the breath test was lawfully obtained. Just because you provide a breath test, doesn't mean it is always admissible into evidence.

Many of the observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video. For example, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred and he did not appear unsteady on tape.

The State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle as he had no "capability" to operate it while asleep in a parking space.

Issues were raised by the firm as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop as well as probable cause to arrest.

The State could not prove that she was under the influence of the two drugs at the time of the crash. Marijuana can be in your system for up to 30 days. The officer did not smell any pot, nor find any. She is also prescribed the amphetamine. Also, on tape, prior to even beginning the roadside tests, the officer was having her car towed. The defendant can even be heard asking why are you towing my car. This proved that the officer had his mind made up to arrest her from the very beginning.

The firm raised issues as to the lawfullness of the traffic stop.

When there is no crash, under Florida Statute 901.15, the police are required to observe the defendant behind the wheel. If they do not, the arrest is unlawful and the breath test would have been excluded.

Parks & Braxton filed multiple motions to suppress evidence in the case. The firm also took depositions of the witnesses. The civilian witness involved in the crash contradicted almost every portion of the officer's testimony. Thus, there were credibility issues.

Since there was no DUI video, the firm put forth that there was a lack of evidence and also that the police reports were vaguely written.

Due to contradictions in the reports and video, the State Dropped the DUI.

After the firm raised various legal issue within the case based on the discovery, the State Dropped the DUI.

The State Attorney listed approximately 50 witnesses. Most important to the case was the traffic homicide investigator. After five (5) hours of cross-examination, the homicide investigator acknowledged the following. First, there was a box truck making a left turn that was discovered near the location of the crash which could have concealed the victim's bicycle just prior to the crash. There was a set of headphones that were located close to the victim's body which could have impaired the defendant's attention on the road. A toxicology report indicated both alcohol and cocaine in the victim's blood which could have impaired his ability to safely operate the bicycle. In addition, the officer recognized that many of the details that the independent civilian witness testified to were incorrect. The prosecutor acknowledged the weaknesses that were created by the defense. The vehicular homicide was amended to a reckless driving with injury.

The State Attorney listed approximately 50 witnesses. Most important to the case was the traffic homicide investigator. After five (5) hours of cross-examination, the homicide investigator acknowledged the following. First, there was a box truck making a left turn that was discovered near the location of the crash which could have concealed the victim's bicycle just prior to the crash. There was a set of headphones that were located close to the victim's body which could have impaired the defendant's attention on the road. A toxicology report indicated both alcohol and cocaine in the victim's blood which could have impaired his ability to safely operate the bicycle. In addition, the officer recognized that many of the details that the independent civilian witness testified to were incorrect. The prosecutor acknowledged the weaknesses that were created by the defense. The vehicular homicide was amended to a reckless driving with injury.

Due to some conflicts within the discovery, the firm was able to convince the State that there were credibility issues.

Parks & Braxton filed a pre trial motion to suppress the breath test. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was improperly coerced into taking a breath test by the police because they gave him misinformation. The State subsequently Dropped the DUI after the motion hearing.

The firm put forth that there was an actual physical control issue as it was unknown where the keys were located to the vehicle. Also, many observations that the officer wrote in his reports were contradicted by the video tape. Furthermore, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused the roadside tests as required by law.

There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI ) to justify ordering the defendant out of the car. Also, there was a lack of actual physical control since he was sleeping in his car.

The call was not specific as to which males were actually fighting. Thus, the firm put forth that ordering the defendant out of the truck without reasonable suspicion of a crime was unlawful.

Based on the video and written evidence, the firm put forth that there was a lack of probable cause to make the arrest.

There was doubt as to whether any impairment observed was equally due to the severity of the rollover crash versus impairment by alcohol.

There is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine. Thus, the firm was able to put the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit.

Due to contradictions in the police reports versus the video, the Sate Dropped the DUI.

The defendant was stopped for weaving and straddling on the lane markers. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having consumed beer and taking Klonopin (a controlled substance). After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI.

The officers did not corroborate any diving pattern prior to making contact and ordering him out of the car. Thus, the firm put forth that initial stop was unlawful. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. The other two charges were dropped as well.

The State could not prove that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash due to the time frame and distance from the crash scene.

The firm raised issues with the State as to whether the the defendant was impaired prior to the vehicle being inoperable.

The firm pointed out to the State that on tape the officer had his mind made up to arrest the defendant prior to any DUI investigation being conducted. He was talking very fast and the defendant couldn't follow what he was saying. It was very clear that he was just going though the motions.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath results under the legal limit. In addition, when the officer performed the HGN (eye test) on the defendant, he did not get an angle of onset prior to 45 degrees. What that means is that the defendant could have been under the legal limit at the time of driving pursuant to Tharpe's formula. Also, many observations the officer wrote were contradicted by the video tape.

Many observations the officer wrote in his reports were contradicted by the video tape.

The initial seizure by police was unlawful when they ordered him out of the car because they made no DUI observations while he was still seated in the car.

The credibility of the officers was called into question as to whether or not the defendant actually had an odor of alcohol. One officer can he heard on tape saying he did not smell anything even as he was up close. Also, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred on tape.

On tape, it was clear the arresting officer was being trained by a field training officer. At one point on tape, after all the roadside tests were completed by the trainee, the trainee was overheard saying to his superior, "I am not sure." The arresting officer can be heard, "use your training and experience. " Well, he has none.

legal issues were raised by the firm about whether the defendant was coerced into taking a breath test.

The firm filed a pretrial motion to suppress any and all of the defendant's statements to police based on a violation of Miranda. On the day of the motion, the State agreed to Drop the DUI. He also received no conviction on the leaving the scene of an accident charge.

The firm raised various contradictions in the reports versus the video tape.

Parks & Braxton raised issues as to a lack of probable cause to make the arrest based on the video tape evidence.

Parks & Braxton raised issues as to the lawfulness of the arrest due to a lack of probable cause.

The firm brought contradictions between the reports and the video to the State's attention.

There were issues as to whether the defendant actually failed to yield calling into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

There were issues as to whether the State could prove that the defendant was in actual physical control because he was not behind the wheel when officers arrived on scene.

Issues were raised by the firm as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop based on the video and the reports.

The defendant was not in actual physical control as he had no capability to operate the vehicle while he was sleeping.

The defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform field sobriety tests as required by law.

There was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the video tape and police report evidence. This was presented to the prosecutor.

During discovery, the defense learned that the officer used some type of hand held video camera. It was discovered that the video was destroyed. Prior to filing any motions to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI and also the Leaving the Scene charge.

Parks & Braxton got the defendant's refusal to perform roadside tests excluded because the officer did not advise him of any adverse consequences as required by law. We also pointed out to the Sate without that evidence of the refusal, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him.

The firm brought issues to the State's attention that arose from the discovery relating to the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

The defendant performed much better on the roadside tests on tape than as described in the reports.

Based on odor of alcohol alone, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime to even request the defendant to perform field sobriety tests.

The defendant performed much better than described in the reports so the firm pointed out to the prosecutor there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.

The firm pointed out to the State that one officer got nystagmus on the HGN (eye test) and the officer did not. This was heard as they were talking on tape. As HGN is a strong indicator of alcohol being in one system, this inconsistency called their credibility into question.

Due to numerous inconsistencies between the video and the reports, the State Dropped the DUI.

and was arrested for DUI.
There was no corroboration of any driving pattern observed by the officers so the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. In addition, there were contradictions with the police reports themselves as well as what took place on video tape.

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. His dexterity was clumsy, he exited the car slow, and appeared unsteady. After performing various field sobriety tests such and the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.

There were many conflicts between the video and the police reports. We pointed out that there was also a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.

There was no video of the DUI investigation, only audio. Many observations alleged in the reports were contradicted by the audio of the investigation.

During pretrial discovery, the defense uncovered that the arresting officer had some internal affairs issues. This called into question his credibility.