Our Recent Victories

Although the defendant performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test), nothing was captured on video tape. All the officers had body worn cameras but not one roadside task was on tape. This lack of evidence was presented to the State and they Dropped the DUI.

There is a .02 and a .005 margin of the error with the breath machine. Here, the firm was able to place both of the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was not enough evidence to place in her in actual physical control. The officers yanked her out of the driver seat before she could gain control of the truck. The State agreed and Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

It was pointed out to the State by the firm that the defendant’s alleged performance on the roadside tasks, as written in the reports, was contradicted by her video tape. The tape clearly showed that she was absorbing alcohol and had a lower breath alcohol level at the time of driving.

There were inconsistencies between the reports and the videotapes. Thus, the credibility of the officers was called into question.

During discovery, the firm uncovered that the arresting officer had been terminated for falsification of records and untruthfulness. His credibility as to whether he lied in this case was now called into question. The DUI was Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to the trial date, the firm uncovered that the arresting officer had been terminated after having been arrested on felony charges. The State was also late in providing any discovery such as police reports and video tapes. The firm would not waive speedy trial and moved to compel further info about officer and all discovery. Just a few days prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully detained. We argued at the motion hearing that there must be more than a mere odor of alcohol in order to detain a defendant to perform to field sobriety tests. The Judge agreed and granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The DUI was then Dismissed.

According to the NHTSA manual on field sobriety tests, the officer is required to administer them on flat, level surface. Here, it was obvious on tape that the officer had the defendant perform the walk and turn on a downhill slope. Although the officer wrote that the defendant had no medical injuries preventing him from performing the one leg stand, that was contradicted by the video. On tape the defendant his heard telling the officer that he had hip issues. This was pointed out to the State and they Dropped the DUI.

Due to the fact that there were no balance problems or speech issues prior to the roadside tasks, there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to even request field sobriety tests. An odor of alcohol and bloodshot/glassy eyes are only indicators of the consumption of alcohol and not impairment.

There was a de facto arrest when the officers placed the defendant in handcuffs. Since all the DUI observations were made after being cuffed, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State Dropped the DUI.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question due to a lack of specifics. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We pointed out to the State that the officer's reports were contradicted by the video. Not one of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.

Under Florida law, one must be under the influence of alcohol "at the time of driving" to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove that he was under the influence while driving because he could have drank while he was in his house.

The officer did not get an angle of onset (nystagmus) before 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes during the HGN test. An angle of onset prior to 45 degrees, under Tharpe's formula, would show that the defendant may have a breath alcohol level over the legal limit of .08. Here, there was none.

Since there was no substantial corroboration of the driving pattern that the 911 caller had described. Thus the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

The defendant was not advised of any adverse consequences relating to her refusal to perform the roadside tasks as required by law.

Since the defendant did not sit through an entire light cycle, and there were no specifics of his alleged swerving. Thus the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

The observations that the officer wrote in his report were contradicted by the videotape. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dropped.

Parks & Braxton brought several contradictions between the arresting officer and the DRE officer to the attention of the prosecutor. For one, the officer at the scene got no nystagmus prior to 45 degrees on the HGN (eye test) versus the DRE officer at the station got nystagmus prior to the 45 degrees. This is important because the DRE officer concluded that the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, and NOT marijuana which is the substance he tested positive for at FDLE. An officer wont see nystagmus prior to 45 degrees if under the influence of marijuana. The DRE was wrong. The firm then requested the state to disclose which "specific" controlled substance the state was going to argue that the defendant was impaired by as required by law. They could not and the DUI was dismissed.

During the short distance and time frame that the officer followed the defendant, his alleged drifting did not affect other traffic and neither did his driving too slow for conditions. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.

The video contradicted the reports. For example, his speech was not mumbled and he wasn't moving slow. The State, after negotiations, Dropped the DUI short of going to trial.

The video contradicted the officer's reports and clearly showed that the defendant's level of impairment was consistent with someone who was lower than .141 at the time of driving. To prove DUI, one has to be "driving" with an unlawful breath alcohol level.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question as the alleged weaving did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying pulling him over.

There was insufficient reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. not enough specific articulable facts other than odor and bloodshot eyes) to justify the initial detention of the defendant. Thus, if the initial detention was unlawful, all of the roadside tests and breath test would be excluded from evidence.

The officer made the defendant out to be more impaired in his reports than she appeared on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the possession of pot charge was dismissed.

The video of the defendant contradicted the officer's reports as to the extent of the alleged impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. The first alleged that the arrest was unlawful under 901.15 of the Florida Statutes. In short, it states that when there is no crash, the officer must observe all elements of the misdemeanor. Here, a DUI, the officer must have observed the defendant behind the wheel. An officer cannot rely on a civilian when there is no crash. Thus, the arrest was unlawful. The firm also filed a motion to exclude all of the defendant's statements about being the driver. Since the officer never got the witness's name, the person was anonymous. Thus, since there was no way to call him into court, his statements would be inadmissible hearsay and excluded from evidence. Under the doctrine of corpus delicti, the State must produce substantial evidence that the defendant was the driver other than his own admissions. Here, there was none. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

It was pointed out to he State that the defendant merely crossed the lane marker briefly to make a turn and the officer exaggerated the driving pattern in his reports. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no coviction in his record.

Although the officer described the defendant as a falling down drunk in his reports, he had a video camera in the patrol car. However, the firm discovered that the defendant's field sobriety tests were not captured on tape for unknown reasons. This was brought to the State's attention and they Dropped the DUI. The marijuana charge was Dismissed.

Since the defendant never got through the gate, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying the detention of the defendant.

During depositions it was revealed that a civilian witness had taken a video of the defendant that the arresting officer was aware of, but failed to preserve. In addition, the officers failed to preserve a video that was taken in the holding cell. Finally, a deposition of a back-up officer revealed several inconsistencies with the arresting officer. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The case was dropped by the State on the morning of trial.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The video that was taken at the BAT facility contradicted the officer’s observations at the scene. For example on tape, her speech wasn't mumbled and she wasn't swaying. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction in her record.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, it was pointed out to the State that the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing the roadside tasks. Thus, his refusal would have been inadmissible into evidence. Also, there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime justifying the detention of the defendant based on the facts alleged above. On the day of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI and he received No conviction on his record.

Prior to taking pretrial depositions, the defense uncovered via discovery that the defendant actually only left the scene to call 911 because he didn't have a cell. Also, it was actually the victim's mom who told him to leave and call 911 and/or get help. The State Dropped the felony leaving the scene of an accident charge. They also Dropped the defendant's Second DUI as the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing to perform field sobriety tests a required by law.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that there was no reasonable suspicion of crime justifying the detention of the defendant. The video showed that he was not swaying and that he was responsive and coherent. The State conceded the motion and Dropped the DUI. The defendant received no conviction on his record.

Parks & Braxton called the lawfulness of the traffic stop into question as his alleged "improper lane changes" were only vaguely described. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton firm pointed out to the State that there was only a conclusory statement about her intoxication, without any specific facts. Under the law, there must be some facts supporting the conclusion. Thus, the initial seizure of the defendant was unlawful.

Prior to trial, the firm was able to prove that the vehicle was inoperable after the crash and at the time that the defendant entered the car. Under Florida law, if the vehicle became inoperable before the person drove or wasn’t in actual physical control while impaired, they could not be convicted of DUI. On the day of trial the DUI was Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers involved in the case. At the depo, the firm was able to question the officers and establish numerous inconsistencies in their testimony. The firm then filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. The firm not only argued that there was no legal basis to detain the defendant, but also that the officers were not credible. The Judge granted the motion and threw out all of the the evidence. The DUI was Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers involved in the case. Upon questioning officer, the firm was able to impeach each officer with their own police reports, as well as the video. In addition, the defense was able to get each officer to provide conflicting testimony. After providing the two depos to the State, they Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on her record.

The officer who conducted the traffic stop called for a DUI unit. However, the officer never asked for unit with an in car camera, even though others were available to film the defendant. Also, the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing to perform the field sobriety exercises as required by case law. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's reports as to the specifics of her actual performance on the field sobriety tests, her speech pattern, and her balance.

The firm announced ready to set the case for trial. Prior to trial, the firm pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the officer's reports and also contradictions as compared to the videotape. The State Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's report as to many aspects of the alleged impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction.

When the officer turned on his police lights to initiate the traffic stop, the defendant did not stop immediately. He kept driving a bit until he reached his house. The officer ordered him out of the vehicle at gunpoint. There was no legal basis to justify the officer's initial detention by gunpoint as the defendant only drove a short distance, did not speed up upon seeing the police lights, and there was no evidence he was trying to flee.

Prior to trial, the firm filed a motion for statement of particulars. Were were requesting that the prosecutor advise us by what chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant. Under Florida law, to convict one of DUI drugs, the State must specify by which "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance the defendant is impaired by. Here, they could not and the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant recieved no conviction on his record.

Parks and Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the refusal to provide a breath sample. Under Florida law, a breath sample cannot be requested by the police until after a person has been arrested for DUI. Here, the officer requested a breath test and read implied consent prior to arresting her. The State conceded the motion and Dropped the DUI. She received no conviction on her record.

Prior to trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the defendant was not the at fault driver. Also, the video contradicted the reports. For example, his speech was not slurred on tape. Thus, there was doubt as to whether the officer had enough reasonable suspicion of crime to even conduct a DUI investigation. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.

On video, the defense pointed out that the officer had not properly placed his camera to capture the full DUI investigation. Thus, it was not only hard to see the defendant’s actions, but also hard to hear her speech.

Under Florida law, to convict one of DUI involving drugs, the State must prove under 316.193 (Fla. Statutes) that a defendant was impaired by a "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the firm pointed out to the State that they could not. The Sate Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

Parks & Braxton was able to show that the machine was having issues as there were three results, and not the required two samples.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. While cross examining the officer who conducted the stop, his credibility was called into question. He was impeached numerous times with his reports and body worn camera. The Judge granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The State dismissed the DUI. It should be noted that the firm also beat the defendant's first DUI.

The firm announced ready for trial. Although there was a witness who stated that the defendant was the driver, the firm provided physical proof to the State that the female in the defendant's car was actually the driver. On video, the defendant adamantly denied being the driver and the female stated she was the driver. We provided pictures to the State that showed the injuries to the defendant's neck and body were consistent with seat belt marks proving he was in the passenger seat as the marks on his body were from right to left. A week prior the trial date, the State Dismissed the DUI.

The defendant was not in actual physical control as he was sleeping. Thus, he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.

The defense pointed out issues surrounding whether or not the defendant had been improperly coerced into taking a breath test.

Due to a language barrier, it was unclear if the defendant understood all the instructions on the roadside tests. Thus, there was doubt if the alleged impairment was due to alcohol or simply not understanding the instructions due to language difficulties.

The video tape contradicted the officers reports as to the level to the defendant's alleged impairment. The firm was ready for trial. The State then Dropped DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

The firm discovered through discovery that the HGN (eye test) had been done by another cop, not on video, and not documented. As the results could have been exculpatory (i.e. favorable to the defendant), the two police officer's credibility were called into question.

There was no corroboration of the the alleged "reckless driving" pattern. Without any corroboration, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

There is a .02 margin of error in breath testing. Thus, the firm was able to show the state that the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit. The State then Dropped the DUI.

The legality of the traffic stop was called into question as the alleged driving pattern was only vaguely described.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had two herniated discs and a shoulder injury from a prior traffic crash whereby she had been hit by a Ram 2500 pickup truck. Yet, the officer still had her do the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises. He didn't conduct any non-physical exercises such as the finger to nose or alphabet. Thus, any impairment could have equally been attributable to the injuries versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction.

The officer did not write any specifics as they related to the roadside tasks. Also, one's eyes can be watery and bloodshot after being in the sun and on the sea water. In addition, none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. The firm convinced the State to then Dismiss the Boating under the influence charge.

Prior to trial, the firm filed a motion for statement of particulars in order to force the State to disclose, as requited by the DUI Statute, by which "specific" drug they are alleging that the defendant was impaired by. In order to convict someone of DUI in Florida, the State the must prove that the defendant was impaired by alcohol and/or a "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the State was not able to name the specific substance that was impairing the defendant. The DUI was dropped and he received no conviction on his record.

It was pointed out to the state that the officer was unsure what was allegedly impairing the defendant. On tape, when asked by the defendant what he was under the influence of, the officer stated "probably " alcohol. If the arresting officer is unsure, then how can the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The state dropped the DUI and also dismissed both drug charges.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question since it was unclear all of the specifics of distance and time of the alleged driving pattern. The State Dropped the DUI.

The firm pointed out to the State, that on the body worn cameras, the defendant was improperly coerced into taking the breath test.

The defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests was inadmissible because the officer had not advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing as required by Florida case law.

Prior to trial, it was pointed out to the State that the officer's reports contradicted each other. For example on one page, the officer wrote that the defendant was riding a red bike, however, he was actually driving a blue jeep. On another page, he stated that he observed nystagmus in the defendant's eyes prior to 45 degrees during the HGN (eye tests). Yet, on another page, he did not observe any nystagmus. Also, the officer tried to make the defendant out to be a falling down drunk which was contradicted by the videotape. The State Dropped the defendant's Third DUI just prior to trial.

The defendant attempted to blow into the machine numerous times and never actually refused. However, there were numerous problems with the machine each time she attempted to provide a sample. Due to the machine having problems, the State Dropped the DUI.

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and unsure/clumsy movements. His pupils were slightly dilated, speech was slow at times, and he admitted to having drank beer. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .087 in the breath machine.

The firm pointed out that the defendant had inner ear surgery which caused balance issues. He also had a traumatic brain injury which caused cognitive and balance issues. Thus, we pointed out that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the impairment was due to his injuries versus alcohol.

The officer's credibility as a DRE officer was called into question. On one hand, he determined that the defendant was under the influence of a CNS depressant, and on the other hand, he determined he was impaired by a CNS stimulant. The two things are opposites, so his conclusions did not make sense. In addition, the urine test was also inconsistent with his DRE conclusions. The DUI was Dismissed.

Through an independent investigation by the firm, we were able to establish that the defendant did not cause and/or contribute to the crash as required by law to prove DUI with a crash. The State Dropped the DUI.

In order to stop a vehicle, there must be probable cause to believe an infraction occurred or reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, the officer lacked both and the State Dropped the DUI.

An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to lawfully detain a person. Here, there were legally insufficient specific articulable facts justifying the officer to detain the defendant as he initially sat down in his seat.

During the HGN (eye test), an angle of onset in the defendant's eyes was not observed prior to 45 degrees. Under Tharpes formula, this would indicate that the defendant had a breath alcohol level under the legal limit at the "time of driving."

The video contradicted the police reports and this was brought to the State's attention by the firm. On tape, the defendant's speech was normal and he was not off balance or unsteady. The State Dropped the DUI.

Prior to trial, the firm took pretrial depositions of the arresting officer and the State's expert toxicologist. After questioning the two witnesses, the defense established that neither could give an opinion that the defendant was actually impaired by the Methadone. Under Florida law, the State cannot just prove a person is just impaired, it has to be by either alcohol, and/or "specific" chemical and/or "specific" controlled substance. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

Many of the observations written by the officer in his reports were contradicted by the video tape. The State Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the breath results. In otherwise, his performance on the field sobriety tests clearly showed that his breath alcohol results may have been under the legal limit at the time of driving. It is the theory of absorption and elimination of alcohol through the body.

The State could not prove that the defendant was the driver at the time of crash as he was outside the car walking around when police arrived. The State Dropped the DUI.

If evidence is destroyed and it is exculpatory, meaning favorable to the defendant, then the State must be penalized. In this case, although requested several times by the firm, the State nor the police ever turned over the roadside video. It turned out through a computer glitch, it never got uploaded properly. Since the defendant claimed he did better on the roadside tests than the officer wrote, the only evidence to support his claim was that tape. Prior to the firm filing any motions to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No criminal conviction.

Since there was no video, it was pointed out to the State by the firm that the officer did not write any specifics as it related to the roadside tasks. Also, the trooper never even made any attempts to call for a patrol car with a dash camera. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully detained without reasonable suspicion of a crime. After the defense cross examined the officer, the court Granted the motion based on a lack of credibility of the officer. Since all of the evidence in the case was thrown out, the State Dismissed the DUI.

The State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control because she had no capability to operate the truck while sleeping. The DUI was Dismissed by the State.

The FDLE urine sample results contradicted the officer's initial conclusions.

The video contradicted the police reports as to the level of intoxication as written in the reports by the officer.

The defendant's performance on the roadside tests contradicted her breath test level. The video clearly showed that the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question due to no danger being created by the defendant's driving pattern.

Under Florida Statutes, the State must prove that the defendant was impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, they could not prove the case due to the fact that the alleged sleeping medication was unknown. Thus, it was unknown by what substance actually impaired the defendant. The State Dismissed the DUI.

On video, it was clear that there was a language barrier. The officer never even attempted to get an interpreter to translate the roadside instructions into the defendant’s native language. Thus, any mishaps were due to a language barrier, and not impairment by alcohol.

The video contradicted the defendant's breath test results.

The defendant's performance on the roadsides tests on videotape contradicted his breath alcohol level. It clearly showed he was absorbing alcohol and his breath level was lower at the time of driving.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, another video from the officers patrol car surfaced. Not only did it have the alleged driving pattern, but is also showed discrepancies with the officer's reports at the beginning of the traffic stop. On the day of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The firm announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the defense raised several evidentiary violations by the State. For example, the State failed to provide the urine test and expert witness list in a timely manner. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

The firm announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the firm pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the officer's reports. For example, he wrote the defendant stepped off the line many times which was in contradiction to the video. Also, the DUI officer concluded that the defendant was intoxicated per his report before he ever even got to the scene and came in contact with the defendant. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the traffic stop was unlawful. At the motion hearing, we argued that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime and no factual basis justifying any wellbeing check. The State called both officers to testify. Upon cross examination, the defense got both officers to contradict each other as well as impeach them with the police reports and the video tape of the defendant driving the bike after the light turned green. After hearing the testimony, watching the video, and reading the case law, the Judge Granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State subsequently Dismissed the DUI.