321.593.0222

Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations

abstract road

DUI Wins

Our Recent Victories

Dec 14, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-001357-A-E-X Judge STARR
The defendant drove against traffic in the wrong direction and crashed into another car. Upon arrival, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant's motor skills were slow and he admitted drinking whiskey. The defendant then refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .195 and .184 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-033147-AXXX-XX Judge Murphy
The police responded to a call about an unconscious driver who may have been involved in a crash. The caller advised that the defendant may have been sleeping, but was breathing. When fire rescue arrived, there was no crash and the defendant was seen walking down the road. The police then found the defendant walking down the road. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. He was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. It should be noted, one could hardly see the defendant's performance on tape and there was no sound. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The defendant was also charged with second or subsequent refusal to provide a breath sample as this was his Third DUI arrest with one prior DUI conviction.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest of the defendant was unlawful because no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel. Under Florida law, unless there is a crash and/or crash investigation, the officer must see all elements of the crime. (ie. for DUI, the first element of the crime, that the defendant was driving or in actual physical control). The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge. The defendant received no criminal convictions.
The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-013464AXXX Judge BRYSON
The defendant crashed her car into a street sign causing her to veer off the roadway. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no indication that the defendant was driving recklessly which caused the crash. We also told the State than any slurred speech could have been caused by hitting her head during the crash. There was also no video at the scene of the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 10, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-010690 Judge GRECO
The defendant was stopped after a 911 caller stated the defendant was driving recklessly. The officer located the defendant's car and observed her to be weaving, almost sideswiping another car, and making jerky motions with the vehicle. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was off balance exiting the car and she admitted to drinking vodka. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton was ready for trial. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 9, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-020279AXXX Judge Johnson
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and "fumbling" fingers. He also observed her to be very slow and deliberate in her movements. While speaking to the defendant, the officer saw a half filled bottle of wine on the passenger side floorboard. After refusing to perform the roadside tasks, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .196 and .189 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton researched the past history of the breath machine the defendant had blown into on the night of her arrest. We then pointed out to the State there had been previous maintenance problems with the specific breath machine in question.
The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 7, 2015 Case: 1189-XCF Judge HAGUE
The defendant was stopped by the police for "attaching a tag not assigned." Once stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant could not perform any field sobriety tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .211 and .211 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The basis of our motion was that the defendant was driving a car with a "dealer tag" and it was a car off the lot where he works at. There was no probable cause justifying the initial stop of the defendant's car. The defense provided the actual plate to the State along with the registration to the car. Prior to the motion being heard, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 4, 2015 Case: 14-023641MU10A Judge LEVY-COHEN
The defendant was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes resulting in a head on crash. Upon arrival, the officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes and a pale face. In addition, her speech was extremely slurred. After meeting with medical personnel, the defendant was taken to the hospital. At the hospital the officer requested a blood draw which resulted in a reading of .200.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that a breath test was not impractical or impossible. Based on the above circumstances, Florida law only permits a blood draw when a breath test is either impractical or impossible. At the motion, the officer was unable to testify that the defendant had injuries that would prevent her from providing a breath test. In addition, the officer failed to speak with any medical personnel to determine when the defendant was going to be released from the hospital. The motion to exclude the blood test was granted.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 25, 2015 Case: 15-CT-501854 Judge GONZALEZ
The defendant was stopped for weaving and a broken tag light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and extremely slurred speech. On video, the defendant performed the roadside tests. He performed the walk turn, one leg stand, and alphabet tests. Prior to the roadsides being administered, the defendant told the officer about a concussion he had recently suffered. He exhibited several signs of intoxication on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton acquired the medical records from the defendant relating to his concussion. We pointed out to the State that any impairment seen an tape could have been as easily attributed to his head injury versus intoxication by alcohol. This information was provided to the State Attorney's Office who in turn to agreed to Drop the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 23, 2015 Case: 13-017291MM10A Judge BROWN
The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed, failing to maintain a single lane, and improper passing. The officer had to use his horn and lights to get the defendant to pull over. The defendant exhibited an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for support as he almost fell over. He failed every roadside test and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the all the officers involved in the case. Each officer contradicted the other's description of events from that night. After reading the sworn transcripts, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 19, 2015 Case: A0Z4UIP (Jury Trial) Judge MCKYTON
The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also alleged that the defendant was swaying. He then had the defendant step out the car and the officer performed the HGN (eyes test). The officer then had the defendant walk across the parking lot to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises. After performing them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After being arrested, the officer then asked the defendant if his passenger had been drinking. The defendant responded by stating "yes he has, but not as much as me." He was then transported to the police station to provide a breath sample. The defendant complied and blew a .137 and a .142 (almost twice the legal limit). The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern.
Parks & Braxton took the case to a jury trial. At trial, the firm first pointed out to the jury that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape and he was not swaying as the officer testified. We also pointed out though cross examination that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better on tape than the officer testified to. On cross examination, the firm went through every specific thing that the defendant performed correctly on the roadside tests. The officer testified that the defendant stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. It was clear on tape that he never did. The officer testified he swayed during the one leg stand, It was clear on video he was not swaying. Thus the officer's credibility was called into question. In addition, the officer followed the defendant for about two miles plus over 3 minutes on tape and the defendant never failed to maintain a single lane. The defense's argument that was made to the jury was that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. As to the breath test, the firm argued that the State presented no evidence or testimony as to what the defendant's breath alcohol level was at "the time of driving" as required by Florida law. We also argued that the solutions that were used on the maintenance of this machine to stimulate a breath test were reading higher than the labeled bottle. Thus, the firm argued that the defendant's breath test results could have been skewed higher. Also, we argued that the machine was portable and had a handle. No one called to have the machine brought to the scene so that the breath test could have been administered closer in time to when the defendant was stopped. Finally, the firm pointed out that the video tape contradicted the breath test results which clearly showed that the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty.
The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.
Nov 19, 2015 Case: A0Z0QKP Judge DENARO
The defendant was stopped for reckless driving. The officer alleged the defendant was driving over 100 mph, running a red light, and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer and showed several signs of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant admitted to consuming 5 beers. He then blew a .163 and .167 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the State prior to trial. After pointing out how vague the police reports were, the State dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 18, 2015 Case: 2015-MM-002437A Judge GALLUZZO FOR WOODARD
The defendant was first observed by the officer on video tape for speeding. The defendant was clocked at 79 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer then made a U-turn to catch up to the defendant. The defendant was finally stopped about 3 to 4 miles later. The defendant could not be seen on tape at all until he was eventually stopped. The officer stated at one point he got his patrol car up to speeds of 110 mph. The officer alleged in his report he constantly maintained visual contact of the defendant the entire time except for a about fifteen seconds. The officer stated at one point the defendant slowed at a light and did a "California Roll" through a red light. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer immediately ran up to the car, ordered him to open the door and shut off the engine. He was then immediately taken out of the car, handcuffed, and arrested for reckless driving. Upon being arrested for reckless driving, the officer then noticed an odor of alcohol and marijuana from the defendant's breath, along with bloodshot eyes. A search incident to arrest led to the officer finding marijuana on the defendant. Later at the station, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. The breath tech officer also noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued and the defendant displayed a "carefree" attitude." The police then added the charge of DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was eventually charged by the State with DUI, possession of marijuana, and reckless driving.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. The primary basis of our motion was that speed alone was not enough to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. At the hearing, the Judge had the opportunity to hear the officer's testimony, watch the video, and listen to argument from the attorneys. In the hearing, the officer testified that the defendant was swerving, taking turns fast, and could be seen at a close range of 600 feet doing the California roll. Not only was none of the alleged weaving and taking turns too fast not in the officer's reports, but no California roll through a red light could be seen on tape. There was no testimony that any cars were affected by the defendant's driving. The Judge Granted the motion throwing out all the evidence. The Judge determined that although the defendant was lawfully stopped, however, the officer had no probable cause to handcuff him and arrest him for reckless driving. The State then Dismissed the DUI, the possession of marijuana charge, and the reckless driving charge.
The DUI was dismissed.
Nov 17, 2015 Case: 14-031740MU10A Judge Diaz
The defendant was stopped for screeching his tires and jerking his car out of his lane of travel almost off the roadway. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant pulled out his credit cards instead of his driver's license. The defendant then used the door for balance while exiting the car. During the conversation outside the car, none of the defendant's answers to the officer's questions made any sense. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line numerous times, did not touch heel to toe, and lost his balance. During the one leg stand exercise, the defendant put his foot down 6 times and almost fell. The officer stopped the exercise for safety purposes. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Testimony was taken at the hearing from the stopping and arresting officers. The motion to suppress was Granted as the Judge found no probable cause justifying the stop. All the evidence was thrown out and the DUI was then Dismissed.
The DUI was dismissed.
Nov 13, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-002762AXXX Judge CUNNINGHAM
The defendant allegedly bumped another car at a McDonald's drive thru. It happened to be the defendant's neighbor who he has had problems with in the past. The defendant got scared and left. When officers caught the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, and glazed eyes. The defendant told the police he had drank a half a bottle of wine with his girlfriend. The defendant showed signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .102 and .106 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton immediately got pictures of the defendant's car after he retained the firm. There was no damage at all. We then showed the pictures to the State and pointed out to them that there was no "accident" as defined by case law and this was a neighborly quarrel. Thus, we explained to the prosecutor that officers had no right to stop our client because there was no accident. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the Leaving the Scene of the Accident charge.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 9, 2015 Case: CTC-14A1MARLETWS (JURY TRIAL) Judge Salton
The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. When asked to produce his driver's license, the defendant fumbled while looking for it and then dropped it. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady getting out of his car and swaying while walking to the spot to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape at the request of the officer. According to the officer, the defendant failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .089 and .087 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton proceeded to jury trial. After a three day trial, the jury was undecided. Specifically, five jurors voted not guilty and one voted for guilty. As a result, of the hung jury, the case was reset to be tried a second time. Prior to the new trial date, and after listening to the testimony of the witnesses during trial, the State agreed to drop the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 5, 2015 Case: 15-029049TC10A Judge Brown
Several officers responded to a crash scene in reference to a possible traffic homicide investigation. Upon their arrival it was determined that despite the severity of the accident, none of the parties involved died. After speaking with the independent witnesses, the officers went to the hospital to speak with the defendant. At the hospital, the lead officer asked the doctor whether an odor of alcohol was observed. The doctor responded by disclosing that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .217. Subsequently, the State attempted to secure the defendant's medical records.
Parks & Braxton objected to the State's request for medical records. At the motion, we explained to the Judge that the only thing the officer could have done with the information he received from the doctor was to request a "legal" blood draw. The Judge agreed and refused to permit the State from acquiring the medical records which contained the blood result. As a result, the State was prevented from filing the DUI charge.
The DUI was dismissed.
Nov 3, 2015 Case: 13-014188MM10A Judge Diaz
The defendant was stopped for drifting across the lane markers several times. Upon making contact with the defendant the officer observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. In addition, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet. She performed the field sobriety tests at the scene which were not on video. While the report indicated that the defendant's performance was poor, he failed to state with any degree of specificity what the defendant did wrong. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. At the breath alcohol testing facility, the defendant was placed on video. Despite some minor slurred speech, there was no unsteadiness throughout the entire video.
Based on the conflict between the officer's report and the video, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to picking a jury the State dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 2, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-010483 Judge LEFLER
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. There was hardly any damage, if any. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. She performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. She displayed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .125 and .136 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out that the defendant performed much better on the field sobriety tests on video than as described. Also, her speech appeared normal and she was not off balance or unsteady. The video clearly showed she may have been under the legal limit at the time of driving.
The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 2, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-009108 Judge LEFLER
The defendant was found by the police with a flat tire in a handicap parking space. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, she seemed confused, and had watery eyes. The defendant then admitted to drinking vodka cranberry cocktails that night. According to the officer, the defendant failed the videotaped roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .085 and .087 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton showed the State that the officer made up his mind to arrest the defendant even before the DUI investigation began. He stated on video that "he has zero tolerance for drinking and driving." It is not a crime to simply drink and drive. Furthermore, the defendant's video tape of her roadside tasks contradicted the written reports. Also, we pointed out that with the .02 margin of error on the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit a the time of driving.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 26, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-012570AXXX-XX Judge KOONS
The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to be fumbling around for his items. The officer also noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant would not get out of the car and had to be physically removed. He was then asked to perform roadside tasks to which he refused. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and resisting an officer without violence for refusing to get out of the car. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention that in one report, the officer wrote that the defendant had refused the roadside tasks. Yet, on another supplement, the same officer wrote that the defendant actually performed the tests and was arrested based on his performance. Also, the defendant's speech did not sound slurred on the videotape and when confronted about it, he stated "my speech is not slurred." The State dismissed the resisting charge and dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 23, 2015 Case: 14-016505MU10A Judge LEVINE
The officer said that he observed the defendant weaving in and out of the bicycle lane. At the same time, he stated that smoke was coming out of the front of the defendant's vehicle. After stopping the vehicle the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The defendant performed poorly on three sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. At the station, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test but performed the sobriety tests on video. The defendant had trouble answering basic questions including his social security number. On video, he failed each sobriety test. This was the defendant's Third DUI offense.
Upon noticing the officer behind him, the defendant pulled out his phone and began to record the entire driving episode. The video was completely different from the description the officer provided. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. On the morning of the motion, the video was provided to the prosecutor for her review. Ultimately, the State conceded the issue of the invalid stop.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 22, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-015782AXXX Judge SHEPHARD
The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car in a parking lot. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbling speech, and he was making illogical statements. The defendant was very argumentative. He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He refused and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle. One cannot have the "capability" to operate a motor vehicle while asleep.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 20, 2015 Case: 14-030349MU10A Judge SOLOMON
The defendant was stopped for swerving as well as speeding. The officer stated that the defendant had difficulty retrieving his license and registration. During conversations the officer said that the defendant's speech was slurred. He noticed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot eyes and subsequently called for a DUI officer to conduct an investigation. The DUI officer arrived and stated that the defendant was off balance exiting the car. When asked how much he had to drink, the defendant stated "a flight and a pint." The defendant performed poorly on all three field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He subsequently blew a .132 in the breath machine.
Upon receiving the evidence, it was clear that the video was inconsistent with many of the officers' conclusions. In addition, the defendant's breath test was not known at the time of driving. The two results demonstrated that his alcohol level was still rising rather than eliminating. As a result, the State would not be able to prove that the defendant was above a .08 while driving as required by law. As a result, the defense announced ready for trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 14, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-029698AXXX-XX Judge GARAGOZLO
The defendant was stopped for erratic driving and driving up on a curb. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had a couple of beers. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests while he was still seated in his car. The defendant refused to perform them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. Also, partially cold filled beers were found in the defendant's car.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred. Also, the defendant, when asked to get out of the car, was not off balance or unsteady. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform the roadside tests.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 8, 2015 Case: 1851-XGR Judge DENARO
The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 3 scotches. On the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, the defendant exhibited almost every single indicator of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to issues with the State having provided late discovery, they Dropped the DUI prior to trial.
The State dropped the DUI prior to trial.
Oct 7, 2015 Case: A1R1MAP Judge WOLFSON
The defendant and his passengers were stopped based on an anonymous call about the defendant and his passengers having drugs. Upon being stopped, the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car as well as the defendant's breath. The defendant told the police he had smoked about 10-15 minutes prior to the stop. The defendant also had very watery eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks as the officer believed the defendant was impaired by marijuana. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana. Back at the station, the defendant provided a urine sample which came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out to them that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The reason was that the caller was "anonymous" which led to the traffic stop. The police, upon stopping the car, had no "corroboration" as required by the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts justifying the stop of the defendant's car. The State conceded that the stop was unlawful and all of the evidence would have been excluded.
The DUI was dismissed.
Oct 6, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-009644 Judge FARR
The defendant was stopped for weaving and swerving. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she was covered in vomit. The defendant stated she was sick and that's why she had vomited all over the car and herself. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew .090 and .086 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the .02 margin of error with breath test results, the defendant may have been under the legal limit. Also, the defendant performed better on the field sobriety tests on tape than as described on the written police reports.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 6, 2015 Case: 2015 307211 MMDB Judge FEIGENBAUM
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming two beers after being read her Miranda rights. The defendant was requested for perform the roadside tests to which she complied. For example, on the one leg stand exercise, she put her foot down and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, she did not touch heel to toe and raised her arms for balance. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that the DUI officer's report was so vague in that he did not go into any details or specifics of the defendant's performance on the the roadside tests. There was no video at the scene. There was a video at the station whereby the defendant was speaking normally, not off balance or unsteady, responsive and coherent.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 6, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-015664 Judge BONAVITA
The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection after a caller dialed 911 alerting them to his car. The officer who arrived, found the defendant passed out and he was blocking traffic. Upon awakening the defendant, he simply ignored the officer and drove off. The officer then got behind him and attempted to imitate a traffic stop. The defendant was captured on video weaving and driving on the opposite side of the road. The officer followed the defendant with her police lights flashing for several minutes until the defendant finally stopped. He was then ordered out of the car by several officers. A DUI officer then took over the investigation. That officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and poor coordination. The defendant swayed prior the roadside tasks and stated he had drank vodka and cranberry juice. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out that on the DUI officer's video tape, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady. In addition, his speech was normal vs. what the officer had written in his report. We discussed with the State that the video of the defendant's roadsides showed he was not impaired. That evidence was contradictory to his video of the driving pattern. Due to the conflict in the evidence (i.e.. the two videos) the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 5, 2015 Case: A0Z0FKP Judge Newman
The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car rear end crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line several times, lost his balance, and did not touch heel to toe. The defendant was unable to perform the one leg stand test due to his high level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .157 and .151 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel of the motor vehicle at the time of the crash. The defendant was standing around outside his car when police arrived on scene.
The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 1, 2015 Case: 14-029069MU10A Judge LEVINE
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and blood shot eyes. Upon exiting the car, the defendant was unsteady and had a circular sway. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his his foot down seven times. On the walk and turn the defendant missed heel to toe eight separate times. On the finger to nose, he missed the tip of his nose five times. On the rhomberg balance test, he estimated 40 seconds for 30 seconds. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, be blew a .137 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton challenged the validity of the breath test based on police misconduct by the breath tech operator. The State conceded the issue and they Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 30, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-016173 Judge Johnson
The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost colliding into other cars. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking 3-4 alcoholic beverages. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .149 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out that the video of the field sobriety tests was not turned over in a timely fashion by the State in order to give the defense enough time to prepare for trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 29, 2015 Case: 15-501519CT Judge ADAMS

The defendant was stopped for stopping in the middle of an intersection and driving on the sidewalk. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also unsteady on her feet. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down numerous times. She was then arrested for DUI and after her arrest blew a .141 and .140 in the breath machine.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 28, 2015 Case: A0Z4Z9P Judge BEDINGHAUS
video tape. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant would take only three steps and stop and do that over and over. He did not follow one instruction the officer was giving. On the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down several times, used his arms for balance, and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .231 and a .231 in the breath machine (nearly three times the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress, challenging the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to believe the defendant committed any traffic infractions justifying the stop of his vehicle. We argued in our motion that no traffic or pedestrians were affected by the squealing of the tires as required by case law. Also, the officers were not able to provide any evidence the defendant was traveling over the posted speed limit in that area. On the day the motion was going be argued, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 25, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-007115 Judge STARR
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way. The officer who stopped the defendant, observed the defendant to have sluggish speech, slow movements, and heavy/droopy eye lids. He had a dazed look and blank stare during the entire investigation. He admitted to taking anti-anxiety medications that day which were controlled substances. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by those controlled substances, asked the defendant to perform the roadside tasks. The defendant refused and was arrested for DUI. At the station, he provided a urine sample. That sample eventually came back from the lab and was positive for a controlled substance.
Parks & Braxton argued that the State did not provide the urine report in a timely fashion as previously ordered by the court prior to trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 22, 2015 Case: 15-001010CT Judge PROVOST
The defendant was stopped for swerving and crossing lane markers. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had nothing to drink even after the officer confronted her numerous times about the odor of liquor coming from her breath. She was also unsteady on her feet according the officer. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, she showed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern.
Parks and Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape as she had a very thick accent. Also, she was not unsteady on her feet on video tape. Furthermore, the defendant told the officer upon being stopped that she was lost and was on the phone trying get directions home. Also, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests on tape contradicted the description given in the officer's report.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 21, 2015 Case: A10I8QP Judge SERAPHIN
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant lost his balance while outside of his car. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the walk and turn test, he took an incorrect number of steps, did not touch heel to toe, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand exercise, he swayed and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .135 and .125 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out that the police reports did not adequately describe the details of the roadside tasks. There was no video tape in the case. Also, the control tests were reading high on the breath test result print out which could have led to falsely high breath test results.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 18, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-011558-O Judge Bell
No
The defendant was stopped for failing to yield to oncoming traffic and speeding. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 3-4 beers. The defendant then perform the roadside tasks on video tape. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .161 and .156 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video contradicted the officer's police reports. The video showed the defendant did much better on the roadside tests than the officer described in his written reports. Also, we pointed out that the the defendant was clearly absorbing alcohol and his breath alcohol level was lower than the legal limit at the time of driving based on the video tape.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 17, 2015 Case: 4119-XEX Judge Newman
The defendant was stopped by the police for having illegal dark window tinting on his car windows. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also noticed cups in the car with alcohol in them. Bottles of brandy were also found in the car. The defendant performed the roadside exercises at the request of the officer. According to the officer, the defendant exhibited numerous sings of intoxication and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to case law, the defendant may have been unlawfully stopped based on the alleged shade of tint he had on his windows.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 16, 2015 Case: 2015MM4328 Judge HERR
The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he wiped out on his motorcycle. The defendant was ejected from the bike and slid on the ground per the witnesses who called 911. The defendant had injuries to his head and shoulder. Prior to the defendant being taken to the hospital, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. Post Miranda warnings, the defendant stated he had drank three mixed drinks. The defendant was then transported to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer ordered a blood draw. When the blood results came back from the toxicology lab, they showed the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .177 and .177.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the blood was unlawfully taken by the officer. We indicated to the State, that based on the reports, a breath test was not impractical or impossible as required by Florida law.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 15, 2015 Case: A1REZMP Judge GONZALEZ-WHYTE
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant appeared to be acting slowly, have dilated pupils, and watery eyes. The officer also observed body and eyelid tremors. The officer concluded the defendant may be impaired by a controlled substance, as no odor of alcohol was detected. The defendant preformed the roadside tests and according to the officer he failed them. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a further investigation was conducted called a Drug Recognition Evaluation. That officer, called a DRE (drug recognition expert), concluded that the defendant was impaired by either a CNS stimulant and/or marijuana. The officer then requested a urine test to which the defendant complied.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. First, the defense pointed out to the State that there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime to even conduct any type of DUI investigation. Also, we pointed out that there was no "reasonable cause" to even ask for urine test on these facts pursuant to Florida case law and the Florida Statutes. Finally, the State never provided the urine results in a timely fashion per court orders. Thus the State was prohibited from using any test results. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dismissed the DUI.
The DUI was dismissed.
Sep 9, 2015 Case: 2015-MM-003937 Judge COLLINS
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, heavily slurred speech, and water/glassy eyes. The defendant stated he drank a few beers. The defendant swayed and staggered as he walked. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was normal and he was not off balance or unsteady. The video also showed the defendant walking normally. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction at all on his record.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 8, 2015 Case: 7172-XEQ Judge Seraphin
The defendant was stopped for driving 102 mph in a 55 mph zone on the highway. He was also cutting in and out of traffic and tailgating. The officer stopped the defendant for reckless driving. That officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He then called for a DUI unit who made similar observations. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. According to the officer he failed. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped of the line and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, he put his foot down, swayed, and used his arms for balance. The defendant was arrested for reckless driving and DUI. It should be noted this was the defendant's second DUI arrest.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the morning of trial, the officer who stopped the defendant was asked numerous questions by the defense before trial got started. There were several things the officer added to the alleged driving pattern that were not written his report. For example, he stated the defendant almost rear ended him and was driving on the lane marker for a mile. The DUI officer also wrote a very vague report without including any specifics about the roadside tests. Prior to picking a jury, the State dismissed the reckless driving charge and Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 8, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-500643 Judge HAYWARD
The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby his vehicle struck a stop sign and ran into a chain link fence which caused extensive damage to the defendant's car. The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer wrote in his report the defendant was uneasy on his feet and almost lost his balance falling into the car. According to the officer, the defendant then failed the field sobriety tests on video and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on tape, the defendant’s speech was not slurred and he was not off balance or unsteady like the officer made him out be in the reports. Also, the description of the field sobriety tests in the police reports making the defendant out to be highly intoxicated was contradicted by the video tape.
The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 1, 2015 Case: 2015 303293MMDB Judge DAVIDSON
The defendant was seen by the police in a parking lot doing "burn outs" on his motorcycle. There were about 20 people standing around watching. Officers approached the defendant and got him off his motorcycle. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking Bud Light beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests which were not video taped. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down 7 times and stumbled backwards. On the walk and turn exercise, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the initial seizure of the defendant by ordering him off his bike was unlawful. Pursuant to Florida case law, since no one standing around watching was affected by the defendant's acts of doing burn outs (i.e.. spinning his tires), there was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 27, 2015 Case: 1577-XEO Judge HORROX
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and while out of the car he swayed. The defendant admitted to drinking Corona beer. The officer also found a beer can with beer in it inside the car. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within five years.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The week before trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer’s reports were totally contradicted by the defendant's video tape. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant was swaying, yet he was never off balance on tape. Also, the defendant's cousin was in the car and was prepared to testify that it was his beer can.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 27, 2015 Case: 05-2014-CT-052319-AXXX-XX Judge Murphy
The defendant was observed by the officer driving in what he described as an "S" pattern, drifting within her lane. The defendant's car also made a left turn and made contact with an orange plastic construction traffic barrel located in that lane. The barrel was protruding over the painted pavement markings. The officer then conducted a traffic stop. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant lost her balance numerous times, put her foot down, and raised her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, she did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The defendant was eventually arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. It should be noted the entire driving pattern was captured on video along with the DUI investigation.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the stop of the defendant's car. At the motion hearing, the Judge watched the video, listened to the officer's testimony, and heard argument of counsel. The Judge determined based on the officer's testimony that the officer did not consider the "S" driving pattern in his decision to stop the defendant's vehicle and that he did not even write it in his report. The officer also did not note any damage in his reports nor did he testify to any damage. The Judge concluded that the officer only made the stop because of the contact with the barrel. The Judge, in his legal conclusion, found that making contact with an improperly placed traffic barrel in the middle of the roadway did not amount to any legal basis for stopping the defendant. He went on to state that any reasonable person might have hit that barrel. In fact, on video, the officer himself had to actually slow down to avoid the barrel. The Judge granted the motion to suppress, finding no probable cause of any traffic infractions, nor reasonable suspicion of any crime. All the evidence was then excluded.
The DUI was dismissed.
Aug 26, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000741AXMX Judge Johnson
The defendant was involved in a collision. Upon arrival, the first officer observed the defendant hanging out of the vehicle. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech. At some point, the defendant allegedly admitted to drinking "way too much." The defendant was subsequently taken to the hospital. At the hospital, the investigating Trooper made contact with the defendant. In addition to the above observations, the Trooper also noticed bloodshot, watery eyes. While at the hospital, a nurse approached the Trooper and revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .257 (over three times the legal limit). The Trooper asked the defendant if he would consent to turning over his medical records including the blood result. The defendant refused. As a result, the Trooper spoke with an investigator for the State Attorney's Office who subsequently acquired the results through a subpoena. The defendant was eventually charged with enhanced DUI.
Medical records involve an issue of privacy. In order to acquire the records, as well as the blood results, the State Attorney's Office must first provide the defendant with written notice. Upon receipt of such notice, the defendant through his lawyer has the opportunity to object upon which a hearing is held. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the medical records including the blood results for failure to provide notice. Days before the hearing, the prosecutor sent over a copy of the notice that they say was sent prior to acquiring the medical records. At the motion, Parks & Braxton argued that the prosecutor's office was manufacturing evidence that never existed. Specifically, that the notice was created after they acquired the blood results. The State's investigator took the stand and admitted that the prosecutor never signed the notice, but rather it was a computer generated signature. More important, the investigator testified on cross examination that the notice was sent out on March 15, 2015 However, the accident didn't occur until March 19, 2015.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 25, 2015 Case: 2015-MM-001406 Judge WOODARD
The defendant crashed his car into a tree. He was found unconscious and the airbags had deployed. The car was destroyed. Numerous civilians had called 911. When police arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. The officer on scene. noticed a beer can which had beer in it next to the driver's seat. The officer then went to the hospital. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and asked the defendant for a blood sample. The defendant refused. The defendant was later charged with DUI by the State Attorney's Office.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that was no reasonable suspicion of a crime based on odor alone to even ask the defendant for blood pursuant to Florida Statutes and case law.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 25, 2015 Case: 2014-MM-001878 Judge WOODARD
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and thick tongued speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant lost his balance, stepped off the line, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down, swayed. Also, on the estimation of time test, the defendant estimated 69 seconds for 30 seconds. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .136 and .140 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the in-car camera utilized by the officer to tape the roadside tests was completely blurry. Thus, one could not see the defendant's actual performance. Also, the defense was to exclude the breath test results because FDLE did not follow their own procedures relating to breath testing.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 12, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-001366 Judge GABBARD
The defendant as stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also was observed to be unsteady on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI within ten years.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that when the DUI officer turned on his video camera, you could only see the defendant for a short period of time. The officer kept the defendant off camera for almost the entire investigation. Also on video, the defendant's speech was normal as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports about it being slurred. Furthermore, the defendant did not appear unsteady when he was visible on camera.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 11, 2015 Case: 14-009258MM10A Judge SOLOMON
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant told the officer he had drank some Corona beers. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he lost his balance and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, he put his foot down and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000235 Judge CUPP
The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to drinking 6 beers. She then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she failed them all and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.
The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 10, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000901-E Judge ALLEN
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. He hit the back of a bus. The bus driver expressed concern that the defendant was either drunk or on drugs. When police arrived, they noticed the defendant leaning on his car and was very unsteady. The officer noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued, his eyes were glazed, and he was moving very slow and lethargically. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant consented to performing field sobriety tests. The defendant had trouble understanding almost every instruction and showed an overwhelming number of clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert), who is an officer with specialized training in detecting impairment by drugs, was called to do further evaluation on the defendant. That officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS Depressant.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law.
The DUI was dismissed.
Aug 4, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-017335AXXX-XX Judge FRIEDLAND
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer who made the traffic stop made some DUI observations so he called for a DUI unit. When the DUI unit arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant was slow to exit the vehicle and slow walking around. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video. According to the officer, he failed the walk and turn test in addition to the one leg stand exercise. The defendant was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the stopping officer never wrote a report detailing his alleged DUI observations. Also, the video contradicted the officer's reports as it related to the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. Finally, the officer improperly explained the instructions on the one leg stand which caused confusion on the defendant's behalf.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 30, 2015 Case: 7894-XEM Judge Denaro
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and sluggish movements. According to the officer, the defendant showed several cues of intoxication on the roadside tests. The defendant also admitted to drinking 3-4 beers. The defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .176 and .186 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton spoke to the State prior to trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 29, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-009277ANB Judge Johnson
The defendant was stopped by the police after being seen driving on a blown out tire. Sparks were flying all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slow movements. The defendant was also unsteady, off balance, and admitted to drinking vodka. The defendant failed all the sobriety tests. For example, the defendant mixed up the letters on the alphabet test exercise at least three times. On the one leg stand test, the defendant lost his balance and could not even complete the task. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .122 and .117 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton conducted talks with the State prior to setting the case for trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 23, 2015 Case: 6599-XDX Judge HAGUE
THE DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED FOR SPEEDING AND WEAVING. THE OFFICER OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE AN ODOR OF ALCOHOL, VERY SLURRED AND RAPID SPEECH, AND BLOODSHOT EYES. THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO PERFORM THE ROADSIDE TASKS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE WALK AND TURN EXERCISE, HE STEPPED OFF THE LINE NUMEROUS TIMES, MISSED HEEL TO TOE, AND MADE AN IMPROPER TURN. ON THE ONE LEG STAND TEST, THE DEFENDANT SWAYED AND USED HIS ARMS FOR BALANCE. ON THE ESTIMATION OF TIME TEST, THE DEFENDANT ESTIMATED 48 SECONDS FOR 30 SECONDS. HE WAS THEN ARRESTED FOR DUI. AFTER HIS ARREST. HE REFUSED THE BREATH TEST. THERE WAS NO VIDEOTAPE USED.
PARKS & BRAXTON HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STATE TO GET THEM TO DROP THE DUI.
THE STATE DROPPED THE DUI.
Jul 17, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-048175 Judge KOENIG
THE DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED FOR SPEEDING. THE OFFICER NOTICED THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE AN ODOR OF ALCOHOL, GLASSY/WATERY EYES, AND MUMBLED SPEECH. WHEN THE DEFENDANT EXITED THE CAR, HE APPEARED TO BE SLOW AND UNSTEADY. THE DEFENDANT WAS REQUESTED TO PERFORM THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS TO WHICH HE REFUSED. THE OFFICER EXPLAINED THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS REFUSAL, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT STILL REFUSED. HE WAS THEN ARRESTED FOR DUI. AFTER HIS ARREST, HE REFUSED THE BREATH TEST.
PARKS & BRAXTON HAD PRETRIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO SETTING A TRIAL DATE.
THE STATE DROPPED THE DUI.
Jul 13, 2015 Case: 2014-MM-011279A Judge Collins
The defendant was approached by an officer at a McDonald's drive thru because he and his passengers were honking the car horn a few times. When the officer, who was also in the drive thru lane in front of the defendant, approached the defendant's car, he smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car. He also noticed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes. The officer took the defendant's license and returned to his car. Once the officer paid for his food, he waited for the defendant and his passengers to pay for theirs. Once they paid, he ordered the defendant to pull his car over and get out . Once out, the officer separated the defendant from the car and observed the odor of alcohol on his breath. He also observed the defendant to be swaying. When the officer asked the defendant how much he had drank, the defendant responded by saying "not too much." The defendant then performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. He exhibited several cues of intoxication and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
ordering him to pull over and get out of his car. We argued that the defendant was unlawfully seized by the officer's actions as there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause that any traffic infraction occurred. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 7, 2015 Case: 2015-CM-000821 Judge Farr
The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According the officer, the defendant failed all the video taped roadside tests and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. Furthermore, upon a search incident to arrest, the officer found marijuana in the defendant's car and he was also charged with possession.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer's description of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests was contradicted by the video tape. The State not only dropped the DUI, but also dismissed the possession of marijuana charge.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 7, 2015 Case: 14-010207MM10A Judge Pole
The defendant was stopped for not wearing his seat belt. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and constricted pupils. The defendant told the officer he had been drinking beers at a bar. Once out of the car, the defendant stumbled and almost fell. The defendant also had a difficult time standing. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety exercises due to the officer not giving the defendant any adverse consequences. Also, the officer would not let the defendant go to the bathroom unless he agreed to take a breath test. Thus, we pointed out to the State that the defendant never actually refused to take the breath test on video tape and simply was begging to use the restroom.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 6, 2015 Case: 13-016066MM10A Judge Solomon
The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was allegedly traveling 85 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a blank stare. His movements in the car were slow and sluggish. The defendant had to use the car door for assistance and was very unsteady outside the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the both the officer who stopped the defendant and the DUI officer who arrested the defendant. Both officers contradicted each other on almost every fact in the case. The firm showed the depositions to the State prior to trial in an attempt to get them to drop this Third DUI. After reading the transcripts, the State realized that the credibility of the officers was compromised.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 1, 2015 Case: 05-2014-CT-053813 Judge Clark
The defendant was stopped for swerving and having an inoperable tag light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol on his breath, mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant stated he had drank three or four alcoholic beverages. The defendant seemed lethargic and was swaying. A 24 pack of beer was also found in the defendant's car. The defendant stated he had a"bum" knee and refused to perform the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying at all as the officer wrote in his reports. Furthermore, the officer did not turn the sound on on his microphone so nothing could be heard on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusing the roadside tests.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 30, 2015 Case: 13-020592MM10A Judge Levey-Cohen
The defendant was found passed out in his car at an intersection. The car was running and the defendant's head was tilted back. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he admitted to consuming four beers. Vomit was found inside the driver's door panel. While outside the car, the defendant was swaying. Upon being asked to perform the field sobriety tests, the defendant indicated he was "completely disabled" and could not pass them . However, the defendant still agreed to perform them at the request of the officer. He showed numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton presented a detailed medical history of the defendant's injuries and disabilities. The firm also showed the State x-rays of the defendant's foot which had numerous screws. Subsequently, the State recognized based on those injuries and the defendant's physical limitations, they could not prove that he failed the roadside tests due to alcohol impairment versus his numerous medical conditions.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 26, 2015 Case: 2013-CT-001324-E Judge Wilson
The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was unsteady on her feet and swaying. The defendant also vomited on scene. The defendant showed several signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .201 and .202 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had several negotiations with the State regarding recent issues that have arisen regarding the breath test.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 22, 2015 Case: 14-A0Z4R2P Judge Mckyton

The defendant was involved in a sideswipe crash in which the defendant's driver's side was demolished. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred / mumbled speech, bloodshot / glassy eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside tests even though he had stated to the officer on video tape that he was unable to do them because of the severity of the crash, he was very upset, and he had been covered in glass. According to the officer, he failed the videotaped tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the prosecution. We pointed out that any alleged impairment seen on tape was not due to alcohol, but from the severity of the crash. On tape, the defendant had no shirt on and was barefoot because he had been covered in glass from the driver's side window shattering all over him. We gave the State several pictures of the defendant's mangled car. The officer even had the defendant perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests while barefoot on concrete after he had just taken off his socks that had glass in them. We also pointed out how on tape the defendant kept telling the officer how upset and shaken up he was from the crash.

The State Dropped the DUI.
Jun 16, 2015 Case: 14-CT-048681 Judge Lefler
The defendant was involved in a rear end crash. According to the officer, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking shots. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .222 and .240 in the breath machine
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 12, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-002984-A-O Judge Clark
The defendant was involved in a crash in his parking garage. A civilian witness saw the crash and believed the defendant to be highly intoxicated, even though he never got up close. He called 911 to alert the police and the police then came to the parking garage. Soon after, they located the defendant via his vehicle tag and went to the defendant's apartment in the building where the crash occurred. At the apartment, the defendant opened the door and was highly intoxicated. The officers smelled and odor of alcohol and his speech was not understandable. The defendant was very off balance and had to sit down to keep from falling. The defendant denied being in the crash and stated he only had drank beers while inside his apartment. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test and was also charged with a second refusal. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that neither the officers, nor the civilian witness, smelled any alcohol on the defendant's breath at the time of the crash or shortly thereafter. Thus, they could prove he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash (while driving) as required by law. The State dismissed the second refusal charge and the DUI was Dropped.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-008747AXXX Judge Shepherd
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant stated he drank three beers. The defendant used the door for balance as he exited the car. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, he stumbled, took the wrong number of steps, and lost his footing several times. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton had negotiations with the State prior to trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 11, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-049373 Judge Overton
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was also unsteady on his feet. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .158 and .153 the first time in the breath machine. The second time he blew a a .131 and a .150.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the DUI video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, there was no slurred speech and the defendant was not unsteady. Furthermore, we pointed out to the prosecutor that after the first breath test results were obtained, the breath card indicated a problem with the machine. However, the proper steps were not taken, nor documented, by the breath test operator as to how the machine allowed two more samples of the defendant's breath.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000358 Judge Farr
The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car on the side of the road in a parking space. Upon awakening the defendant after several minutes, the officers on scene noticed the defendant to have and odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. After displaying several signs of intoxication on the video taped field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .155 and .144 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that someone who is sleeping in their car has no capability of operating the vehicle. Thus, they would not be able prove actual physical control.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 10, 2015 Case: 56-2015-CT-000150-A Judge Nelson
The defendant was stopped for weaving, almost running into a curb, and speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant admitted to having a drink or two and had poor balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks and Braxton questioned the arresting officer at the civil administrative driver's license hearing soon after the defendant's arrest. The firm then ordered the transcript and provided it to the State. In the hearing, the officer misstated the law and also contradicted herself. This led not only to the defendant getting his driving privileges fully restored but also the State dropping the DUI in court.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 9, 2015 Case: 2015 302031 MMDB Judge Schumann
The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he hit a parked car in a parking lot and was doing a "burn out." The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 6 or 7 beers earlier in the evening. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .112 and .117 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State from the beginning of the case and then a couple of weeks before the trial date to try to get them to drop the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
Jun 4, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-003939-O Judge Bell
The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three beers. According to the officer, he failed all the roadside tests which were not video taped. The defendant was arrested for DUI. Later, the defendant tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, however the officer noticed a blue coating on the defendant's tongue and then suspected drug use.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State early on after the defendant's arrest that the defendant did not make any statements about taking any chemical or controlled substances. Thus, the State could not prove by which specific drug was alleged impairing the defendant as the officer concluded based on some blue coating.
The DUI was dismissed.
Jun 1, 2015 Case: 303382-X Judge Newman
The defendant was involved in a two car crash. Upon arrival, officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was also screaming and flailing his arms. He admitted to consuming two beers and almost fell down two times as he lost his balance. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton made several requests for discovery items from the State, including various police reports. After the third time requesting them, the State dismissed the DUI due to the police not turning over the documents to them. Thus, they could not turn them over to the defense.
The DUI was dismissed.
May 14, 2015 Case: 05-2013-CT-065706 Judge Clarke

The defendant was stopped for weaving, failing to stop a red light, and driving under and over the speed limit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. She also had a flushed face. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, she hopped and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and she later refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape clearly showed that the roadside tests were conducted off to the side of the road in a sloped ditch. The defendant even stated to the officer on tape that she did not believe the ground was level. However, the officer did not move her to the side where the ground was level and had her do them on uneven ground. Furthermore, the defendant's speech sounded normal on video. The firm announced ready for jury trial.

The State dropped the DUI.

May 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000538-A-E Judge Allen

The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer which were not video taped. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, the defendant swayed and counted wrong. The defendant was asked if he was also taking any medications and the defendant stated "yes" but he did not specify which medications and when he took them. The officer concluded that the defendant was impaired not only by alcohol, but also a chemical and/or controlled substance based on the defendant's statements about taking medications.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the State could not prove by which chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant based on his vague statements and the officer not obtaining specifics as to the medications. A few weeks prior to the trial date, the State dismissed the DUI.

The DUI was dismissed.

May 5, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-149893 Judge Lefler

The defendant was stopped for swerving and drifting. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She leaned against her car for balance and was swaying. Three empty vodka bottles were found in the defendant's back seat. She refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote in his reports that an in car camera was used during the entire DUI investigation. However, upon investigation, it was determined that the video could not be retrieved off the department's computer server. No explanation was ever given by the police as to why the video was purged.

The State dropped the DUI.

May 5, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-500334 Judge Mann

The defendant was stopped for weaving in and out of lanes and making an improper right turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was repeating the same thing over and over. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady and off balance outside her car. She failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. There was no video tape used by the officer.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged weaving was not described in any detail. Also, the officer hardly wrote any specifics about the defendant's alleged performance on the roadside tasks.

The State dropped the DUI.

May 4, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-145299 Judge Lefler

The police were called out as someone saw the defendant passed out in a bar parking lot. They gave a description of his car. When officers responded, the defendant was driving off. The officers followed and observed the defendant weaving all over the road. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant used his hands to balance himself on the car and swayed as he stood. He refused to perform the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying as the officers had written and his speech was not slurred on tape. Also, the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing the field sobriety tests as required by law.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 30, 2015 Case: A0Z0OWP Judge Krieger-Martin

The defendant was found passed out in a drive thru by police. After finally awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to consuming 4-5 beers. He failed all the roadside tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .173 and .167 in the breath machine.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 29, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-025761AXXX Judge Bonavita

The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he was very confused, and stated he had drank three whiskey and cokes. The defendant was not making sense in his responses to questioning by the officer. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests on videotape to which he complied. According to the officer, he showed signs of intoxication and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant's performance on the tests contradicted the beginning portion of the video tape as to his level of alleged impairment. The week before a jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 28, 2015 Case: CTC14-5994XBCNC Judge Pierce

The defendant rear ended another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. While standing, she was unsteady and staggering according to the police reports. The officer asked her to perform the field sobriety tests and she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the videotape at the scene, the defendant's speech appeared normal versus what the officer wrote in his report. Also, she was not off balance or unsteady on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences relating to her refusal to perform the roadside tests as required by case law.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 24, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-022764AXXX Judge Weiss

The defendant was involved in a rear end crash in which she was the at fault driver. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was observed staggering and swaying upon exiting the car. The defendant failed the roadsides tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the prosecutor for a few months to convince them to drop the DUI. We pointed out to them that the roadside report was very vague and there were hardly any details of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Also, we showed them pictures that there was no damage to the other car as it was just a slight bump at a traffic light.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-505243 Judge Gagliardi

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and almost hitting another car. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have rapid speech, poor coordination, and difficulty focusing in on answering basic questions. She had no odor of alcohol. The defendant stated she takes numerous prescribed controlled substances for anxiety, depression, and ADHD among other medical conditions. The defendant performed field sobriety tests, and according to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI (chemical and/or controlled substance). Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert) was called in to conduct a further investigation. One the evaluation was concluded, that officer with specialized training, concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, a CNS stimulant, and a narcotic analgesic. A urine sample was then provided to the police by the defendant. The toxicology lab determined via testing that there were amphetamines, also known as CNS stimulants, in her system.

Parks & Braxton had numerous talks with the State pretrial. We pointed out that the DRE was wrong in that he concluded she was impaired by a CNS depressant and narcotic analgesic and none were found in her system. Also, the field sobriety tests he conducted back at the station contradicted her performance at the scene. There was no video tape. His conclusions contradicted the urine results. Also, we showed the State a letter from her Dr. who prescribes all her medications. He was with her just hours before the arrest and he observed no signs of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no criminal conviction at all.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 20, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000273-E Judge Clark

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and her movements were slow and lethargic. Her eyes were red and her pupils were dilated. The defendant stated she had been drinking beers. She was asked to perform the roadside tasks to which she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial , we pointed out to the State that none of the alleged driving pattern was on video tape. Once the officer stopped the defendant, she then turned on the camera. During half of the video tape, the officer, for some unknown reason, took the defendant away from the camera so the defendant's actions could not be seen. Also, we pointed out that some of the defendant's normal faculties were not impaired on video tape.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 14, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-008989AXXX Judge Cunningham

The defendant was stopped by the police for having his tail lamps out. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the "interior of the car" and a beer bottle in the back passenger floorboard. The officer had his police lights on and told the defendant to "stay put" as he went back to his patrol car. Upon entering his patrol car, he began typing out traffic citations for no tail lamps and for the defendant not carrying his registration. He had also called for a DUI unit. The defendant sat in his car for an extended period of time waiting for the DUI unit to arrive even after the citations had already been typed. When the DUI unit arrived on scene, he went up to the defendant's car and observed an odor of alcohol from the defendant himself, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn deposition testimony of the officer who stopped the defendant. After taking the deposition, the firm filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no "reasonable suspicion" of a crime justifying the initial detention of the defendant at the scene longer than it was necessary to write the civil traffic citations, while awaiting arrival of a DUI unit some time later. The Judge was presented case law by the defense, heard argument, and then Granted the motion thereby excluding all the State's evidence against the defendant.

The DUI was dismissed.

Apr 10, 2015 Case: 15-CT-500050 Judge Adams

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and he swayed back and forth while outside the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .113 and .115 in the breath machine.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State in pretrial negotiations that the video contradicted the breath test results. We discussed with the State how the defendant's performance on the video was contradicted by the written police reports and that his breath alcohol level could have been lower at the time of driving.

The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 10, 2015 Case: 2012-CT-001647-O Judge Wilson

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he swayed once outside the car. According to the officer he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. While at the station, the officer came to the conclusion that the defendant was impaired by a controlled substance after having found amphetamines salts in the car. A drug recognition expert officer was called to conduct a further investigation. That officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS stimulant (ie. amphetamines). The officer then requested a urine test. The defendant complied and later tested positive amphetamines.

Parks & Braxton had lengthy discussion with the State prior to trial.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 31, 2015 Case: 2014-317967 MMDB Judge Davidson

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and he admitted to drinking beers. He was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. According the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a.100 and .092.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor about dropping the DUI prior to trial.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 26, 2015 Case: 2014-CF-002722AX Judge Economou

The defendant was found by the police passed out in his car as it was parked in front of a convenience store. The defendant was slumped over the wheel, the engine was on, and the a/c was running. The officers finally awoke the defendant and noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and there was a pool of vomit right outside his car. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. While in the back seat of the patrol car, the defendant was cursing the entire car ride to the jail. At one point, he allegedly spit at the officer though the cage and that led to him being charged with an additional crime of Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor just prior to the taking of pretrial depositions on the case. After our talk, the State agreed to Drop the DUI and also Drop the Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer down to a misdemeanor. On both charges. the defendant received NO criminal convictions on his record.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 24, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-504094 Judge Paluck

The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, incomprehensible speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for balance and also swayed while outside of the vehicle. According to the officer, the defendant appeared heavily intoxicated. He did not perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had told the police on scene he had bypass surgery and also was diabetic. EMS was called to check the defendant. We discussed with the State that any impairment observed could have been due from the defendant's diabetes and his past bypass surgery.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 23, 2015 Case: 4209-XEX Judge Seraphin

The defendant was stopped for speeding and striking a curb two times. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and red eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three gin and tonics. He then performed the field sobriety exercises whereby the defendant displayed several signs of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .203 and .200 in the breath machine.

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 13, 2015 Case: 14-CT-504722 Judge Swett

The defendant crashed his car into a palm tree causing extensive damage to his car. When the police officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, slow and lethargic movements, and disarranged clothing. The defendant failed the field sobriety exercises. For example, on the walk and turn test, he failed to touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, lost his balance, and did not count out loud. On the one leg stand exercise, he swayed, put his foot down, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out first that there was no video tape at the scene and the roadsides were vaguely described. Also, more importantly, back at the breath facility, after his arrest, the defendant was offered a breath test. The defendant stated he would provide a breath sample. However, the police could not locate someone qualified to administer the test. It was unclear what efforts if any were taken by the police to locate a breath machine operator. Thus, the State had no refusal to argue consciousness of guilt or breath test results to rely upon.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 12, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000707AXXX Judge Shepherd

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slow reactions. The defendant had to lean against the car for balance and admitted to drinking beer. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .153 and .151 in the breath machine.

Parks & Braxton conducted pretrial talks with the prosecutor.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 11, 2015 Case: 14-CT-145522 Judge Myers

The defendant crashed his car into a concrete barrier wall. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He was also very unsteady on his feet. The defendant admitted to consuming 2-3 beers. According to the Trooper, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that on the video tape, the officer did not properly angle the camera. Thus, no one could properly view the defendant's entire performance on the roadside tests. Also, the video tape contradicted the officer's reports as the defendant's speech appeared normal on tape and he was not unsteady.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 11, 2015 Case: 2014-CT-027517AXXX Judge Johnson

The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and an "orbital" sway. The defendant stated she had been drinking beer and also kept fumbling around looking for her license, registration, and insurance while still seated in the car. She then performed the roadside tasks. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped field sobriety tests. For example, the defendant could not properly state the alphabet. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. Subsequently, she refused the breath test.

Parks & Braxton conducted a pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 10, 2015 Case: 14-009274MM10A Judge Solomon

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant did not pull over immediately, even with the officer's lights flashing and sirens on. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to consuming 3-4 beers. According to the officers, the defendant showed several signs of intoxication during the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI.

Parks & Braxton took a sworn pretrial deposition of the lead investigating officer involved in the case. The officer made several statements under oath in his deposition that contradicted both his police reports and the DUI video tape.

The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 9, 2015 Case: 13-006125MM10A Judge Evans

The defendant was stopped after an officer observed him driving off the shoulder and almost hitting detour signs. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The initial officer called for a DUI unit to conduct an investigation. The DUI task force officer conducted several roadside sobriety exercises and arrested the defendant for driving under the influence.

Parks & Braxton compared the officer's report with his in car video. Ultimately, there were several inconsistencies between the officer's report and the video. For example, the officer lied about the number of times the defendant dropped his foot on the one leg stand. In addition, the summary concerning the walk and turn test was exaggerated as well. Counsel told the defendant not to take a plea to DUI and proceed to trial. Prior to trial the State agreed to drop the DUI.

The State dropped the DUI.

3589 results found. Viewing page 18 of 36. Go to page 1 2 3  . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  . . . 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