Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
The defendant was stopped for driving with inoperable brake lights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant also admitted to drinking beer. She failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.
The State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he stumbled upon exiting the car. He also handed the officer a piece of tissue paper instead of his driver's license. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. blood-shot eyes, and the defendant admitted to having anywhere from 3-6 beers. The defendant fumbled while looking for his license and stumbled while outside the car. According to the officers, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a.140 and .129 in the breath machine.
The police were called to the scene by a McDonald's employee who believed the defendant and his passengers were drunk at the "drive thru." They were yelling curse words at the employees and passing around a beer bottle. Police arrived and stopped the car. The officer noticed the defendant, who was the driver, to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also fumbled with his wallet and admitted to drinking. The defendant refused to preform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The officer handcuffed the defendant an put him in the backseat of his patrol car because of the defendant's alleged "aggressive" behavior." After about 30 minutes, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully detained (a de-facto arrest) by being handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car for 30 minutes without probable cause.
The defendant was stopped for allegedly cutting off an officer which caused him to brake. Once a traffic stop was conducted, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red eyes. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired.
The defendant was stopped for driving erratically and crossing over a concrete median into oncoming traffic. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, he performed poorly on all the roadside tests displaying several signs of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .167 and a .165 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there were certain issues involving the video tape used by the police in the case.
The defendant was involved in a traffic crash. Upon the police arriving on scene, they noticed the defendant walking on the side walk. The police ordered him "to sit on the curb." They then made contact with defendant and observed him to have an odor of alcohol. watery eyes, and he was disoriented. According to the officers , he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. Officers also found beer bottles and beer cans in the car. After his arrest, he blew a .135 and .136 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully detained by the police prior to any DUI investigation being conducted.
The police were called to an apartment complex in reference to a disturbance. A security guard also observed the defendant to be heavily intoxicated. When police arrived, they observed the defendant in her car. Upon exiting, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The officer also noticed the defendant to have difficulty with her motor skills. According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. Police also found the defendant in possession of marijuana and charged her with that crime. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton took pre-trial depositions of all the witnesses in the case. After taking their testimony in the depositions, the firm filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant had been unlawfully detained by the police without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. The possession of marijuana charge was also dismissed.
The defendant was involved in a traffic crash and left the scene. The defendant pulled into a parking lot and the civilians he crashed into subsequently blocked him in so he could not drive away again. The defendant exhibited signs of intoxication in front of them. The civilians then removed the defendant from the vehicle until the police came to the scene. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness. He failed the roadside tests and the officer actually had to prevent the defendant from falling on at least two occasions. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.
On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and following another car too closely. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood-shot/glassy eyes. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for making a wide turn and almost striking an officer's patrol car. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and red eyes. He admitted to having a couple of glasses of wine. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .125 and .121 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant also had a "blank look" on his face and swayed when outside the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
During a pre-trial investigation conducted by Parks & Braxton, it was discovered that the police department who arrested the defendant was under investigation.
The DUI was dismissed.
The defendant was stopped running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy eyes. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .090 and .087 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant also admitted to drinking numerous beers. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest for DUI, he blew .142 and .143 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and and he admitted drinking at a bar. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine. However, the officer believed that the defendant was actually impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance.
Parks & Braxton were ready for trial. The firm pointed out the State that they could not prove by which specific substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida Law.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red/glassy eyes. The defendant then refused the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was initially seen in a parked car of a closed business. The keys were in the ignition and the engine was running. The first officer stated that he observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot eyes. He further alleged that the defendant could barely speak and he stumbled out of the car. He called for a DUI officer who subsequently conducted an investigation and arrested the defendant for DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress for an unlawful arrest. At the motion, the first officer testified exactly as stated above. He went on to testify that the defendant was in "pretty bad shape". However, the second officer testified completely different. He stated that there were no problems with the defendant's speech or balance. Based on a lack of credibility of the witnesses, the motion to suppress was granted.
The defendant was observed by the police walking very "uneasy" to her car. She was arguing with another person about who was actually "less drunk" to drive. A traffic stop was then conducted in a parking garage. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and uttering statements about her impairment. The defendant almost fell over while performing the roadside tests and then she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton took the deposition of the back-up officer. At deposition, the officer revealed that he did not have an independent recollection concerning the specifics of the investigation. The firm filed a motion to exclude his testimony which was granted by the court. The firm also discovered that the chief investigating officer was under investigation for a law violation.
The defendant was stopped according to the officer's reports and testimony for making a wide turn, weaving, and going through a thru lane while another car was present. The officer also testified that the defendant was continuously weaving and also committed some traffic infractions. The entire driving pattern and DUI investigation was captured on video tape. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .135 and .130 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to believe that the defendant committed any traffic infractions, nor was there any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while impaired. The Judge watched the video tape, reviewed the case law, looked at any applicable statutes, and also listened to the officer get impeached numerous times by the defense about his reports and the video tape on cross examination. The judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The defendant then hit a small tree after driving the wrong way. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant failed all the roadside tests due to her high level of intoxication. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .225 and .221 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, heavy eye lids, glassy eyes, and he admitted to having one or two drinks. The defendant also swayed and was lethargic. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, but the officers believed he was actually impaired by a chemical and / or controlled substance. The officers then requested the defendant to provide a urine sample to which he complied.
Parks & Braxton were ready for trial. The State could not prove by which specific chemical and / or controlled substance the defendant allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida Law.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and nearly striking a curb. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech at various times. The defendant also had slow and deliberate movements. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
The defendant was involved in a traffic crash where it was determined by police that the other driver caused the crash by failing to yield. Front air bags were deployed in the defendant's car and hit him in the face. The officer on scene noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and watery eyes. According to the officer he failed the physical roadside tests which were not video taped. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .115 and .113 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant did not contribute to the cause of the crash in any way. We also pointed out to the State that the officer who was administering the physical roadside tests to the defendant, such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, right after he was hit in the face with an air bag may have caused any unsteadiness observed by the officer.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow reactions, and slurred speech. The defendant also stumbled as he exited the car. The defendant could not even perform two of the three roadside tests due his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .161 and .159 in the breath machine.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash whereby he crashed into a barrier wall. The lead officer on scene observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteadiness, the defendant was disoriented, and he admitted drinking. The defendant was transported to the hospital by fire rescue due to his injuries as he was bleeding profusely. The lead officer then met the defendant while he was in a hospital bed due to his injuries. Since the officer could not take the defendant to jail for for a breath test, he requested a blood sample from the defendant. The defendant complied to the officer's request. The blood was then sent to the toxicology lab and revealed a blood alcohol level of .178 and .177. Once the officer was later notified that the blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, the State then charged the defendant with DUI.
Parks & Braxton took a pre-trial deposition of the lead officer. At deposition, testimony was taken under oath from the officer who ordered the blood draw. It was pointed out in sworn testimony that the blood lab analysis request form that the officer sent with the the defendant's blood vile to the lab had a totally different age, height and weight versus the actual defendant's age, height, and weight. Medical records of the defendant were also ordered by the defense from the hospital which also showed that the attending nurse observed no odor of alcohol on the defendant, no slurred speech, and no signs of intoxication at all while he was in the emergency room. That completely contradicted the lead officer's observations. The firm announced ready for jury trial.
The defendant was first scene in his car in an alleged high crime / prostitution area. Officers then saw a woman subsequently get in and out of his car after an unknown period of time. They then followed the defendant and conducted a traffic stop. Once stopped, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, sluggish movements, and blood-shot eyes. They then called for a DUI Unit to come and further investigate. The defendant admitted to drinking and failed every road side test. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .117 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime which would give rise to legally stopping the defendant's vehicle. The Judge agreed, Granted the motion, and threw out all of the evidence.
The defendant was stopped for driving in the wrong direction down a one way street. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and she admitted to having a couple of drinks. She then performed the roadside tasks which were not video taped and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .099 and .097 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton took pre-trial depositions of the two officers involved in the case and were ready for trial.
The defendant was rear-ended by another car. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and blood-shot eyes. He stated that he had drank a couple of beers. According to the arresting officer, he did not perform up to standards on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .131 and .128 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for driving with an inoperable tag light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he repeated many of the same statements to the officer. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and .199 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a ..201 and .205 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton were prepared for trial.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving with no head lights. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and droopy eye lids. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared for trial.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking 2-3 beers and a shot. He also fumbled with his wallet while in the car. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .109 and .109 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton were ready and prepared for trial.
The defendant was seized by the police as he was passed out and slumped over the wheel at an intersection. Cars were going around the defendant and honking their horns. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. He also was also very hostile towards the police. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was in the passenger seat of the motor vehicle as his wife was actually driving. She alleged to the police that he reached over and "grabbed control of the steering wheel" causing the vehicle to crash into a concrete barrier wall. Prior to the defendant being taken to the hospital for his injuries, the officer noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and his speech not understandable. At the hospital, the officer requested the defendant provide a blood sample to which he complied. The lab results revealed his blood alcohol level was a .174. He was then charged by the State with DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant could not have been in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle as he was not only not in the driver's seat during the crash, but also had no access to the pedals in the car. Thus, he had no "capability" of truly operating the motor vehicle. Furthermore, we also pointed out to the State that the wife told police that the two were "arguing" in the car per the wife at the time of the crash and she was also investigated for being DUI.
The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby he drove off the roadway into a ditch. The officers who came on scene observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. He was cursing at the officers numerous times on video tape and very combative. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was initially involved in a crash. The officer then followed the defendant and observed him weaving. Once stopped. the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, he seemed confused, and was swaying. He refused to perform the the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial and were prepared to try the case.
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and slurred speech. The defendant also used the door for balance. According to the officers on site, they did not perform any roadside tests for the defendant's safety due to severe balance issues. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .271 and a . 272 in the breath machine.
The defendant was found asleep in his car in a parking lot by police. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unsteady and disoriented. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests by displaying numerous signs of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI and after his arrest he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest within five years.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State prior to jury trial that the defendant had no "capability" of operating the motor vehicle while asleep. Thus, he could not have been in "actual physical control" of the vehicle.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and fumbling fingers. The defendant admitted to drinking five glasses of wine over the course of the entire night. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .115 and .122 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape, none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired during the field sobriety tests and that his breath alcohol content may have been lower than the legal limit at the "time of driving."
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant had bands from bars on his wrist. The defendant began to do the walk and turn test on video tape and then stopped and refused to continue the rest of the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he ran off the road into the woods and the vehicle flipped over. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tests which were video taped and then he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State the on scene video tape of the roadside tests was destroyed and/or corrupted. Thus, there was the potential destruction of material evidence as nobody could say what actually happened to the original video tape.
The defendant was found by police passed out behind the wheel of her car at an intersection. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot-eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant performed field sobriety tests on video tape and showed numerous signs of intoxication. She also admitted drinking numerous glasses of champagne. She even fell down at one point on tape. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial and were prepared the morning the case was set.
The defendant crashed his car off the road into a light pole and several trees. Fire rescue arrived, treated the defendant, and transported him to the hospital where the police then met him. At the hospital, the defendant admitted to the officers to taking Ambien and smoking marijuana just before driving his car. He also stated that he felt the drugs "kicking in." The officers had him perform field sobriety tests which he failed at the hospital. The defendant was requested to provide a blood sample to which he complied. He was then arrested for DUI (controlled and/or chemical substance) and taken to the jail. The blood work was then sent off to the toxicology lab for analysis.
On the morning of jury trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out that the State had violated the discovery rules by not providing the toxicology lab results in a timely fashion. The speedy trial time frame had run out on the State to bring the defendant to trial.
The defendant crashed her car into a utility pole. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slow speech. She also appeared dazed and confused. The defendant also stated she had a few drinks. According to the officer, she performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State prior to trial that they would have a difficult time placing the defendant in "actual physical control" of the car at the time of the crash based on the reports.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer who arrived, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and he appeared unsteady. The defendant started to perform the walk and turn exercise and then stopped. He then refused to perform the rest of the field sobriety tests and was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant's friend was stopped by police for speeding and running a stop sign while driving the defendant's van. The defendant's friend stopped the van, and the officer observed her jump into the back seat. As the officer approached, our client then moved over to the driver's seat in order to provide the officer with the vehicle documentation since it was her van. The officer was aware that the original driver who was now in the back of the van was the original driver and our client was the original passenger. Upon making contact with our client, the officer noticed the keys were in the ignition and engine was running. He observed our client to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and trouble maintaining her balance. The defendant admitted to drinking and feeling buzzed. She performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI, as was her friend who was highly intoxicated (the original driver) who jumped into the back seat. After our client's arrest for DUI, she blew a .163 and .159 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, as well as before hand, the firm pointed out to the state that our client could not be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while she was being detained by law enforcement. Also, the in dash police car video tape had been destroyed which would have captured the entire traffic stop.
The defendant was stopped for obstructing traffic. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot-eyes, and slurred speech. According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the roadside report describing the defendant's alleged performance was very vague with hardly any details. The firm was ready for trial.
The defendant was seen by an officer pulling into a parking space in a shopping center. The officer observed him pulling in very crooked into the parking space. He watched the defendant stumble out of the car and then saw him lose his balance and sway while walking towards the store. When the defendant came out, the officer went up to him and asked "if he was ok" and noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, a flushed face, and glassy eyes. He then called for a DUI unit. The DUI officer arrived with an in car camera and asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests to which the defendant refused. The defendant also admitted to having five drinks. He was then arrested for DUI and after his arrest he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton took pre-trial sworn depositions of the two officers involved in the case. At the depositions, the two officers contradicted each other on what they observed. For example, one stated the defendant was totally off balance versus the other who said he never observed anything like that. All there depositions, reports, along with the video tape were conflicting.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and the defendant admitted drinking two beers. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. Although he tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, the officers concluded he was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance versus alcohol after completing their entire investigation.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida law.
The defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his car by police in the middle of the roadway. The defendant's car engine was running. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. He was unsteady once outside the car and he seemed confused. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for speeding in a school zone. The officer observed the defendant's car to have an odor of marijuana coming from the interior and the defendant's eyes were red and droopy. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI (impairment by a controlled substance). A urine test was requested and the defendant tested positive for marijuana at the toxicology lab.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's breath and they could not prove how long the marijuana had been in her body based on just the lab report.
The defendant was stopped for driving 93MPH in a 40MPH zone while almost colliding into other vehicles. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, flushed face as well as slurred speech. He then requested another officer to conduct the DUI investigation. Upon arrival, the DUI officer made the same observations as the initial officer. The officer asked the defendant to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant replied "I'm not giving you the rope to hang me". During the conversation, the defendant was swaying and extremely unsteady on his feet. The report indicated that the defendant was placed in handcuffs and arrested for DUI refusal. This was the defendant's 3rd DUI.
Despite the fact that this was the defendant's 3rd DUI, he had never refused a breath test in the past. As a result, the DUI refusal statute did not apply to the defendant. In deposition, the officer admitted to requesting a breath test prior to the arrest. As a result, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an improper request for a breath test. The State stipulated to the motion.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, he appeared sleepy, belching, and a flushed face. His movements were slow and clumsy at the car in addition to not making eye contact with the officer. Upon exiting the car, the defendant staggered and was unsteady. He also swayed while standing outside the car. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that even though the arresting officer had a working video camera in his car at the scene the entire time, the officer never placed the defendant in front of the camera until the defendant was placed under arrest. Thus, none of the DUI observations he allegedly observed off camera could be seen by anyone and were only written in the reports.
The defendant was stopped for weaving over the lane markers, driving past the stop bar, almost striking the median and careless driving. The Sgt. smelled a strong odor of alcohol, and admitted coming from a bar. The officer then observed a flushed face and bloodshot eyes. The defendant ultimately stated that he had 5-6 Heinekens. The defendant was asked to perform several field sobriety exercises. He replied "C'mon man, we all make mistakes". Can't you cut me a break"? He then stated "If I do these tests, you're gonna see that I'm over the limit". The defendant was arrested for DUI and refused a breath test. Because the defendant had a prior refusal to submit to a breath test, he was also charged with refusal to submit. This was the defendant's 3rd DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the officer's failure to properly advise our client during the DUI investigation. The motion was granted and the evidence was excluded.
The defendant was stopped for driving on the rim of his tires and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, slurred speech, and he stated he had consumed 2-3 drinks. He also used the sidewalk rail for balance when outside his car. On video tape, the defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests where he displayed numerous signs of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged the defendant was "coerced" into performing the tests based on statements made by the officer to the defendant on video tape. The Judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the roadside tests.
The defendant was stopped by the police at a roadblock checkpoint. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. According to the officers, he failed the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the mandatory written set of roadblock guidelines created by the police in this case violated the Florida Supreme Court requirements. Also, the firm pointed out to the State that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired on video tape as originally written by the officer.
The defendant was stopped for traveling at a high rate of speed and following another car too closely. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had drank a couple of drinks. He also used his hands to assist himself in exiting the car and swayed while standing outside. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State during pre-filing negotiations that the video tape contradicted the officers written observations.
The defendant was the at-fault driver in a rear-end crash. The officer who arrived on the scene noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, watery eyes, and appeared to be unsteady. The defendant also admitted to drinking beer. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that even though the police had a video camera at the scene, they never video taped the defendant.
The defendant was found by the police passed out at a green light with his foot on the break, snoring, and his car in the drive position. Upon waking the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant was very unsteady once outside the car. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that almost the entire police car video tape of the defendant at the scene had been destroyed, corrupted, and/or deleted.
The defendant was found by police when his car was stuck in the gravel surrounding the railroad tracks. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. He admitted to drinking 3-4 16 ounce beers and also admitted to being buzzed. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest for DUI, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped by the police after almost crashing into the back of police car which was on another traffic stop. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking beer that night. According to the officer, he failed the video taped 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 a prosthesis on his left arm, which was noted in the reports, and that his balance was affected because of the weight difference on each side of his body due to the prosthesis.
The defendant was involved in a side-swipe traffic crash. The officer who came on scene noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and unsteadiness. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. She was then arrested for DUI and after her arrest she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired on video versus the written police reports.
The defendant was stopped for driving without her headlights. In the Trooper's report, he indicates that she had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. It was clear from the video, the defendant did not have slurred speech. The Trooper's report indicates that the defendant was slow in providing her documents. Again, the video contradicts the Trooper's report. The video did indicate problems with regards to the walk and turn test as well as the one leg stand. However, in a previous case, Parks & Braxton got the Trooper to admit that he fabricated a police report.
As a result of the above information, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI and it was treated as a Felony DUI punishable by up to five years in State prison and a permanent drivers license suspension.
Parks & Braxton presented medical evidence to the State that the defendant's alleged signs of impairment during the roadside exercises were due to prior injuries from being hit while riding a bike and not alcohol. The firm also pointed out to the State numerous conflicts between the two officers that were on scene based on their pre-trial depositions.
The defendant was initially seen by the police as he was illegally parked in a handicapped parking space. He then drove off, ran a stop sign, and almost caused a crash. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having a shot of tequila and some beers. He refused the roadside tests stating he "would not pass" and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. He backed into another car in a parking garage. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. He swayed while standing and fumbled with his items. After officers performed the eyes test (HGN) on him, he started cursing at them and then refused to do the rest of the field sobriety tests. He was arrested for DUI and after his arrest he refused the breath test.
On the morning of jury trial, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The State could not place the defendant in actual physical control of the motor vehicle.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and making unusual u-turns. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech. The officer also observed a wrist band from a bar on the defendant's wrist. The defendant admitted to having three drinks at a bar. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .166 and a .156 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to exclude the breath test results which the Judge granted and excluded the breath results. In our motion, we alleged that the State failed to disclose certain documentation about the breath machine in question. The firm then announced ready for jury trial.
On the morning of jury selection, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash whereby he failed to yield. He actually hit a retired police officer. Officers on scene observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slurred speech, and he appeared disoriented. The defendant admitted to drinking beer prior to the crash. The defendant was then taken to the hospital for evaluation. Subsequently, he was arrested for DUI and then refused to give a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within a five year period.
Parks & Braxton provided evidence to the State that the defendant was not impaired by alcohol but rather suffered major head injuries. The firm provided pictures of the defendant's head injuries.
The defendant was found by police illegally parked and passed out. He was slumped over the wheel. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and slow movements. He stumbled getting out of the car and almost fell over. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped and he was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine. However, officers felt he was actually impaired by controlled substances and requested a urine test. His lab results came back positive for three separate controlled substances from the toxicology lab.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the urine results. In our motion, we alleged that there was no legal justification under Florida statutes for the police to request a urine test from the defendant.
The defendant was stopped for weaving several times. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot-eyes, and mumbled speech. The defendant also admitted to drinking champagne. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .140 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape of the defendant at the station contradicted the officer's observations of her at the scene. The firm also pointed out to the State that there was also radio frequency interference (RFI) detected just prior her blowing into the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. He used the car for support upon exiting. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .147 and .146 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking whiskey. The defendant also appeared unstable while standing. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape of the defendant contradicted the officer's reports and we announced ready for jury trial.
The defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, mumbled speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the written roadblock guidelines failed to comply with Florida case law which sets out specific items that must be included in the documents. Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking two beers. He failed the field sobriety tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were not video taped and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .086 and .080 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton were ready for trial and pointed out to the State the various margins of error in the breath machine which would could have put the defendant under the legal limit.
The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant was unstable and had trouble walking. The defendant failed the roadside tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest for DUI, she blew a .194 and .185 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. He did not pull over right away for the police. Once he stopped the car, the officer then approached and noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, droopy eyes, and he was fumbling around. The defendant was also unsteady on his feet once outside the car. He admitted to drinking beer and taking Percocet (a pain killer). He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He was also falling asleep at the breath testing facility. The defendant submitted to a breath test and a urine test based on his statements about taking pain killers.
Parks & Braxton discovered evidence during a pre-trial investigation that the urine results were improperly destroyed.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having four drinks. The defendant appeared to be confused and was off balance. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .155 and .139 in the breath machine.
The State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was involved in a single vehicle accident (motorcycle). The defendant was thrown several feet from the motorcycle and suffered severe injuries. No witnesses saw the crash or the defendant driving the motorcycle. The defendant was transported to the hospital where he was admitted to have major surgery on his left arm. Police later arrived at the hospital and requested a blood sample from the defendant. The officers made no observations consistent with any alcohol impairment before requesting the blood sample. Blood was then drawn from the defendant which later resulted in a blood alcohol reading of .135 from the police toxicology lab. The defendant admitted several weeks later to the police in an interview to driving the motorcycle at the time of the crash and also drinking at a bar prior to the accident. The defendant was subsequently charged with DUI by the State.
Parks & Braxton filed several pre-trial motions to suppress the blood sample and the defendant's statements to police during his interview.
On the day of the motion hearing, Parks & Braxton announced ready to proceed on the motions and the State Dismissed the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking two beers. 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.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State pre-trial that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired.
The DUI was Dismissed.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, a flushed face, and slurred speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests which were not video taped. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, hr blew a .146 and .154 in the breath machine.
The state dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving down a one way street in the wrong direction. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and a raspy voice. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .180 and .184 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped weaving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and blood-shot/glassy eyes. The defendant fumbled through his paper work looking for his documents and then admitted to drinking two beers. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out the State that the driving pattern on captured on video and the defendant's speech pattern caught on tape contradicted the arresting officer's reports.
The defendant was involved in a two car crash at an intersection in which she was the at fault driver. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. She also admitted to having two drinks. She stumbled and swayed upon exiting the car. She then performed the field sobriety exercises upon the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, she stepped off the line, did not touch heel to toe, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand test, she swayed and put her foot down four times. She was then arrested for DUI Causing Property Damage. After her arrest, she blew a .116 and .105 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not place the defendant in "actual physical control" of the car at time of the crash as required by Florida law.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. Officers observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He was then asked to perform field sobriety tests which were video taped. According to the arresting officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .144 and .131 in the breath machine.
At jury trial, Parks & Braxton argued that the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was "driving" with a breath alcohol content of .08 or higher as required by Florida law.
After the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for entering an intersection against a solid red light and she was also weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she was wearing a wrist band from a bar. She then performed roadside tasks and according to the officer she failed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, the officer also found marijuana in the defendant's car and she was also charged with a crime of possession of marijuana. She later submitted to a breath test which revealed the presence of alcohol and also submitted to a urine test which also revealed positive lab results for cocaine.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the urine results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer had no legal basis under Florida law and the facts of the case to request the urine sample.
On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI and also dismissed the possession of marijuana charge.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer who arrived on scene questioned the defendant about the crash and the events of the evening. The defendant gave inconsistent responses to the officer's questions. She also admitted to taking antihistamines for a cold. The officer then detained her and conducted the HGN (eye test) and believed her to be impaired by either a chemical and/or controlled substance. After the HGN test, she then performed the walk and turn, finger to nose, and walk and turn tests. According to the officer, she failed the tests and then arrested her for DUI. After her arrest, she refused to give a breath and also a urine sample. This was the defendant's second DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no evidence that the defendant was impaired by alcohol, a "specific" chemical substance and/or "specific" controlled substance as required by Florida Law.
The defendant was initially observed hitting two parked motorcycles and then leaving the scene. The DUI task force officer pulled the defendant over and observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a flushed face. The defendant performed several field sobriety tests on video and was subsequently arrested for DUI. He then refused to submit to a breath test.
Despite the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, Parks & Braxton acquired his medical records which revealed certain illnesses which would explain his performance. Parks & Braxton told the defendant that he should proceed to trial.
On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle on an entry ramp to a highway. Paramedics arrived at the scene first and found the defendant asleep at the wheel, foot on the break, and the car in drive. He was unconscious and unresponsive to painful attempts to awaken him. He was removed from the vehicle by the paramedics and detained at the scene prior to the arrival of law enforcement. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, swaying, and wearing wrist bands from bars. He was then asked to perform roadside tasks and he performed very poorly which resulted in him being arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the arrest. In our motion, we alleged that the initial detention and arrest by the arresting officer was unlawful.
The State Dropped the DUI on the day of the motion hearing.
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.