Our Recent Victories

There was no video tape or body worn camera. The defendant stated that the officer was exaggerating and not telling the truth so the firm pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the officer's reports and the vague description of the field sobriety tests to the State.

There was no reasonable suspicion of crime justifying ordering the defendant to roll down the windows upon awakening him. Thus, all the evidence would have been thrown out due to that initial illegality.

The video contradicted the officers reports as to the specifics of the field sobriety tests. Prior to any trial, and after negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI and he also received no conviction on the possession charges.

The video contradicted the officer's police reports in all aspects, from the driving pattern, observations, and through his performance on the field sobriety tests.

The firm listed everyone who was on the defendant's chartered boat that day. They all stated that they told the police he was not drinking at all. They all came to court and told the State he was not drinking as he was the boat captain. The officers reports were vague and contradictory. The State Dismissed the DUI.

The officers never took any steps to verify the veracity of the call prior to ordering the defendant out of the car. Thus, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying ordering him out of the car.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant's arrest was unlawful. Pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, when there is an arrest for a misdemeanor, and no crash, the officer must observe all elements of the crime. Here, the officers did not observe the defendant driving or in actual physical control which is the first element of a DUI. Prior to any motion being argued, the State Dropped the DUI.

The video of the defendant's field sobriety tests contradicted the police reports. The defendant's videotaped performance on the roadside tests also clearly showed that he was absorbing alcohol and lower at the time of driving.

The firm pointed out that the driving pattern did not rise to the level of any reasonable suspicion of a crime to believe she was an impaired driver. Even though he had a camera, there was no video of the driving pattern to corroborate his police reports.

Prior to ordering the defendant to roll down his window and exit the car, the officers never checked for damage. In fact, there was no damage. Thus, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime to lawfully justify ordering the defendant out of his car.

The defendant was not in actual physical control because he had no capability of operating the vehicle while sleeping.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place the defendant's two breath test results under the legal limit. This was pointed out to the State and they Dropped the DUI.

The officers involved in the case contradicted themselves. For example, the officer with the defendant at the station stated there was no slurred speed and indicated nothing about lethargic movements. Also, the time frame when the defendant allegedly refused to perform roadside tasks was not captured on the body worn cameras. No one could answer why with any reasonable explanation. Also, the body worn cameras contradicted the officers observations in the reports.

Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI. The video contradicted the police reports. The defendant speech appeared normal and he was responsive and coherent.

In order to ask for blood outside of a hospital, when a breath test is not impractical or impossible, a defendant must be told the blood is being offered as an alternative to breath and/or urine. Here, that was not the case and the blood would have been excluded.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant requested an independent blood test. Under Florida law, when a defendant requests an independent blood test, he or she must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain the test, such as being offered a phone. Further, one must also agree to take the breath test, as the defendant did in this case. Here, he was never offered a phone or phone book to at least try to obtain a blood test. Prior to any motion hearing, the State dropped the DUI.

The officers who stopped the defendant were outside their jurisdiction. The State did not provide what is called a mutual aid agreement between the two cities authorizing one jurisdiction to conduct traffic stops in the other's jurisdiction. In addition, the officers had body worn cameras but did not video any roadside tests for whatever unknown reason. The State Dropped the DUI, and the defendant, who is a CDL license holder, received No criminal conviction on his record.

The firm announced ready for trial. The defendant took the breath test over 90 minutes after being stopped. The State could not prove whether or not he was over the legal limit at the time of driving. In addition, with the. 02 margin of error on each breath result, the defense was able to place the defendant under the legal limit. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Days before trial, the defense pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in actual physical control because he had no capability of operating the vehicle. He was not only sleeping, but the defense also pointed out that the keys were on the passenger seat. The day before trial, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

Due to some contradictions in the different police reports, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on her record.

Although the cocaine was found in his system, the State could not prove that he took it that day. In addition, the video contradicted many of the observations written in the reports. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant is in a program to get the felony dismissed.

When the defendant had pulled up, she was ordered to roll down her windows. This was an unlawful command without reasonable suspicion of a crime. All the evidence observed by the officer came after that command. Thus, all the State's evidence was in danger of being excluded.

It was apparent on video that the defendant was lower than .08 at the time of driving as her video contradicted her breath test results.

Prior to trial, the firm pointed out to he State that the defendant had been improperly coerced in to taking a breath test.

On video tape, the driving pattern was not as egregious as described the reports. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called in question. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction on her record.

Prior to trial, the firm filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform roadside tests. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences of his refusal. The Judge granted the motion and the State appealed. The firm defended the Judge’s ruling and appellate court ruled in the defense's favor. The State then Dropped the defendant's Third DUI.

There were misstatements made by officer to coerce the the defendant to perform the otherwise voluntary roadside tests. Thus, at the risk of the field sobriety tests being excluded, the State Dropped the DUI.

The dash cam video contradicted the officer's reports as to his performance on the roadside tests and alleged level of impairment.

After reviewing the officer's body camera, the defense observed that the officer misstated the law and coerced the defendant into performing the breath test. He advised him that he would be un-arrested and released if he blew under the legal limit. None of that had been written in his police report. This was brought to the attention of the prosecutor who agreed. Thus, with the possibility of the breath test being excluded by a defense pretrial motion, the State Dropped the DUI.

The firm pointed out to the State that the stop may be unlawful. There was no traffic that was affected by his driving and the officer did not write any specifics.

The firm announced ready for jury trial. A week prior to trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the defendant was a disabled vet. He had various medical issues including problems with his knees and mid-section. All of these issues contributed to his alleged poor performance on the field sobriety tests. Also, there was in car video which captured the defendant's performance on the roadside tests which the State did not produce. The defendant's speedy trial rights were not waived. The State Dismissed the DUI.

The specifics of the weaving were not detailed. Since no one knew the distance traveled, how many times he weaved, or the time frame, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that there was no lawful basis to initially seize and stop the defendant. Here the officer ordered the defendant to unlawfully roll down her windows and then turn off the car without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. Prior to the motion hearing, the State agreed with our legal position and Dropped the DUI.

Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted in a well lit area per the NHTSA regulations. Here, on video, they were conducted in a pitch black area. No one could even see how the defendant actually performed. The DUI was dismissed.

The defendant's video contradicted all the observations that the officer had written about in regards to his level of impairment. Further, the State could not prove that the defendant had consumed the marijuana the day in question, as it stays in your system for up to thirty days.

The firm pointed out to the State that any mishaps on the field sobriety tests were due to a language barrier between the defendant and the officer.

The firm was able to point out many characteristics that would have caused the defendant to have messed up the field sobriety tests, such as his age and numerous injuries.

For some unexplained reason, the defendant's roadside tests were not captured on tape even though the driving pattern was recorded. Prior to any motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence being filed by the firm, the State Dropped the DUI.

At trial, during cross examination, the firm was able to get the officer to state that he had no independent recollection of any specific facts without referring to his reports. The firm also got the officer to admit on the stand that he didn't even know the actual DUI law, that one's normal faculties have to be impaired. The officer testified that the law as he understood it was that it is illegal to simply drink and drive. Also, on cross examination, firm got the officer to admit that he incorrectly instructed the defendant on the walk and turn. In the middle of cross examination, as the officer's credibility was being called into question and a recess was taken. The State then Dropped the DUI in the middle of trial and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

On video, it was clear that the officer had the defendant doing to roadside tests on a slope. Per NHTSA requirements, the tests are supposed to be conducted on a level area. Here, the officer administered them in violation of the NHTSA requirements.

In order to ask for blood, one exception is that the breath test must be impracticable and/or impossible. Here, there was no showing as to any time frame as to how long the defendant was going to be released to get her to the station or jail for a breath test. Thus, the police had no lawful right to request a blood test and the defendant's refusal would have been inadmissible.

In order to stop a vehicle based on a tip such as the one in question, there must be other specific facts from the caller other than a simple conclusory statement such as an "intoxicated male." Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

Just prior to trial, the defense presented evidence to the State about the defendant's prior injuries to his knees. He had surgeries and had titanium in one leg. This evidence showed that any balance issues that the defendant had on the field sobriety tests could have been as easily due to his injuries versus alcohol.

A defendant can not be coerced into performing field sobriety exercises which are voluntary and not lawfully required by statute. Here, the officer made it clear to the defendant that if he did not perform the roadside tasks, he would be immediately arrested. This was pointed out to the State by the firm. The State agreed that the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was "coerced" into performing the otherwise voluntary tests. The Judge granted the motion and excluded all the roadsides from evidence. The State then appealed, however, the firm defended the Judge's ruling and won on appeal. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

The video contradicted the officer's written reports. For example, on the videotape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance. The high level of impairment on the field sobriety tests that he wrote about did not equate to the defendant's performance on the video tape.

The firm pointed out that the officer's reports contradicted each other. For example, in one report he wrote that he observed slurred speech versus the other whereby he failed to check the slurred speech box.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. Under Florida law, an officer must have "reasonable cause" to believe that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to lawfully request a breath test. In our motion, because the officer did not smell any alcohol, find any alcohol in the car, and the defendant denied drinking, we put forth there was no reasonable cause to request the defendant to submit to a breath test. Just prior the motion hearing, the State agreed to Drop the DUI.

The firm announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, it was brought to the State's attention that the defendant had many prior hip issues which caused her to appear off balance and have difficulty with the field sobriety exercise. In addition, there was no sound on the videotape and the defendant can be seen over and over pointing to her hip.

In order to stop someone based on an anonymous caller, the police must have some corroboration of the driving pattern. Here, there was none, so the lawfulness of the stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction on her record.

Under Florida law, to prove a DUI, the State must prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the individual. Here, since the defendant did not make any statements about taking any drugs that day, the State could not prove the DUI. The DUI was Dismissed and the State filed a new charging document for reckless driving. The defendant received No conviction or points on his record.

The firm pointed out to the State that the officer never smelled an odor of alcohol, even though he was right next to her. Also, although the medical records stated that she was intoxicated, they never tested her blood for alcohol or drugs. Thus, the State could not prove whether she was allegedly impaired by alcohol or drugs. In fact, in the medical records, one person treating the defendant wrote that she was clinically sober. That contradicted the findings of the other treating physician who believed she was intoxicated. The State Dropped the DUI to a Civil Traffic Infraction.

There was misinformation and coercion by the officer in obtaining breath samples from the defendant. Thus, there was a strong probability that the breath tests would have been excluded from evidence.

The defendant's video at the roadside contradicted her breath alcohol level which showed her breath alcohol level may have been under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving.

To be in actual physical control, one has to have the "capability" of operating the motor vehicle. Here, the defendant was sleeping and thus had no capability to operate the car.

It was clear from the evidence that a portion of the body camera was not properly preserved. Specifically, while the officer's instructions were captured, the defendant's performance was inexplicably erased. Parks and Braxton filed a motion to exclude the field sobriety tests based on destruction of evidence.

On video, the defendant can be heard telling the officer about leg and head injuries. Yet the officer still administered the physical exercises. In addition, on tape, it was clear that the officer was administering the exercises in violation of the NHTSA rules. The ground was not flat/level and was clearly sloped in the area where he had the defendant do the walk and turn and one leg stand. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

There was no video, so the case came down to the officer's word. During a pretrial investigation by the firm of the arresting officer, it was uncovered he had been arrested and charged with a felony. This was discussed with the State, even though it had not been disclosed by the stste, and the defense set the case for trial. The defendant was advised and agreed not to plead to anything and take the case to trial. Once the case was set for trial, the DUI was Dismissed.

Prior to trial, the firm provided proof to the State that she was prescribed that medication and that she had not taken it that day. The effects of not taking the medication that day as required, caused the impairment, not the drug itself.

Under Florida law, to be convicted of DUl, one must be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the officer could only smell a "fruity odor" which he believed to be some type of alcohol. However, based on odor alone, he could not state what specifically the defendant had to drink, when he had his last drink, or even how much. Thus, the State could not prove he was impaired by an "alcoholic beverage" as the DUI Statute requires.

Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control because he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle.

There were numerous inconsistencies in the trooper's reports which were brought to the attention of the State. Since there was no video tape, and he never even called for one, his credibility was now in question.

Here, the driving pattern was very vaguely described. It was unclear how many times he weaved, over how long of a distance, and the amount of time. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with the State. We pointed out various inconsistencies in the officer’s reports. Since there was no video, his credibility was now called into question.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on the videotape, the officer misstated the law as to the defendant's obligation to perform the voluntary exercises. Prior to arguing the motion, the State was provided the case law and agreed the officer coerced the defendant into performing them. Thus, all the roadside evidence would have been excluded.

In order to conduct a traffic stop based on the above tip, there must be corroboration of that tip. Here, the officer never observed any driving and activated his lights, thus detaining him illegally.

The defendant's performance on the videotaped roadside tests clearly showed that the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

There must be reasonable suspicion of a crime to request roadside tasks. In other words, there must be some evidence of impairment. Here, there was none and the roadsides would have potentially been excluded from evidence. Also, it was unclear why the officer did not give the two nationally standardized exercises (ie. the walk and turn and one leg stand). Yet, he chose to give the finger count test which is typically given in boating under the influence cases.

Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted on a well lit and level surface according the NHTSA manual. Here, the defendant was given the exercises on a dark and very visibly sloped road. It was evident that a mishaps on the exercise were from the conditions, and not alcohol. The defendant can even be seen pointing to the road and its slope while conversing with the officer. This was discussed with the prosecutor.

The defendant suffered from many medical illnesses. In fact, on tape she was trying to tell them about her illnesses and injuries, but the officers did not want to hear any of it. The firm brought this and her medical issues to the attention of the State. It was obvious that her illness caused the impairment, not any drugs. Also, the State could not prove whether those drugs were in her system at the time of driving.

Under Florida law, a person can only be requested to provide a breath test after being arrested. Here, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior the DUI arrest. The firm then filed a motion to exclude the refusal. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing field sobriety tests. The firm also filed a motion to exclude that refusal too. Finally, the officer never read the defendant his Miranda rights. The firm also filed a motion to suppress his statements under Florida's accident report privilege.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the refusal to perform roadside tests because no adverse consequences were given. The firm relied on the lead appellate case in Florida, State v. Thrift, in which Parks & Braxton had argued successfully on appeal, that without adverse consequences being given, the refusal to perform field sobriety tests should be inadmissible. Also, the arresting officer testified in a pretrial deposition taken by the firm, that a video recorded the defendant at the station. The firm then subpoenaed the records custodian of all videos from the police department who testified at a deposition that there was no video. Thus, the officer was caught in a lie. The State the Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's reports in many ways which was pointed out to the State. For example, the defendant's speech was not thick tongued and he did not appear unsteady. Also, the officer exaggerated the defendant's level of impairment on the field sobriety tests in his reports which was contradicted by the tape.

The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests contradicted her breath test results and clearly showed she was under the legal limit at the time of driving. Also, on tape the defendant's speech was not slurred and she was not off balance.

Due to the .005 and also the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defense was able to place the defendant under the legal limit.

The defendant's video tape contradicted the all the police reports.

On video, when asking the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests, they misstated the law. Thus, their actual knowledge of the DUI laws in Florida were called into question. Also, the defendant was not in actual physical control because he was sleeping in his car. The State Dropped the DUI.

Pretrial, the firm provided several pieces of favorable evidence provided by the defendant to the State. After a review, the State Dropped the DUI.

The officer believed the defendant was impaired by cocaine. However, if the defendant was impaired by cocaine, he certainly would not have been acting slow and sluggish. No DRE (drug recognition exam) was ever conducted. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No felony conviction on the possession charge.

There was no legal basis set forth in the reports, or the video tape, as to why the officers were conducting a welfare check on the defendant. Thus, there was no legal basis for ordering him to exit his car. Also, the officers wrote very vague police reports. For example, there were no specifics as to what the defendant did wrong on the finger to nose.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, case law was given to the State. It stated that a mere odor of alcohol does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime to legally request field sobriety tests. Thus, all the roadsides would have been thrown out. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial and the defendant received No criminal conviction on his record.

The firm announced ready for jury trial. There was no video at the scene and the officer's reports only vaguely described the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests with no specifics. Also, the video at the station was blurry and one could only hear the defendant. His speech sounded normal versus what the officer put in his report. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

English is the defendant's second language. It was evident that she did not fully understand many of the officer's instructions being given in English. Due to the language barrier, it was clear that her performance on the tests was due to the language issue versus alcohol.

The defendant told the officer he had many injuries which would prevent him from performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tests. However, the officer still had him perform them on the side of the highway very close to traffic. It was obvious from the tape, that his poor performance was due to the conditions on the highway and his injuries.

After a review of all the discovery and video tape, it became apparent that the defendant only swerved briefly and didn't come close to any parked cars. Thus, the stop may have been unlawful.

The defendant's performance on the roadside tests, which were captured on a body worn camera, clearly showed the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

The video contradicted the officer's reports as to the defendant's speech and his performance on the field sobriety tests.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. The basis of our motion was that the arrest was unlawful pursuant Florida Statute 901.15. Since no officer observed the defendant driving or in actual physical control, the fellow officer rule did not apply, even though civilians saw the defendant behind the wheel. The State read the motion and before the hearing date, the DUI was Dismissed. It should be noted that the firm beat the Defendant's last DUI too.

The officer had no video camera. His reports did not list any specifics of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. In addition, the officer actually believed the defendant may have been impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance with no facts to back up his conclusion.

The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. During our questioning, we were able to establish that the defendant did not speed up or attempt to take any evasive actions. The defendant is elderly and it was apparent he was simply oblivious to the police car. The officer also could not remember many specifics of the field sobriety tests. After the deposition, the State agreed to Drop the felony fleeing and eluding to a misdemeanor and also Drop the DUI.

During the breath test, there were errors which called the reliability of the results into question.

The defendant had suffered injuries in the crash. All the alleged signs of impairment were as equally as consistent with the traffic crash vs. alcohol.

The driving pattern was only vaguely described and not captured on tape. Thus, were wasn't enough reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.

The officer's reports were vaguely written as to any specifics of the field sobriety tests. Since there was no video tape, it was difficult to discern how the defendant actually performed on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI and he received No criminal conviction on his record.

During the HGN (eye test), the officer did not observe an angle of onset prior to 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes. Under Tharpe's formula, this would indicate his breath alcohol level was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

Parks and Braxton filed several motions to suppress. First, the firm filed a motion to exclude the field sobriety tests based on a lack of reasonable suspicion. Next, the firm filed a motion to suppress the refusal to submit to a breath test based on a lack of probable cause to believe the defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Finally, the firm filed a motion for statement of particulars requiring the state to name what substance the defendant was impaired by. Prior to the motions, the firm took sworn testimony from the officers in order to set up the motions. The state ultimately conceded the motion and the charges were dropped.

Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, the State could not prove he had the "capability" to operate the motor vehicle as required by the actual physical control definition in the DUI jury instruction.

On video, there was no sound. Thus, it was not clear if the officer misstated the law in obtaining the breath test. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer at the station, who also wrote a report, had numerous contradictory observations of the defendant as compared to the arresting officer. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. Through our questioning of the officer, the firm was able to establish that the officer unlawfully obtained the defendant's blood through coercion. In addition, it was also unlawfully obtained on another ground since a breath test was not impractical or impossible. After the State read the depo and applicable case law, they Dropped the DUI.