Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
The defendant was confronted by the police when his vehicle was stopped in the middle of the roadway. The officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. He was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. He refused to perform field sobriety exercises requested by the officers and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial and also pointed out to the State that almost none of the DUI investigation was captured on the in-car video camera at the scene.
The State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver as she drove up on a curb and hit a stop sign. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and watery eyes. According to the officers, she performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, she took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms for balance, and lost her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, she used her arms for balance, hopped, and put her foot down. She was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial.
On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver as he hit a parked car. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, rapid speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant admitted to being involved in the crash and coming from a party. The defendant was asked to conduct roadside tests but refused stating "it is your word against mine." He was then arrested for DUI Causing Property Damage and then he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared and filed motions to suppress. In one motion, we argued all the defendant's statements at the crash scene should be suppressed as they were obtained in violation of the accident report privilege. We also filed another motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to take the roadside tests.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes and he admitted to drinking a "few". The defendant used the car door for leverage and was unsteady. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped and then he was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired on the video tape.
The DUI was Dismissed.
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unsteady and staggering according to the officer. He performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer which were video taped. According to the officer, he performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that almost every observation that the officer made in his written reports were contradicted by the video tape.
The defendant was detained by the police at the airport exit for failing to pay for parking. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, inconsistent responses upon questioning by the police, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness upon exiting the vehicle. The defendant refused the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. The officers considered her to be impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance versus alcohol due to her actions.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. The State could not prove which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida Law.
The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road on a highway. The defendant was going southbound in the northbound lanes. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, watery eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant stated that she knew she was wrong and was coming home from a restaurant. She then stated that she had two captain and cokes. The defendant was allegedly off balance as she exited the car. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand and HGN (eye test), she was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused to provide a breath test. This was the defendant's 3rd DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on coercion to perform the field sobriety tests. Specifically, the defense alleged that the Trooper made an improper statement while requesting the defendant to perform field sobriety tests.
The State conceded the motion to suppress and dropped the DUI.
The defendant was seen by a police officer standing outside his car talking on a cell phone stumbling around. Both tires were flat on the car and the officer wanted to see if the defendant was okay. He then observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He was requested to perform field sobriety tests and after refusing to do them and being very argumentative, he was arrested for DUI. The defendant was also almost falling over while talking to the officer.
Prior to court, Parks & Braxton spoke to the prosecutors and pointed out that there was no witness who placed the defendant in actual physical control of the motor vehicle. Thus, pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest for DUI was unlawful.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer and they were video taped. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired.
The defendant was stopped by police after allegedly being involved in a hit and run traffic crash. The officers noticed damage to the defendant's car. He had an odor of alcohol upon his breath, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and he walked in a "zig zag" pattern once out of the car. They also saw the defendant stumble. There was no video tape of the DUI investigation at the scene. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
The defendant was stopped for having illegal tint on his car windows. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and red/watery eyes. The defendant also admitted to drinking beer. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped. He was then arrested for DUI and refused the breath test.
The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle at an intersection by the police. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, a dazed look, and unsteadiness. The defendant refused the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, lethargic movements, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the roadside tasks which were video taped. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest for DUI, she blew a .117 and .115 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Upon initial questioning the defendant admitted to drinking that evening. The defendant consented to perform field sobriety exercises which were video taped. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn as well as the one leg stand test. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI.
Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the results of the field sobriety tests were administered improperly. For example, on video you can clearly see a distinct pitch on the roadway where the defendant was asked to perform the walk and turn test.
On the morning of Jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery/glassy eyes, "fumbling" fingers, and slurred speech. They also noticed she was unsteady on her feet upon exiting the vehicle. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the DUI officer which were video taped. For example, on the one leg stand, she put her foot down, swayed, and used her arms for balance. On the finger to nose, she did not touch the tip of her nose with her index finger and used the wrong hand. The defendant was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the Defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton were ready for a jury trial.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and difficulty finding his registration. The officer observed unsteadiness as the defendant exited the car. He was asked to perform roadside sobriety exercises. The defendant performed poorly on the first test and then he refused to continue with the rest of the tests. The defendant said "just talk me to jail" and he was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton were ready for jury trial.
On the morning of Jury Trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was involved in a single car crash whereby he allegedly struck a tree off the roadway. The defendant made several statements to the officer about being involved in the crash and how it happened. The officer made contact with the the defendant while he was in the ambulance. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and unsteadiness upon exiting the ambulance. He was asked to perform roadside tasks which he performed very very poorly on video tape. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all of the defendant's statements to the police. We alleged in our motion all statements were obtained in violation of the accident report privilege. The State conceded the motion. Without the statements, the State could not prove the defendant was driving or in actual physical control the motor vehicle at the time of the of crash.
The defendant was stopped for continually swerving and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. She stated she drank two beers. She performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton discovered during a pre-trial discovery investigation that the roadside video tape had been lost, destroyed, and/or corrupted. No one at the police department could answer our questions as to the whereabouts of the tape which was material evidence in the case.
Prior to filing any motions to dismiss for destruction of material evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped and was arrested for DUI. The officer suspected he was impaired not by alcohol, but rather by a chemical and/or controlled substance.
Parks & Braxton conducted a pre-trial investigation prior to the filing of the charges.
The State could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida Statutes. The DUI was Dismissed.
The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby she was ran over several rocks and ended up in a flower bed. No one witnessed the crash, and when the police officer arrived, the defendant was outside the car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and unsteadiness. The defendant admitted to being involved in the crash. She performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .192 and .177.
Parks & Braxton prepared and filed a pre-trial motion to exclude the defendant's statements about her involvement in the crash. In our motion, we alleged the statements were obtained in violation of the accident report privilege. The State conceded the motion and all statements were excluded. Thus, the State could not place the defendant in actual physical control at the time of the crash.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, thick tongued speech, and unsteadiness. The defendant was wearing a wristband from a bar. The defendant admitted to drinking one shot, one drink, and was not stone sober. The defendant also admitted to taking a controlled/prescribed medication that day. According to the officer he performed poorly to the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest within a couple of years.
Parks & Braxton showed the State numerous medical records reflecting that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not due to impairment by alcohol or medication, but was a result of the defendant's various and numerous medical conditions.
On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was observed by a security guard as well as an independent witness driving through a fence. The officer responded to the scene and observed the defendant holding onto the stop sign yelling "I'm too f'n drunk". The officer who conducted the investigation stated that the defendant was unable to stand up without assistance. The defendant supposedly advised the officer that he had been drinking bloody marys and a lot of beer. The officer then subsequently called for a car with a video to respond to the scene. On video the defendant refused all testing. Prior to going on video the officer allegedly observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face and bloodshot eyes. This was the defendant's 3rd DUI.
Despite all of the initial allegations by the officer, none of them were captured on video. Parks & Braxton then discovered that the arresting officer was under investigation for falsifying reports.
The State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for swerving out of her lane colliding with the curb several times. The officer alleged that once he put his lights on that the defendant failed to stop within a reasonable amount of time. The officer made contact with the defendant and observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. He stated that as she exited her car she was unsteady and lost her balance. The defendant performed the one leg stand, walk and turn and HGN (eye test). The officer alleged that she failed each of the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused a breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. In addition, the defense listed a witness who observed the entire incident and contradicted the officer's observations.
Based on the testimony provided by the independent witness the State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The officer suspected he was actually impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, not alcohol.
The DUI was Dismissed as the State could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida Statutes.
The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant stated he drank six bottles of beer earlier that day. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He submitted to a urine test based on his statements about using marijuana. His urine tested positive for marijuana.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he admitted to drinking two draft beers and a mixed drink. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were video taped. After his arrest for DUI, he blew a .126 and .124 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. We also pointed out to the State that the video tape at the scene contradicted the defendant's breath alcohol level.
The defendant was stopped for driving with his high-beams. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech/accent, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .094 and .091 in the breath machine.
The video contradicted the officer's reports as to the defendant's alleged performance on the roadside tests. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm pointed out that the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit.
The defendant was stopped for failing to stop at a red traffic signal. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, unsteadiness, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed some of the roadside tasks on video and according to the officer did not perform up to standards. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
A week prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officers observed slurred/mumbled speech, an odor of alcohol, and unsteadiness exiting the vehicle. The defendant admitted to having a couple of drinks. According to the arresting officer, he did not perform up to standards on the roadside tests which were video taped and then he was arrested for DUI.
The defendant was found passed out in the drive thru of a fast food restaurant. Officers were called to the scene and could not wake him up even by shaking him and yelling. They had to use a sternum rub to wake him up. They then observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Upon being woken up, the defendant began to scream at the officers. A DUI investigator/drug recognition expert was called to the scene and made similar DUI observations. He also stated the defendant staggered upon exiting the car. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within five years.
At jury trial, Parks & Braxton argued that the defendant was asleep in his car because he worked long hours. The defendant testified to this fact. The firm also argued that the video contradicted the arresting officer's testimony as it related to the defendant's performance on the tests. Furthermore, we also pointed out to the the jury many conflicts in the evidence and that the officers had stated many times they did not recall specific facts upon cross examination.
During jury deliberations, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was found by police passed out in his car in a pharmacy parking lot. Upon awaking the defendant, the initial officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and unsteadiness. The defendant stated he was waiting for the pharmacy to open even though it was closed until the next morning. A DUI unit was called and he made similar observations. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and a "long distance stare." He fumbled with his items in handing them to the officer and was very unsteady on his feet. The defendant stated he had three drinks. He then refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. A pre-trial deposition of the arresting officer was taken prior to the trial date.
After reading the sworn deposition of the arresting officer's answers to our questions, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped by police as she was stopped in the middle of a turning lane. The officer went up to the car and noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness. The defendant stated she was coming from a bar. According to the officer, she did not perform the roadside tests up to standards and was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. The reports were very vaguely written as it related to the defendant's performance on the tests and there was no video tape at the scene.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer who arrived on scene observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and unsteady balance. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The officer found marijuana in the car and added that charge. After his arrest on all charges, he refused the breath test.
On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI an Dismissed the marijuana charge.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She only performed the HGN (eye test) and walk and turn tests. According to the officer, she did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped by police based on an anonymous tip that the defendant was an impaired driver. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, fumbling for his items, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to feeling the effects of the alcohol and drinking four beers. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State after taking a pre-trial deposition and watching the video tape, that there was no corroboration of the driving pattern by police as required by law.
The defendant was stopped after hitting a parked car. Upon being stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He also appeared to be very unsteady. According to the officer, he performed very poorly on the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI.
Parks & Braxton conducted a pre-trial investigation which revealed that the video tape in question had been lost and/or destroyed. The officer had written a very vague report describing the tests as they were supposed to have all been on video.
Prior to the firm filing a motion to dismiss for destruction of material evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped by officers after a call (BOLO) went out about a reckless driver. The officers spotted the defendant's car, which was the car driving recklessly in question, and observed her to be weaving. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and very poor balance. She performed poorly the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest. Defense Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial.
The State Dropped the DUI. It should be noted this is the second time the firm got the client's DUI dropped.
The defendant was stopped for driving without any headlights. The Trooper stated that the defendant stumbled out of the car. In addition, he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and a flushed face. The defendant allegedly admitted to consuming three drinks. The Trooper had the defendant perform the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. None of these tests were performed on video. The defendant was arrested for DUI and blew a .101 in the breath machine. The defendant then performed field sobriety tests on video at the holding facility. Subsequent to the field sobriety tests the defendant admitted on video that she was under the influence while she was driving.
Parks & Braxton took a deposition of the arresting trooper. The deposition revealed several inconsistencies between his testimony and his reports. In addition, the State could not prove that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time she was driving since the test was approximately one hour later.
The State dropped the DUI on the morning of trial.
The defendant was found passed out in his car in a parking lot. The keys were not in the ignition, but were in the center console. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a confused look, and bloodshot eyes. He then performed the roadside tests very poorly and was arrested for DUI. He complained of a medical condition and was taken to the hospital. There, blood was taken from the defendant which resulted in his blood alcohol content being a .166 and .164 (over two times the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was illegally ordered out of the car. On the day of the hearing, the State conceded the motion.
The defendant was stopped for making an illegal turn. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer then improperly advised the defendant that if he refused to perform field sobriety tests that his license would be suspended. After several attempts to get the defendant out of the car he finally exited. The defendant was placed under arrest and he refused all testing.The defendant was stopped for making an illegal turn. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer then improperly advised the defendant that if he refused to perform field sobriety tests that his license would be suspended. After several attempts to get the defendant out of the car he finally exited. The defendant was placed under arrest and he refused all testing.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress on several grounds including an unlawful arrest. At the motion, the officer agreed to the facts above including the improper statement. In addition, the officer agreed that he told the defendant that if he refused that he would jerk him out of the car through the window.
The motion to suppress was granted. The DUI was Dismissed.
The defendant was stopped for driving his motorcycle without eye protection. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. According to the officer, he did not perform the roadside tests up to standards which were video taped. He was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton did a pre-trial investigation and discovered evidence that resulted in the State dropping the DUI charges.
The Defendant received No DUI conviction on his record.
The defendant was initially seen by anonymous concerned citizens driving all over the road. Police dispatch was informed that the defendant had pulled over to the side of the shoulder on the highway. Fire rescue was called to the scene. Sometime later, a State Trooper arrived and found the defendant sitting in the driver's seat of the car awake. The keys to the car were on the dashboard at this point. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, poor balance, and bloodshot eyes. He refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he admitted to drinking six vodka drinks, coming from a bar, and was on his way home. Also, he took a breath test which resulted in two samples of a .211 and .216. This was the defendant's Second DUI and third DUI arrest.
At jury trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the jury that the State presented a lack of evidence by not bringing in any fire rescue workers who initially found the defendant and saw his condition. Also they did not bring in any fire rescue reports, whether the defendant was initially sleeping, and no evidence of how the keys even got on the dashboard. Our other argument to the jury was that the defendant was not in actual physical control of the vehicle because when the officer approached the car the defendant had no "capability" of operating a car without keys in his hands nor in the ignition.
The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty.
The defendant's car was seen by a concerned citizen hitting several barricades and dragging one of them. Police were called and observed damaged barricades and water spouting out from a pipe in the pavement. Officers eventually made contact with the defendant at her house. They observed an odor of alcohol, staggering, and slurred speech. When officers went inside her house, they saw several shot glasses and an open bottle of tequila. She performed the roadside tests very poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .180 and .181 in the breath machine.
On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant in actual physical control of her car and/or under the influence at the time of the crash.
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.