Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
On video tape, the defendant did not appear off balance or unsteady prior to roadside tests and his speech was not slurred. We also pointed out to the State that he had difficulty with the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises because he is 6 foot 4 and well over 230 pounds,. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped after the officer observed her strike two curbs and failing to maintain a single lane. Once stopped, he did not smell any alcohol, but noticed glassy eyes, slow/belabored movements, unsteadiness, and she admitted to taking her prescribed medications. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she then performed various field sobriety tests such as HGN (eye test), the walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a urine test.
The State dropped the DUI.
The firm pointed out to the State that nothing can be heard on tape because the officer had his car radio blasting music. Additionally, we also pointed out that the defendant never stumbled and also performed much better on the roadside tests on the video versus what was written in the police reports.
On tape, the defendant's speech was normal, he was not unsteady, and did not appear confused. The State, after reviewing the evidence, Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a red light. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/bloodshot eyes. The defendant denied drinking any alcohol. He then performed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
When a defendant refuses roadside tests, an officer must advise of the adverse consequences if one refuses (i.e. Taylor warnings). If they do not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not follow the law and gave no adverse consequences. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he did not appear off balance.
There was no video in the case. After pointing out several inconsistencies in the reports to the prosecutor, the State Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI.
The defendant was stopped after he was observed drifting from side to side over the lane dividers several times. He also cut off another car which caused that car to brake and he also drove over the raised concrete median. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, he had slow/lethargic movements, and his eyes were bloodshot and watery. The defendant stated he had drank gin and was he was unsteady and swayed. A bottle of vodka was found in the car as well. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .132 and .130 in the breath machine.
When the officer approached the defendant, her keys were in her lap and the engine was off. Issues were raised by the firm whether or not the State could prove she was in actual physical control. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light, weaving within his lane, and driving over the line markers several times. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He then performed several roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was found passed out in his car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, unsteadiness, and he admitted to having drank 4 to 5 shots of whiskey. He was completely disoriented as well. He then performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .137 and .134 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he stated he had consumed three beers. He also swayed while he stood. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI.
After negotiations, the firm pointed out that on tape none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired and there was no probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. He received no conviction in his record.
Many of the details of the field sobriety tests were exaggerated in the reports as compared to the video tape.
After several negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane. Specifically, the deputy claimed that she drove into the bike lane on three occasions. The deputy observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred and mumbled speech. The defendant admitted to consuming two drinks. She performed field sobriety tests on video, and was subsequently arrested for DUI. She then refused to provide a breath test.
Despite the language in the police reports, the video was inconsistent with the report’s conclusions. Counsel spoke with the prosecutor in charge of the case who then agreed to drop the DUI. The defendant walked away with no criminal conviction on his record.
The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and clumsy dexterity. He had to lean against the vehicle for support and also had fumbled movements. He then performed various roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he was very off balance, took an incorrect number of steps, and started too early. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, swayed, and used his arms for balance. He was arrested for DUI and later blew .128 and .119 in the breath machine.
When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. After several conversations with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights after dark. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, trouble dividing his attention, and he swayed while he stood. He performed poorly on several roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he went back up the line walking backwards. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant performed much better on the field tests on tape than was written in the reports. After reviewing the case, the State agreed and Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving with her high beams on as well as weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a disheveled appearance, and glassy eyes. Her speech was mumbled and she also swayed. After performing poorly on roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .120 and .117 in the breath machine.
In conversations with State, we pointed out that due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, it placed the defendant's breath alcohol results below 08.
After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, they Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for swerving several times all over the lanes of travel. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and mumbled/slow speech. He also swayed side to side and admitted to having a drank at the Card Room. After performing several roadside tests, such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, red eyes, and he stumbled while walking. He performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the finger to nose, alphabet, and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .191 and .175 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and she appeared unsteady. She also appeared unsure and swayed while she stood. She then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) and was subsequently arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Many of the written observations prior to and during roadside tests were contradicted by the video tape.
The defendant was stopped for failure to yield while pulling out of a parking lot. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, a red face, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had consumed two drinks. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
The defendant was involved in a crash. The 911 caller indicated that the defendant struck a parked car, an electric pole as well as two mailboxes. The initial deputy on scene observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes as well as slurred speech. In addition, he stated that she was extremely incoherent. The defendant was subsequently taken to the hospital due to the severity of the crash. A DUI task force officer was called to conduct a DUI investigation. The officer arrived at the hospital and made contact with the defendant in one of the trauma rooms. After speaking with the defendant, the officer asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests within the emergency room. Body-worn video captured the defendant's poor performance on the sobriety tests. The defendant was charged with DUI and subsequently refused a blood test.
The defendant was stopped for accelerating at a high rate of speed and changing lanes from a left turn only to drive north. Officers noticed the defendant to have constricted pupils, a flushed face, and his speech was low and slow. His coordination was poor and the defendant stated he had only taken his prescribed medications, Hydrocodone and Adderall. There was no odor of alcohol. Believing he was impaired by drugs, he was requested to perform field sobriety tests. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine sample which came back positive for the Adderall and also marijuana. At the station, he also submitted to a DRE (drug recognition exam).
The DRE officer concluded that the defendant was under the influence of a class of drugs called narcotic analgesics, as well as an amphetamine. Well, the defendant told them he had taken the amphetamine (i.e. Adderall), so that was not a strong conclusion. Hydrocodone is a narcotic analgesic. The defendant tested negative for that so the DRE was wrong. This was pointed out to the State. Also, the officer never concluded marijuana. Marijuana can be in one's system for up to 30 days. The defendant told the cops he had taken the Adderall that morning as prescribed. He told them he had been working on roofs all day and was not impaired. The day of trial call, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he swayed while he stood. He then performed field sobriety exercises such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one legs stand. He was then arrested for DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, watery eyes, and unsteady balance. The defendant performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Parks & Braxton received a list of over 60 witnesses. In addition, we received several hours of body worn camera footage which included witness statements, the DUI investigation, as well as the hospital video with the defendant. The initial investigation by the police seemed to conclude that the defendant was driving at a high rate of speed and ultimately rear ended the victim who ended up in a coma. Parks & Braxton then began taking depositions of the State's witnesses. It soon became evident that many of the witnesses who gave sworn statements on video only heard the crash as it happened and didn't actually see the initial contact. In addition, Parks & Braxton was able to recreate the crash and prove that the victim first hit another car and then spun out into the middle of the roadway in front of the defendant's vehicle. Ultimately, the two crash investigators on scene agreed in deposition that the victim was the at fault driver in the crash. The felony DUI Serious Bodily Injury was dismissed. Four of the other DUI Injury and Property Damage counts were dismissed. The defendant received a misdemeanor DUI with probation.
The DUI with Serious Bodily Injury was Dismissed. Four (4) other counts of DUI Injury and Property Damage were Dismissed.
The Coast Guard boarded the defendant's boat because he had no lights on after sunset. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and water/bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having drank earlier in the day and appeared unsteady. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, palm pat, and hand coordination. He was then arrested for Boating Under the Influence (BUI) and later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second arrest for DUI/BUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and straddling lane markers. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. His also exhibited slow and sluggish movements. After performing various roadside exercises such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .117 and .116 in the breath machine.
After conversations with the prosecutor regarding the conflicts between the video tape and the written reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant had difficulty with the physical tasks such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. However, he performed well on the non-physical exercises such as the count backwards (69-42) and the 30 second estimation of time. Also, on tape his speech was normal and he did not appear unsteady. After several conversations with the prosecutor about the conflicts in the video and written report evidence, the State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
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.