Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
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 State dropped the 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.
After conversations with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to having consumed beer. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest.
The firm raised issues as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to a vagueness of specifics.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and his movements were lethargic. He swayed while he stood and told the officer he had consumed thirteen (13) beers. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
There were numerous contradictions in the two officer's reports. For example, the first officer noticed slurred speech and no sway. On the other hand, the arresting officer noticed a sway and normal speech (not slurred). After conversations with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI and dismiss the leaving the scene of an accident charge.
The video contradicted the police reports. On tape, his speech was not slurred and he was not off-balance (never swayed).
The various medications found in the defendant's system were prescribed. We pointed out to the State that he had a bad reaction to the doctor's mixing various medications through no fault of his own.
There were three 911 calls. Oddly enough, one of the calls stated that they had no idea why police were pulling the defendant over as she did nothing wrong. This was immediately pointed out to the prosecutor. Also, although the stopping officer had a dash camera, it was never turned on for some unknown reason during the traffic stop to capture any alleged driving. Also, when a defendant refuses roadside tests, officers must advise the defendant of the adverse consequences for refusing. If they do not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer didn't give any consequences. In addition, the officers were very aggressive and rude towards the defendant on the body worn cameras for no reason. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
After several conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The written reports made the defendant out to seem very impaired. That was contradicted by the videotape evidence.
The video was clearly much different from the reports. Specifically, the police body worn camera shows four different officers pulling the defendant over at gunpoint. They immediately cuffed him. Parks and Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that the officers violated the defendant's constitutional rights by pulling him over at gunpoint for a traffic infraction. The state conceded the merits of the motion and subsequently dropped the DUI. The defendant received no conviction on his record.
The defendant was stopped for bouncing from the center lane to the fog line and her speeds were varying. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol and watery eyes. She then performed the HGN (eye test), began the walk and turn, and then stopped. She refused to finish the exercise, nor do any further tests. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
The defendant was attempting to leave a parking lot and subsequently struck two vehicles. The crash was witnessed by three officers who were working a detail at a bar. The officers ran towards the defendant and noticed that she was attempting to leave the scene. They immediately stopped the vehicle and made contact with the driver. The lead investigator asked her why she was attempting to leave the scene of a crash. The driver stated that she was not involved in an accident. The officers all observed an extremely strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. They asked the defendant to exit the vehicle, but she was unable to stand on her own and was placed back into the car. One of the officers located the owners of the two vehicles that were struck in the accident and brought them to the crash scene. In court, one of the owners stated that the defendant was extremely uncooperative and could not stand on her own. The defendant was eventually asked to perform field sobriety tests to which she refused. She stated that she was not in an accident and not "drunk." She was subsequently asked to provide a breath test and was arrested for DUI. The defendant blew a .168 at the police station and subsequently refused to provide a second sample of her breath.
Many observations on the field sobriety tests were contradicted by the videotape.
The defendant crashed his car into a ditch and collided with a tree line. A civilian witnessed the crash and ran over to help. When the first officer arrived, he noticed an odor of alcohol and vomit on the defendant's shirt. The defendant was then transported to the hospital where another officer met him there. At the hospital, that officer noticed slurred/thick tongued speech and the defendant appeared very confused about the crash. He did not smell any alcohol. A medical blood draw was done which later showed a .252 blood alcohol result (over three times the legal limit).
Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers and the civilian. Due to conflicting sworn statements between the three witnesses, issues were raised by the firm about the lawfulness of the investigation leading up the blood draw.
After conversations with the State regarding conflicts between the videotape and the written reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, mildly slurred speech, and she appeared unsteady. Her face was flushed and her eyes were bloodshot. The defendant had a wristband on from a club. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, HGN (eye test), and one leg stand, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Many observations on the video contradicted the police reports. Her speech was not slurred, she did not appear to be moving slow, and she seemed responsive and coherent. The State Dropped the DUI after negotiations.
After conversations with the prosecutor about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was seen by an officer propping up his motorcycle after he had fallen. The officer went up to the defendant and noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and an unsteady gait. The defendant stated he had drank two beers. The officer told the defendant, "don't drive and take an uber or taxi" and you won't be arrested for DUI. About 30 minutes later, the officer spotted the defendant on his bike and moving it. At that time, the officer once again stopped the defendant and began a DUI investigation. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
After several negotiations with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the 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.