Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
The State dropped the DUI.
After conversations with the State about the evidence, they Dropped the DUI.
Due to the .02 margin of error in the machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath results under the legal limit of .08.
The defendant was found by police in his truck blocking lanes of traffic. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and rambling/slurred speech. While out of the truck, he swayed, staggered, and also urinated in front of the cop. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
The officer misinformed the defendant by telling her on tape that if she did not do the roadside tests, her license would be suspended. A license suspension only applies to a breath, blood, or urine test, not field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officer misinformed the defendant of the law by telling her on tape that no matter what she blew in the breath machine, there are no enhancements. Once again a misstatement of the law because any breath alcohol test above a .15 is an enhanced DUI. Realizing that the roadside tests and the breath test would be excluded from evidence, the State Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI.
The defendant crashed his car into a tree and entered back on the road. His vehicle then skid into a Ford truck which then crashed through a garage door. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and stated he had drank an old fashioned cocktail. After performing various field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
The firm pointed out to the State that on video the officer had the defendant perform the walk and turn and one leg stand in a windstorm. The wind was so strong that one could see things blowing all over. Due to the lack of fairness shown to the defendant considering the roadside test conditions, the State Dropped the DUI.
During negotiations with the State, we pointed out that circumstances surrounding the initial contact with the defendant were an unlawful search and seizure.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. He also had clumsy movements, swayed, and was unsteady on his feet. After performing various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .114 and .111 in the breath machine.
The defendant crashed his car into a utility pole. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and slurred/mumbled speech. He also had blood/shot watery eyes and was argumentative. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, the officer must advise the defendant of adverse consequences if they do refuse. Here, the officer did not, so the refusal to do roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence. In addition, an officer cannot request a breath test until after one is arrested per Florida Statutes. Here, the officer not only requested a breath test prior to arrest, but also read implied consent telling him he would lose his license. Thus, the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample would have been excluded from evidence. The State Dropped the defendant's' Third DUI.
After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant himself, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for an expired tag. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .198 and .188 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and glassy eyes, He also fumbled with his wallet and admitted to having drank one beer. He then performed the HGN (eye test) , one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and .149 in the breath machine.
After speaking with the State regarding the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant drove his car through a concrete barrier, plunging 30 feet below the highway exit ramp. Both the defendant and the passenger were transported to the hospital. While the defendant was being treated for injuries a Trooper entered the room. The Trooper observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as extremely slurred speech. A medical blood draw was conducted, and the prosecutor made efforts to acquire the blood results.
The defendant was stopped for having no functioning tail lights. The officer smelled marijuana coming from the car and his person. He also observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He admitted to having smoked pot 15 minutes before driving. The defendant had body tremors as well. According to officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine sample which was tested by FDLE and was positive for marijuana.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and his speech was slurred. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and he also was charged with the crime of refusing a breath test for the second time.
The firm announced ready for trial. Due to various discovery issues pertaining to the charges, the defendant's charges were Dismissed on the day of trial.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was unlawfully arrested. Specifically, the only individuals who observed the defendant behind the wheel were civilians. As a result, Florida Statute 316.645 requires the arresting officer to conduct an independent crash investigation. In this case, the officer only completed a DUI investigation, and did not take part in the crash investigation. The State contacted Parks & Braxton to concede the motion.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash and he was also observed driving all over the road. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have glassy eyes, slurred/low speech, and he slowly exited the car. The defendant's eyes kept closing and his movements were slow. He had a dazed look and his eye lids were droopy. Believing he was impaired by drugs, he was asked to perform roadside tests. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine test which was positive for marijuana after being tested at FDLE.
The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. He fumbled for his wallet, had a fixed gaze, and admitting to having drank one beer. After performing various field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
The defendant was followed for a very long time on tape before the officer stopped him. So, our point to the State was how bad could his driving pattern have been if the cop waited that long to make the stop. Also, the defendant’s speech was not slurred on tape. After discussions with the State about the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The video tape contradicted many observations that the officer wrote about. For example, the defendant was not unsteady and his speech sounded normal.
The State could not prove that he was under the influence of the specific drugs that day because the drugs that he tested positive for can be in one's system for multiple days.
The defendant was stopped for failing to stop at a red light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He had a blank stare, a dazed look, and swayed while he stood. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .120 and .117 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer alleged that he was drifting in and out of his lane and that he also drove over a concrete median. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he had to ask the defendant to roll his windows down several times. The defendant admitted to having consumed 4 whiskey sours. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a.126 and .125 in the breath machine.
May observations in the police reports were contradicted by the video tape.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and cutting off an officer. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed. After refusing to perform various roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for swerving and weaving. The defendant also did not stop immediately even though there were places to pull over. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and slurred speech. She also appeared disoriented, confused, and unbalanced. After refusing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
After several conversations with the State about the lack of evidence, such as no roadside tests and/or a breath test, the State Agreed to Drop the DUI.
After several conversations with the prosecutor regarding the case, the State Dropped the DUI.
The firm showed proof that the drugs found were prescribed. The felony possession charge was Dismissed. After several negotiations with the State, they also Dropped the defendant's Second DUI and he received no further sanctions on DWLS and the refusal. In fact, the DWLS was amended to a No valid DL.
Under Florida law, a breath test can only be requested after the DUI arrest. Here, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior to arresting her. Thus, her refusal would have been excluded from evidence.
On video, the officer did not read the defendant his Miranda rights. Thus, the defendant's statement about taking Xanax would have been excluded from evidence as a violation of the accident report privilege. Also, when the officer read the defendant implied consent prior to requesting urine, he explained the wrong penalties for refusing. Thus, the refusal would have been excluded as well. With the Xanax statement out and the refusal out, the State dropped the DUI to a civil careless driving.
The defendant was involved in a crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, water/bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. She also was unsteady and had dilated pupils. She only performed HGN (eye test) then refused to perform any others. While being arrested, she attempted to avoid being handcuffed and was also charged with resisting an officer without violence. She later refused the breath test.
The defendant was not in actual physical control as he had no "capability" to operate the car while he was sleeping, none the less with the driver's door open.
The defendant was stopped after making an illegal U-turn. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The officer also saw an empty bottle of Corona beer in the car as well. He then performed various roadside tests such as the HGN, walk and turn, and the one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for driving westbound in the eastbound lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .134 and .125 in the bath machine.
Just prior to trial, the defense pointed out various inconsistencies in the police reports versus the video tape.
The defendant was stopped for weaving, speeding up, and then slowing down for no apparent reason. The Officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he admitted to having drank two beers. He also had a continuous sway while standing. After performing roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. After being arrested, he blew a .158 and .146 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/water eyes. He also appeared to have unstable balance. After performing various field sobriety tests such as HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .160 and .163 in the breath machine.
Prior to trial, after several negotiations between the State and the firm, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped after a BOLO went out about the defendant's erratic driving called in by a civilian. When the officer spotted the defendant, he also observed the defendant weaving. After the traffic stop, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and he appeared unsteady. He also had dilated pupils and appeared to be moon walking when he was walking around. He then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
After several pretrial negotiations with the State about the evidence and the defendant himself, they Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding, for driving 90 mph in a 45mph zone. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated she had drank two long island iced teas. After refusing to perform roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
The defendant was observed passed out in his vehicle with the engine running at the entrance to his security gate. The officer woke the defendant up and observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, as well as slurred speech. When asked if he knew where he was, the defendant gave the name of a completely different city. The defendant performed poorly on a series of field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. He subsequently refused to submit to a breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI.
The defendant was detained by police when the police boarded his boat for a safety inspection as he pulled up to the dock. They noticed an odor of alcohol, unsteadiness, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. When asked to perform roadside tests, he became very combative and refused. He was then arrested for boating under the influence (BUI). He later refused the breath test.
The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle in someone's driveway. The homeowner called the police about a suspicious vehicle in their driveway. Officers found the defendant passed out in his truck with the engine running. They noticed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .150 and .135 in the breath machine.
When the defendant blew into the machine three other times prior the police obtaining the above results, there was a problem with the machine as it kept purging. Also, one of the control tests was out of range. The control test is supposed to be between .075 and .085, however, on one of his blows it was .074 (out of range). Due to problematic issues with the machine, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she appeared unsteady. A bottle of Corona with a lime was found inside the car. After performing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. After several conversations about the evidence with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.
The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and almost causing a collision with a police officer. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, droopy eyes, and a glassy stare. His speech was slurred and slow. He also staggered, swayed, and had bloodshot eyes. He then performed various roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .151 and .150 in the breath machine.
The officer’s written reports exaggerated the defendant's level of impairment as to all physical observations and the roadside tests as well.
The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights after dusk. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed/red face, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank one drink. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
On video, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's roadsides were much better than written in the reports and there was no probable cause to arrest him based on his performance. In addition, he had no slurred speech on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
After several negotiations with the State regarding the defendant himself and the evidence, they Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer never even asked the defendant to step out of the car for the DUI investigation until he was being arrested. Thus, no-one could even see if he had any balance issues. Also, his speech was not slurred on tape. Furthermore, we provided case law to the State that the defendant's silence in not answering questions would be a violation of his Miranda rights.
The defendant was stopped after the officer noticed him drifting and crossing over the lane markers several times. The officer did not smell any alcohol, but noticed the defendant to appear lethargic, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were red and watery. His movements were slow and he performed poorly on roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later asked to provide a urine sample as the officer believed he was impaired by drugs. The FDLE lab report showed positive results for marijuana and Xanax.
The defendant was stopped for not having any headlights or tail lights illuminated. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a blank/dazed stare, and watery eyes. She had droopy eye lids and fumbling fingers. She then performed roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. She was subsequently arrested for DUI and later blew a .119 and .112 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for having no taillights on and drifting by crossing over the fog line. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol watery/bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He also appeared unsteady and had to lean on his car for balance. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI arrest and also he was charged with a second refusal.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant had a stamp on his hand from a bar. He was asked to perform roadside tests, but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped after he was weaving all over the road for a lengthy period of time. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot watery eyes. Two unopened cases of beer were also spotted in the defendant's car. He was then asked to perform various roadside sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. While being arrested, he allegedly pulled away and was tackled. He was also charged with resisting an officer without violence.
Although the erratic driving pattern was captured on video tape, the officer at that point only had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was DUI. After the defendant performed well on the field sobriety tests on tape, there was now a lack of probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The defendant did perform well on video tape and was still arrested. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and also he received no criminal conviction on the resisting without violence charge.
The roadside observations as written in reports were highly exaggerated as compared to the video. After several negotiations with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI.
As a result of the crash, the defendant's car was completely inoperable. The defendant maintained that he did not begin drinking until after the crash. In addition, the firm presented a call log that proved that the defendant called the tow truck company shortly after the crash, and remained in the vehicle for over an hour until the police arrived. The law requires that the State prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired at the time the vehicle was operable. Without evidence of intoxication at the time of the crash the State could not prove 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.