Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
The defendant was the at fault diver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, droopy eye lids, and a flushed face. He also had bloodshot eyes and appeared unsteady. After performing various roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and he admitted to having drank vodka. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
After several conversations with the State about the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his pupils were small. The defendant stated he had drank beer, exited the vehicle slowly, and appeared unsteady on his feet. After performing the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .105 and .105 in the breath machine.
Issues were raised by the firm as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The reports were vague as to the exact specifics of the driving pattern.
Officers were dispatched to a disturbance call at a restaurant, caused by the defendant. When they arrived, they found the defendant attempting to leave the parking lot. They observed constricted pupils, glassy eyes and she swayed while she stood. She also had mumbled/slurred speech and appeared agitated. Officers did not smell any alcohol. After performing only the HGN (eye test), she was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath and urine tests.
Under Florida law, for the State to prove a DUI, a person must be under the influence of alcohol and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, since there was no alcohol involved, they could not prove by which specific controlled or chemical substance allegedly impaired the defendant. The State Dropped the DUI to a Civil Careless Driving Infraction and she received no conviction or points.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and crossing into the bike lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/dilated eyes, and the defendant was irate. She then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
After several discussions with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, swaying/unsteadiness, and his eyes were red and watery. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .113 and .113 in the breath machine.
The firm put forth that the defendant could not have had the capability to operate her car while sleeping. Thus, she couldn't have been in actual physical control.
Parks & Braxton had several discussions with the State regarding the evidence. On tape, the officer actually stated that the roadsides are "not normal" and that he "typically doesn't stand on one leg." We pointed this out to the State, and they Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Due to various contradictions in the police reports and the videotape evidence, the State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI and also Dismissed the refusal charge.
Issues were raised by the firm about the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to a lack of corroboration of the driving pattern by the police.
Police were called out to a bar because the defendant was causing a disturbance. When police arrived, the defendant was attempting to drive away. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a drowsy/fatigued look, he stumbled, and appeared clumsy. His speech was slow and he was clumsy with his documents. The defendant refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. He was also charged with resisting arrest for failing to abide by officer commands. He was tasered due to failing to comply.
The defendant was stopped after an officer saw him enter a roadway without stopping, make an illegal U-turn at a red light, and drive at a high rate of speed. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol along with an odor of burnt marijuana, slow/slurred speech, and lethargic movements. After refusing to perform roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
There was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on a lack of evidence. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
When the defendant was stopped, he was immediately placed in handcuffs and ordered out of the car at gunpoint. The firm put forth to the State that the initial handcuffing was an unlawful seizure. Since all of the DUI observations were made after the illegal seizure, (i.e.the handcuffing), they were obtained unlawfully.
Under Florida law, two breath samples are required within a .02 margin of error of each other. Here, there were three because the first two were outside the margin of error. Due to discrepancies in the breath results, inconsistencies in the evidence, and several negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was found unconscious in his running truck in a bar parking lot. Upon awakening him, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he appeared unsteady. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he swayed while standing. The defendant, when asked if he had been drinking, admitted to having consumed 2, 3, or 4 beers. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .184 and .171 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a red light. Officers observed an odor alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming one beer. After performing various field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He then blew a .150 and .146 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for making an illegal right turn on red. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, a drunk-like appearance, and very slurred speech. They also noticed the defendant to appear slow and sluggish. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
The officer over exaggerated the level of impairment in his police reports as compared to the actual video tape. After discussions with the State about the evidence, they Dropped the DUI.
Based on the videotape evidence, it was apparent that the defendant may have been below the legal limit at the time of driving.
After several discussions with the State regarding the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the victim in the crash and not the at fault driver. A car pulled out and smashed into him. Also, on the tape, his speech was not slurred. In addition, although the officer wrote the defendant stumbled, that was not on tape and we could see the defendant standing around for about 10-15 minutes without appearing off balance.
The defendant was stopped for swerving and almost causing a collision. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and confusion while speaking. She stated she was drunk and knew she should not be driving. She performed very poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .167 and .164 in the breath machine.
Under Florida law, an officer must advise a defendant of any adverse consequences when a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests. Thus, the refusal to perform roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence. In addition, the firm had questioned the officer at the initial administrative DMV hearing. The firm ordered that testimony and many of the things that the officer testified to were contradicted by his police reports. Thus, his credibility was called into question.
The defendant was found passed out and slumped over the wheel in his running vehicle in a bar parking lot. When officers awoke the defendant, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteady appearance, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having too much to drink and had vomited about 30 minutes ago. He then refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
After several conversations with the prosecutor about conflicts in the written evidence versus the video, as well as the defendant's personal history, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped after he hit a curb and drove up on a curbed median. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/gassy eyes, and a sway to his stance. The defendant's speech was slurred/mumbled and he also admitted to taking prescribed medicine. Due to safety reasons because of the defendant's impairment level, all the roadside tests were not performed. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .123 and .116 in the breath machine.
After several discussions with the prosecutor about the defendant's personal history and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
There was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on his performance on the field sobriety tests. The firm pointed this out to the State. They agreed and Dropped the DUI.
The defendant's video tape contradicted the officer's written observations and conclusions and his reports.
The defendant was stopped for driving over 100 mph. The officer noticed bloodshot/watery eyes and eye lid tremors. He also had body tremors, a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from this breath, and slurred speech. He was then asked to perform various roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, walk and turn, and finger to nose. He also had the defendant estimate the passage of 30 seconds in his head otherwise known as the Rhomberg balance. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a urine test.
The defendant had Delta 8 marijuana in his car which is legal. He stated that is all he uses. It was unknown whether he was impaired by the legal Delta 8 or the illegal Delta 9 marijuana.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he displayed cognitive deficiencies. For example, he could not find his cell phone even though it was on his lap, and also was forgetful while speaking to the officer. The defendant appeared unsteady and swayed while he stood. He then performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Officers located the defendant and her car parked at a 45 degree angle on the shoulder of a roadway. Officers had been dispatched to a BOLO about a car missing an entire left front tire and a seemingly impaired driver. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and a flushed face. She also had thick/slurred speech and didn't remember how the tire came off. She then performed various roadside tests such as the Rhomberg balance (estimate 30 seconds), alphabet, one leg stand, and walk and turn. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
When officers arrived, the defendant was standing at her back bumper. It could not be determined if there was a crash or not. Under Florida Statute 901.15, when there is no crash, an officer must observe all elements of the misdemeanor in their presence. (i.e. the defendant either driving and/or in actual physical control). If not, the arrest is unlawful.
The defendant was found asleep in his car while it was running. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he appeared unsteady. Beer was also found in the car. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn and HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
The State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control because he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle while being passed out.
Officers were called to a 7-11 reference a suspicions person call. When officers arrived, the defendant pulled out of the parking lot and drove up on the curb. The defendant then followed a van too closely and ran a stop sign. He then drove off the roadway and the officer conducted a traffic stop. There was no odor of alcohol, but the officer observed droopy eye lids, bloodshot eyes, and he handed the officer a health insurance card instead of his driver’s license. He also staggered, stumbled, and swayed. He had a dazed look and appeared sleepy. Believing he was impaired by drugs, he then performed various roadside tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. At the station, he also submitted to a DRE (drug recognition exam). He later provided a urine sample which revealed a positive result for a controlled substance after being tested by FDLE.
Issues were presented to the State by the defense as to contradictions between the DRE exam field sobriety tests done at the station versus the roadside tests done as the scene.
After several discussions with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, they Dropped the DUI.
After several negotiations with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol, noticed glassy/watery eyes, and the defendant appeared unsteady. The defendant also admitted to having drank beer. After performing several field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .086 and .083 in the breath machine.
The firm pointed out to the State that based on the evidence, such as witness statements, police reports, and the physical evidence, it was unclear whether the defendant or the other car was at fault. In addition, on tape, the defendant did not have any blank look and was totally responsive and coherent. Furthermore, her speech sounded normal on tape, and not slurred.
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.
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.