| Feb 14, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-503301 | Judge Gonzalez |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for swerving. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, as well as an odor of marijuana coming from the defendant. The officer noticed slurred speech, glossy eyes, and the defendant fumbled with his items. The defendant had crumbs on his shorts which appeared to be marijuana to the officer. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks. For example, on the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. After his arrest for DUI, he refused a breath and urine sample. The officer also found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in a search incident to arrest. The defendant was also charged with possession of marijuana and paraphernalia. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State on the day of the trial. We pointed out various contradictions within the officer's reports. Furthermore, there were contradictions in his reports versus what was captured on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the two possession charges. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Brevard DUI Lawyer
ALSO SERVING VOLUSIA, Saint Lucie, Seminole, Orange and Osceola counties
Also Serving Volusia, Saint Lucie, Seminole, Orange and Osceola counties
OUR RECENT VICTORIES
| Feb 1, 2017 | Case: 2015-CT-048387 | Judge Koons |
| Facts: | An anonymous caller called 911 stating they observed a "reckless driver unable to maintain a lane of travel." The officer spotted the vehicle in question, which was the defendant, and observed him touch a lane marker one time. The officer then initiated a traffic stop. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he stated he had consumed 3 to 4 beers. He then performed the field sobriety exercises and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The defendant stated after his rights were read that he felt the effects of the alcohol and should not have been driving. He also blew a .123 and .120 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped by the police. Pursuant to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts, in order to stop a defendant based on an anonymous tip, the officer must corroborate the tip. Here, the officer did not observe any reckless driving, nor any failure to maintain a lane of travel. In fact, the officer wrote in her report the defendant "crossed" over the white line of travel. However, on video, the defendant merely touched the lane marker. Prior to the motion hearing date, the state agreed to drop the DUI based on the case law. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-017199 | Judge Bryson |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and swerving. The officer observed the defendant to have blood shot eyes and she was confused in providing the appropriate documents to the officer. The officer noticed what he believed to be and alcoholic beverage in her car. Believing she was impaired, he requested her to perform roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, she almost fell over and asked if she had to count to 600, not 30 as instructed. On the walk and turn, the defendant crisscrossed her feet, did not touch heel to toe, and and instead of counting out loud, she raised her fingers to her nose. She was then arrested for DUI. Subsequently, she refused both breath and urine tests. | |
| Defense: | In Florida, to be convicted of DUI, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol, a chemical and/or chemical controlled substance. Here the State could not prove by what substance the defendant was allegedly impaired by as there was no odor of alcohol noted. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 23, 2017 | Case: 8505-XEZ | Judge Riba |
| Facts: | The defendant was first observed by an undercover Detective as the defendant appeared to be following behind him for a lengthy period of time and distance. The detective radioed out that he believed he was being followed. Another Deputy then got behind the defendant and observed him slow down, brake heavily, and almost come to a stop in the roadway. The officer turned on his lights and sirens and pulled the defendant over. He then called for a DUI unit. Upon the DUI officer making contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy/droopy eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant stated that he did not want to take a breath test because he did not want to take the risk that he was over the legal limit. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. At the motion hearing, we argued the officer's belief that the defendant was following him did not rise to a "reasonable suspicion of a crime." Also, upon cross examination, the officers could not articulate any specific traffic infractions that were committed. Thus, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause to believe there were any any traffic infractions committed justifying the stop. Based on the testimony, case law provided, and legal argument, the Judge granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed | |
| Jan 23, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-022192 | Judge Eissey |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant crossing over the white lane markers numerous times. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. A DUI officer was then called to the scene. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. According to the officer, she exhibited several clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The defense brought to the State's attention that although the first cop smelled an odor of alcohol, the DUI cop did not. Also, the first officer stated he did not observe balance issues, yet the DUI officer wrote she was off balance. Also, the DUI officer did not observe the angle of onset in the defendant's eyes prior to 45 degrees on the HGN test, which would be present if one was impaired by alcohol. Due to the numerous conflicts between the two officer's testimony, the DUI was dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Jan 19, 2017 | Case: 2015-CT-072385 | Judge Irizarry |
| Facts: | The defendant was found in his car by the police as it had went off the road into a ditch. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He noticed the defendant to stagger, be unsteady, and sway. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had a jury trial over a year ago with the same officer. In that case, the defendant was found Not Guilty. In the current case, as was with our older case that went to trial, the officer did the same thing by exaggerating each defendant's impairment in his reports versus what was captured on tape. The firm then brought this to the attention of the State as this officer continually did not tell the truth in his reports even though he had a camera. The firm did an investigation and found out that just prior to our court date, the officer had been caught lying in his reports in another unrelated case by his department and punished. | |
| Result: | The State Dismissed the DUI. | |
| Jan 18, 2017 | Case: 2016-CF-011479 | Judge Craner |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed two beers. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and alphabet tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .112 and .110 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI and he was charged with a felony DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State that there was misinformation of the law provided by the officer to the defendant prior to him submitting to the breath test. Thus, the only reason the defendant provided the breath samples was because of the misstatement of the law. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no DUI conviction. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 17, 2017 | Case: 8083-XEV | Judge Wolfson |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a T-bone crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/stuttered speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was trying to eat chicken while seated in his car to mask the smell of the alcohol. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted that this was the defendant's fourth DUI arrest. The firm represented him on the the last two DUI cases and both DUI's were Dropped. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida Law, a defendant has to be brought to trial on a county court DUI within 90 days. Here, due to discovery violations by the State, the defense did not waive speedy trial. On the day of jury trial, the DUI was dismissed. This was now the third DUI in a row the firm won for this client. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-011954 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed two or three drinks and the officer observed him swaying. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down, raised his arms for balance, and counted improperly. On the finger to nose, he missed touching the tip of his nose and also swayed. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer's observations in all of the police reports were contradicted by the video tape. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-016892 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was pulled over for making a wide left turn. Once stopped, the police officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy/blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank one beer. He then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .116 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Florida law states that in order for a person to be convicted of DUI, the defendant must have an unlawful breath alcohol level "at the time of driving." Here, the defense was able to show that the defendant was absorbing alcohol and that his breath alcohol level was actually under the legal limit at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-010238 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot watery eyes. The defendant denied drinking any alcohol and admitted to having taken Xanax. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests at the request of the officer. According the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's third DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's speech was not slurred on video tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report. Also, the officer stated that the defendant showed several cues of impairment on the one leg stand test. However, it was clear on tape that the officer was causing the defendant to mess up by repeatedly interrupting him throughout the test. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 14, 2016 | Case: 15-02945MU10A | Judge Evans |
| Facts: | The defendant was the driver of a motorcycle with a female passenger on the back. A car next to the motorcycle noticed that the two were arguing. When the light turned green the motorcycle accelerated. The car lost sight of the motorcycle for a few seconds. At the next intersection, the driver of the car noticed the female passenger injured on the ground. The male driver was standing away from the bike. Officers responded to the scene and observed the defendant to have a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant performed a series of field sobriety tests and was ultimately arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's 4th DUI offense. At the police station, he blew a .163 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks and Braxton filed a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was arrested unlawfully. Specifically, all elements of a DUI must be witnessed by a law enforcement officer in order to make a valid arrest. The exception to the rule is when an accident occurred. However, the civilian witness lost sight of the motorcycle. She could not testify whether there was an accident or whether the female passenger simply fell of the bike. The motion to suppress was granted and the breath test was excluded from evidence. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 12, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-005862 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag and weaving within his lane of travel. The officer noticed the defendant to have a strong odor of alcohol on this breath, extremely bloodshot eyes, and a relaxed appearance. The defendant had delayed reflexes and admitted to consuming 2 vodka drinks and 2 beers. The officer, who was a DRE (drug recognition expert), also suspected marijuana use and kept questioning the defendant if he had smoked pot. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. After doing the tests, he was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the defense pointed out that there were no specific indicators displayed by the defendant pointing to the fact that he was under the influence of marijuana per the actual DRE manual. Also, the officer's description of the defendant's roadside tests were contradicted by the video tape. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-005963 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank whiskey. The officer did not smell an odor of marijuana, but kept asking the defendant if he had smoked that night. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or a controlled substance along with alcohol, asked the defendant to provide a urine sample. The sample came back from the FDLE lab positive for marijuana and MDMA. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, an officer has to have "reasonable cause" that a defendant is under the influence of a chemical and/or a controlled substance to ask for a urine sample. Here, since the defendant made no statements about taking any drugs, the officer did not smell any pot, nor did he attempt to conduct a DRE (drug recognition exam), there was no reasonable cause to request a urine sample. Thus, it would have been thrown out of evidence. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-002582 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by an officer at a gas station passed out behind the wheel. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking and gave inconsistent statements to the officer. That officer then called for a DUI unit who made similar observations. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests and he refused. After being told of the adverse consequences of refusing, he was arrested for DUI. The defendant refused to take the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | In order to request a defendant to roll down their window, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, the officer merely believed that the defendant was sleeping and was not sick or injured. Thus, his order for the defendant to roll his window down was unlawful. Since that initial contact with the defendant was unlawful, all evidence thereafter would have been excluded due to an unlawful seizure pursuant to the 4th amendment. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-014361 | Judge Weis |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant told the officer she had drank "five" beers that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took and incorrect number of steps, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down, swayed , and used her arms for balance. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The officer had the defendant perform the field sobriety tests on the side of the interstate highway. As she was performing the tasks, cars and trucks were driving by at high rates of speed very close to the testing area. It was very dark, loud, and the road appeared to be very slanted on the video tape. Thus, it was unclear if her performance on the roadside tests was due to alcohol versus the conditions under which the defendant performed the tests. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 | Case: A0Z1CGP | Judge Wolfson |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officers arrived at the scene, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. He then performed the field sobriety tests and exhibited several clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .187 and .181 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | There were issues with the defendant's breath test as one of the control tests was reading high. Thus, his breath readings could have been skewed higher than what was actually in his system. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-011070 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and stopping past the stop bar. The defendant stated he had a couple of drinks. He had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked for perform field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .088 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what the officer had wrote in her report. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath test results could have been under the legal limit. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 17, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-007096 | Judge Bell |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a red light and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to having consumed beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .098 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Since there is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two test results could have been under the legal limit. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 16, 2016 | Case: 2015-CT-001899 | Judge Blechman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have a pale face and appeared to be confused. No odor of alcohol was observed. The defendant's speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot. Believing the defendant may be impaired, he was detained at the scene. While he was being detained, the officer had called for K-9 units. As the dogs sniffed the car, they alerted the officers. A small amount of marijuana was found. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition exam) was conducted to determine if the defendant was under the influence of drugs. He then submitted to a urine sample which later tested positive at the toxicology lab for marijuana. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida case law, a defendant cannot be detained longer than necessary for the officer to write a traffic citation when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, on video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he didn't appear to be confused. There was no odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's person, nor any odor of alcohol. After doing the research, the case law was clear that the defendant was detained on video tape longer than necessary for the officer to have written the citation for an obscured tag. Also, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI) to justify detaining him as the video contradicted the officer's report. The officers never charged the defendant with possession of marijuana. Due to the unlawful detention, the DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
OBTAIN IMMEDIATE LEGAL HELP
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.