| Oct 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-006084 | Judge Shoemaker |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane and speeding. Once stopped, officers observed him to have an odor of alcohol, he admitted to consuming 4 beers, and had glassy eyes. The defendant had trouble answering simple questions and appeared dazed. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and a .185 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with the State. We pointed out various inconsistencies in the officer’s reports. Since there was no video, his credibility was now called into question. | |
| 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
| Oct 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-MM-001277APK | Judge Hamilton |
| Facts: | A BOLO (be on the lookout) for the defendant and his vehicle was issued after a person reported him stumbling around his truck and appearing intoxicated prior to driving. After the defendant drove off, another person observed him driving all over the road. A deputy spotted the defendant and his vehicle as he was parked on the side of the road. The officer activated his emergency lights and made contact with the defendant. He observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. His face was flushed and his eyelids were droopy. The defendant stumbled and almost fell while outside his truck. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | In order to conduct a traffic stop based on the above tip, there must be corroboration of that tip. Here, the officer never observed any driving and activated his lights, thus detaining him illegally. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 4, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-008549 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he lost his balance during the instructions, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, used his arms for balance, and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on the videotape, the officer misstated the law as to the defendant's obligation to perform the voluntary exercises. Prior to arguing the motion, the State was provided the case law and agreed the officer coerced the defendant into performing them. Thus, all the roadside evidence would have been excluded. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 1, 2018 | Case: 18-CT-502148 | Judge Paluck |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Once contact was made, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to consuming beer. He also admitted to having taken numerous controlled substances prescribed to him. He then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He was then arrested for DUI. He took a breath test and blew a. 134 and a .126 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The defendant's performance on the videotaped roadside tests clearly showed that the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 27, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-019665 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving under the speed limit. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, a flushed face, and his eyes were bloodshot. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He performed poorly on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .107 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted on a well lit and level surface according the NHTSA manual. Here, the defendant was given the exercises on a dark and very visibly sloped road. It was evident that a mishaps on the exercise were from the conditions, and not alcohol. The defendant can even be seen pointing to the road and its slope while conversing with the officer. This was discussed with the prosecutor. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 27, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-019686 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The defendant admitted to having drank a couple of beers. The officer had the defendant perform the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, and finger count exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | There must be reasonable suspicion of a crime to request roadside tasks. In other words, there must be some evidence of impairment. Here, there was none and the roadsides would have potentially been excluded from evidence. Also, it was unclear why the officer did not give the two nationally standardized exercises (ie. the walk and turn and one leg stand). Yet, he chose to give the finger count test which is typically given in boating under the influence cases. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-000601CTAXES | Judge Sestak |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault diver in a sideswipe crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and glassy eyes. He swayed as he stood and repeated his questions. The defendant refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He also refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, a person can only be requested to provide a breath test after being arrested. Here, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior the DUI arrest. The firm then filed a motion to exclude the refusal. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing field sobriety tests. The firm also filed a motion to exclude that refusal too. Finally, the officer never read the defendant his Miranda rights. The firm also filed a motion to suppress his statements under Florida's accident report privilege. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-000007CTAXES | Judge Sestak |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer did not smell alcohol, but observed her eyes to be glassy and have constricted and dilated pupils. She fumbled with her documents and her coordination was slow. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she was asked to perform field sobriety tests. She performed poorly on all the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. She subsequently provided a urine sample. After being analyzed by FDLE, it revealed a positive result for numerous controlled substances. | |
| Defense: | The defendant suffered from many medical illnesses. In fact, on tape she was trying to tell them about her illnesses and injuries, but the officers did not want to hear any of it. The firm brought this and her medical issues to the attention of the State. It was obvious that her illness caused the impairment, not any drugs. Also, the State could not prove whether those drugs were in her system at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 | Case: 16-022352MU10A | Judge Evans |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a hit and run crash. A call went out with a description of the defendant's vehicle. An officer spotted it and observed the defendant's vehicle with no headlights. The officer had to use his lights and sirens to get the defendant to finally stop. Upon contact, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, he appeared slow and confused, had slurred speech, and he was very unsteady. Damage was also observed on the vehicle. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident where four people were hurt, driving with a suspended license, and Second refusal to take breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the refusal to perform roadside tests because no adverse consequences were given. The firm relied on the lead appellate case in Florida, State v. Thrift, in which Parks & Braxton had argued successfully on appeal, that without adverse consequences being given, the refusal to perform field sobriety tests should be inadmissible. Also, the arresting officer testified in a pretrial deposition taken by the firm, that a video recorded the defendant at the station. The firm then subpoenaed the records custodian of all videos from the police department who testified at a deposition that there was no video. Thus, the officer was caught in a lie. The State the Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 13, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-003378 | Judge Weis |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for cutting in front of an officer and speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he appeared unsteady. The defendant had thick tongued speech and stated that he had consumed a beer and a shot. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The video contradicted the officer's reports in many ways which was pointed out to the State. For example, the defendant's speech was not thick tongued and he did not appear unsteady. Also, the officer exaggerated the defendant's level of impairment on the field sobriety tests in his reports which was contradicted by the tape. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 12, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-000100 | Judge Myers |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding, weaving all over the road, and failing to drive through light cycles. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She exhibited unstable balance and kept repeating herself. The defendant was arrested after performing the field sobriety tests. She subsequently blew a. 138 and a .138 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests contradicted her breath test results and clearly showed she was under the legal limit at the time of driving. Also, on tape the defendant's speech was not slurred and she was not off balance. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 6, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-1091 | Judge Carr |
| Facts: | Officers responded to the scene of a disturbance and an accident. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking 5 beers over a four hour period. After performing the roadsides, he was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .082 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Due to the .005 and also the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defense was able to place the defendant under the legal limit. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-001042 | Judge Crown |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having drank two glasses of wine. She then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a 114 and a .117 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The defendant's video tape contradicted the all the police reports. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-013439 | Judge T. Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in this car in a mall parking lot. When officers approached, the they had to bang on the window several times to finally get him to respond. Once he opened the door, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and glassy eyes. He swayed as he stood, stumbled, and admitted to drinking. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | On video, when asking the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests, they misstated the law. Thus, their actual knowledge of the DUI laws in Florida were called into question. Also, the defendant was not in actual physical control because he was sleeping in his car. The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 30, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-013388 | Judge Baker |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after a 911 caller called in that the defendant was driving all over the roadway. Once contact was made, the officer smelled an odor of alcohol, observed slow/mumbled speech, and dilated pupils. He also had a flushed face, slow movements, and he swayed. The officer observed several small bottles of Jim Beam alcohol in the defendant's vehicle. The defendant stated he had drank beers prior to driving. He then performed poorly on the field sobriety tests on video and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Pretrial, the firm provided several pieces of favorable evidence provided by the defendant to the State. After a review, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 | Case: 18-007792MU10A | Judge Pole |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and the defendant admitted to consuming 2 Heineken beers. He was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he failed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand and walk and turn exercises and was arrested for DUI. He subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, case law was given to the State. It stated that a mere odor of alcohol does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime to legally request field sobriety tests. Thus, all the roadsides would have been thrown out. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial and the defendant received No criminal conviction on his record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 | Case: A94VXLE | Judge Riba |
| Facts: | Officers were called to the scene for a welfare check in a gas station parking lot. They found the defendant sitting in his car texting. Upon exiting the car, the officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. He admitted to consuming two Long Island Iced Teas and had trouble maintaining his balance. The defendant only performed the HGN (eyes test) and finger to nose exercises, due to a knee injury. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | There was no legal basis set forth in the reports, or the video tape, as to why the officers were conducting a welfare check on the defendant. Thus, there was no legal basis for ordering him to exit his car. Also, the officers wrote very vague police reports. For example, there were no specifics as to what the defendant did wrong on the finger to nose. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 | Case: 2018-CF-004382 | Judge Kest |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant's movements were slow and sluggish, his face appeared droopy, and he admitted to having drank beers. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests. He was arrested for DUI. In addition, he was charged with Possession of cocaine as officers found a baggy with cocaine in his car. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The officer believed the defendant was impaired by cocaine. However, if the defendant was impaired by cocaine, he certainly would not have been acting slow and sluggish. No DRE (drug recognition exam) was ever conducted. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No felony conviction on the possession charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 21, 2018 | Case: 16-024052MU10A | Judge Lerner-Wren |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding for driving 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and watery/bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. He then performed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, walk and turn, and finger to nose exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused to provide a breath sample. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for jury trial. There was no video at the scene and the officer's reports only vaguely described the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests with no specifics. Also, the video at the station was blurry and one could only hear the defendant. His speech sounded normal versus what the officer put in his report. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-005854 | Judge Eissey |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an obstructed tag. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/glossy eyes, and she appeared confused. The defendant changed her story about where she was that night and admitted to drinking. After performing the roadside tasks, she was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | English is the defendant's second language. It was evident that she did not fully understand many of the officer's instructions being given in English. Due to the language barrier, it was clear that her performance on the tests was due to the language issue versus alcohol. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
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.