| Oct 5, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-005861 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving inside his lane of travel and drifting over the lane markers. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick tongued speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming a few drinks. He had clumsy movements, was unsteady, and he also swayed. A Coors light bottle was found in the car. He then performed field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the officer wrote he stepped off the line, raised his arms for balance, and missed heel to toe. After performing the one leg stand and finger to nose exercises, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Based on the officer's reports, he had made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk. However, the videotape contradicted those reports. Those inconsistencies were pointed out to the State by the firm. | |
| 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, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-032188 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after an officer observed him drifting to the right and over the fog line numerous times over the course of about two miles. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have slightly slurred speech, dry mouth, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and the defendant admitted to having consumed one or two drinks earlier in the night. That officer then called for a DUI officer to come to the scene. The DUI officer made similar observations. That officer also observed the defendant exit his truck slowly, walk slowly, and sway while he stood. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he took 24 steps instead of 18, used his arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand, he hopped all over the place, started kicking his leg forward and backwards, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The entire incident, including the driving pattern, was captured on video. This was the defendant's Second DUI within a five year period. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Upon cross examination of the officer who stopped the defendant, the defense got the officer to admit that he never even smelled an odor of alcohol. Upon further questioning on cross examination, the officer stated "maybe it was the wind." The defense then asked the officer sarcastically if there was wind in the defendant's truck as he looked in and spoke with defendant. The testimony was not credible. After he testified, the State agreed with the defense that his testimony was not credible and agreed to Drop the DUI in the middle of trial, before the arresting officer even took the stand. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 3, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-007789 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | An officer came into contact with defendant as she was sitting at a traffic light when he observed her car to have heavy front end damage and smoke coming from under the hood. Upon contact, airbags had been deployed and the defendant stated "she thinks she may have hit a mailbox." The officer observed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the defendant admitted to having consumed shots of Hennessy. After performing the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one legs stand, and finger to nose exercises, she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .094 and .095 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to show that both breath results could have been under the legal limit of .08. Also, the officer did not have an in-car camera, nor did he ever call for one. His police reports were not detailed and provided no specifics of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 2, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-004862 | Judge Starr |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and red eyes. Her demeanor was slow and she had slurred speech. The defendant was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests. She performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .211 and .213 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After the firm had pretrial talks with the prosecutor, the State agreed to Drop the DUI on the day of trial. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 2, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-005773 | Judge Drake |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car. The car was parked in a parking space in the parking lot of the restaurant he had just ate at. The officer who found the defendant, noticed a pile of vomit outside his car. After the officer knocked on the window, the defendant stepped out of the car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and other signs of impairment so he called for a DUI unit. That officer made similar DUI observations including slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also admitted to having consumed at least 5 drinks. He then performed the field sobriety tests. He performed poorly on video and was arrested for DUI . After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, a person who is actual physical control must have the "capability" to operate that vehicle. Here, the defendant had the keys to the rental car in his pocket according to the first officer. The DUI officer, on tape, kept trying to tell the defendant that the other officer told him that the engine was on and the keys were in the ignition. That was a lie as the first officer overheard it and even came over and told him the keys were not in the engine. Thus, the arresting officer's credibility was clearly called into question. In addition, the defendant had "no capability" of operating that vehicle while not only sleeping, but the keys were in his pocket. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received NO conviction at all on his record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 28, 2017 | Case: 16-022258MU10A | Judge Levy |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for straddling the lane markers, weaving, and driving under the speed limit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he seemed disoriented. He also observed watery eyes and the defendant had trouble finding his documents. The defendant was unsteady and staggered. He then performed the roadside tests very poorly and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion of a crime, to lawfully stop the defendant. Upon cross examination of the motion by the defense, the officer could not provide any specifics as to the driving pattern, such as how many time the defendant allegedly weaved and straddled the lane markers. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the case law, the Judge granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State then Dismissed the DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Sep 20, 2017 | Case: A6MKYTE | Judge Bedinghaus |
| Facts: | An anonymous caller called the police via 911 stating that the defendant was driving at a very high rate of speed and weaving all over the road. The officer located the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. Upon making contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he was staggering and unsteady. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .108 and .097 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Under the law, an officer can only stop a person based on an anonymous tip if there is corroboration. In other words, the officer must see something consistent with the driving pattern relayed by the caller for the traffic stop to be lawful. Here, the officer saw no driving pattern prior to conducting the traffic stop. This was brought to the attention of the State and the DUI was Dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 | Case: 17-CT-500731 | Judge Adams |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and driving erratically. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer and he was observed to be leaning on his vehicle for support. The defendant then performed the HGN (eyes test), one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The officer in this case wrote a very vague report. The police report contained very few details of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, as they all would have been on the officer's body camera. The State is under an ongoing obligation to provide any material/relevant discovery to the defendant. In this case, the defense was not provided the officer's body camera. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 | Case: 17-CT-501344 | Judge Hayward |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted to drinking margaritas. Upon walking over to the sidewalk for field sobriety tests, the defendant tripped on the curb and fell over. She then performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Prior to the trial date, the firm had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. The State then agreed to Drop the DUI and the defendant received No conviction at all on her record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 5, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-500872 | Judge Paluck |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his running car in front of a convenience store. Officers knocked on his window with negative results in an attempt to wake him up. They then opened the door and finally awoke the defendant. They noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also had a pale face and constricted pupils. The defendant would not initially get out of the car, so the officers immediately tased him and then placed him in cuffs. He was then arrested for resisting an officer without violence and DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for trial. The firm pointed out to the State that the officers prematurely tased him as heard by the conversation in the video and then the screaming. The videotape was not facing the defendant or his car at any time. Also, the officers never even asked the defendant to perform field sobriety exercises nor did they conduct any type of actual DUI investigation. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received No conviction on the resisting charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-001605 | Judge S. Jewitt |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped because a 911 caller had stated to the police that the defendant as driving all over the road. There was also evidence that she may have hit a cement barrier. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow motor skills, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had consumed a few drinks at a friends house. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests at the request of the officer. She performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .168 and .167 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial talks with the State, we pointed out how the defendant's first language was not English. It was clear on the video that she did not understand any of the instructions on the roadside tests that the officers were giving her. In addition, she did not understand the implied consent warnings prior to being offered a breath test. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 24, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-049101 | Judge Naberhaus |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his car in a McDonald's parking lot. Upon awakening the defendant, officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his speech was incoherent. He was unsteady exiting his car and his dexterity was clumsy. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he used his arms for balance and took an incorrect number of steps. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he blew a .162 and .174 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer misled (coerced) the defendant into believing that if he took the breath test, he can continue to drive by obtaining a work permit, however, if he refused, he could not get one. That was a misstatement of the law. Prior to the motion hearing, the State agreed with our position after being provided all the applicable case law and Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 22, 2017 | Case: 2015-CT-008603 | Judge Bell |
| Facts: | Officers made contact with the defendant, while she was sitting in her car in a parking garage, after a call had gone out about a girl being hit by a guy. The defendant was the female in question. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. He then asked her to step out of the vehicle and observed slurred speech, bloodshot/dilated eyes, and she was swaying. She was then asked to perform field sobriety tests to which she refused. She as then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The officer had informed the defendant that if she refused the field sobriety tests, her license would be suspended. That was a misstatement of the law as one's license is only suspended for refusing a breath, blood, or urine test. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction at all. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 | Case: 17-CT-000168 | Judge Cupp |
| Facts: | Police arrived after being called to a crash whereby the defendant had backed into another car. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, watery eyes, and slow/slurred speech. The defendant stated she had drank wine and beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .154 and .151 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | When the officers arrived, there was no damage to the vehicles, thus, by definition in the case law, there was no crash (accident). Since the defendant was outside her car when the police arrived, and there was no crash exception, she was unlawfully arrested pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15 as no officer observed her behind the wheel. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 | Case: 2017-CM-000865 | Judge Lelfler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and his movements were slow and uncoordinated. The defendant was asked several times to put his slice of pizza away, yet he kept eating. At one point, he was removed by force by the police as he would not exit the car and continued to keep eating the pizza. No field sobriety tests were conducted due to the defendant's belligerence and disregard for police commands. He was arrested for DUI and also resisting an officer without violence. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Days before trial, after negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the resting charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 15, 2017 | Case: 16-022638MU10A | Judge Pole |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his car at a traffic light. Upon waking the defendant, he took his foot off the brake and started rolling forward. The defendant's car eventually stopped after rolling up on a curb. Officers immediately noticed a Corona bottle in the car and the defendant was sweating profusely. They then noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and glossy eyes. The defendant was asked to perform the roadside tests, to which he refused after being advised of the adverse consequences of refusing. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for trial. Although the officer stated in her reports that the defendant refused the roadside tests, the video contradicted that allegation. In fact, after being placed in cuffs, the defendant asked several times to be allowed to take the tests. The officer's credibility was now being called into question as her reports were contradicted by the video tape. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 15, 2017 | Case: 16-009972MU10A | Judge Solomon |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officer arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she was very unsteady on her feet. The defendant used her vehicle for support on a few occasions. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she almost fell and the exercise was terminated for her safety. On the HGN (eye test), she did not follow the stimulus with her eyes and looked straight ahead. She was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton took pre trial depositions of the officers and civilians involved in the case. All of the officers' sworn testimony contradicted each other’s and also the testimony of the civilians involved in the crash. The firm announced ready for trial and on the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 14, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-000815NC | Judge Denkin |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant stated he had been drinking beer that night. He was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According to the officer, he exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew over the legal limit by providing breath samples of a .088 and .082 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer coerced the defendant into taking a breath test by advising the defendant that he can get a work permit and continue to drive if he took a breath test, however, if he refused, he would not be able to get a hardship license nor continue to drive. The Judge watched the video, read the applicable case law, heard argument of counsel, and then Granted the motion. The breath test results were then excluded from evidence. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction at all on his record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 14, 2017 | Case: 17-CT-000533 | Judge M. Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol and the defendant appeared very confused as to her direction of travel. EMS was called to the scene to check the defendant out for any medical issues. After being cleared medically, the defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. She then performed the HGN (eye), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. According to the officer, she did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | In order to conduct field sobriety tests, an officer must have "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (i.e. that the defendant was impaired) in order to administer roadside tests. Here, there was a lack of "reasonable suspicion" thus the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-023394 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he was unsteady exiting his car. The defendant admitted to drinking and there were some beer bottles in the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State that the video contradicted the officer's police reports. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. Yet on video, that was not the case. Also, he had written that the defendant was unsteady, however, he was not off balance or unsteady at all on tape. Since the officer's credibility was being called into question, the State Dropped the DUI just prior to the trial date. | |
| 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.