Toll-Free 888.358.4962
Local 305.655.2900
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultation
Offices Located throughout the State of Florida

17-Feb-2017|Case# 2016-CT-011561AXXX|Judge Hanser

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also had difficulty completing sentences at times. The defendant stated that he had consumed one beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and took an incorrect number of steps. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations, we pointed out various conflicts in the officer's reports versus what was on the video tape.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

16-Feb-2017|Case# 7367-XFF|Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. He also swayed while he stood and had bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According to the officer, he did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention documentation that the defendant suffered from serious mental health issues. This caused speech issues for the defendant as well as a lack of comprehension when he was being instructed on the field sobriety tests.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

14-Feb-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

1-Feb-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

26-Jan-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.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Jan-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.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed

23-Jan-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.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed.

19-Jan-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.

The Result

The State Dismissed the DUI.

18-Jan-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

17-Jan-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.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed.

11-Jan-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.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jan-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

9-Jan-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

14-Dec-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

12-Dec-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

1-Dec-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

1-Dec-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

30-Nov-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

29-Nov-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

29-Nov-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

17-Nov-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.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

16-Nov-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.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed.

10-Nov-2016|Case# 2016-CM-004139|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped as she entered the middle of an intersection at a steady red light. The officer, who was at the intersection and observed her infraction, then stopped the defendant. Upon approaching the car, he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's car and her person. He also observed a green leafy substance in the defendant's mouth and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was off balance, unsteady, and swayed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, she performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she provided a urine sample. That sample came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana.

Defense

The officer's reports were contradicted by the video. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. However, on tape it appeared she never stepped off the line. The officer also wrote that she was unsteady. However, on tape, she appeared to be standing normally. In addition, the officer wrote that the defendant had an odor of alcohol, but he never even asked her for a breath test. These examples, plus many other contradictions, were brought to the State's attention a week before trial.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

9-Nov-2016|Case# 16-001582CT|Judge Martin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving in the wrong lane of travel. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red eyes. While talking to the defendant at the car, the defendant stated to the officer that he "had a little bit to much drink." He was then asked to performed field sobriety tests. He then responded "that he would fail. " After unsuccessful attempts to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, he was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test.

Defense

The defendant denied making those statements. In addition, he told the officer he had recent head trauma issues which would cause him to be off balance and fail any physical tests. This created doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his head trauma.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

7-Nov-2016|Case# 2016-CT-006984|Judge Miller

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick/rambling speech, and his gait was jerky and very unsteady. The defendant told the officer that he had drank a bucket of beer. He then performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .127 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

The officer gave the defendant misinformation about the penalties of refusing a breath test. Thus, by misstating the law, he coerced the defendant into taking the breath test.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

7-Nov-2016|Case# 2016-CT-010873AXXX-XX|Judge Koons

Facts

The defendant was stopped after a caller on 911 stated that the defendant was driving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated he had drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

The defendant stated on videotape that his legs were almost totally disabled from the military. Yet, the officer still had him perform the physical tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. The defendant did not perform well on tape , however, it was unclear from the video whether any impairment was due to alcohol vs. his disability. Due to the conflict in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

1-Nov-2016|Case# 2016-CT-009442|Judge Farr

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. Once stopped by the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, droopy eyelids, and a sleepy appearance. The defendant stated she had drank a margarita and was swaying outside the car. She then agreed to perform HGN (eye test). After that test, she refused to perform any other field sobriety tasks and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

On video, the defendant was not swaying and did not appear to be sleepy on video. She was responsive, coherent and answering all the officer's questions. Thus, the officer's reports were contradicted by the in car camera. The defense announced ready for trial and just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

1-Nov-2016|Case# 2016-CT-041815|Judge Garagozlo

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving up on a curb. When stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred/mumbled speech and he fumbled with his license. No odor of alcohol was observed. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by something, asked him to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant performed poorly. For example, on the one leg stand, he used his arms for balance and put his foot down. On the walk and turn, he did not count out loud, did not touch heel to toe, and had difficulty maintaining his balance. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Under Florida law, a person has to be impaired by a alcohol, a specific chemical, and/or controlled substance to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove by what specific substance the defendant was impaired. After reviewing the discovery, the firm then pointed this out to the State and the DUI was dismissed.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed.

31-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-006428|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed and making an improper lane change. He allegedly came within seven feet of the officer's bumper who then initiated a traffic stop. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he used his door for support, and swayed while standing. The defendant admitted to having drank 3 beers. He then performed the field sobriety tests on video. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down numerous times and could not keep his balance. On the finger to nose, he left his finger on his nose without removing it as instructed and also missed the tip of his nose on all attempts. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

The defendant was never paced clocked and no radar device was used to show that the defendant was driving over the speed limit. Also, the defendant never interfered with the safe operation of the officer's patrol car as required by Florida Statutes. Thus, the defendant did not violate any traffic laws and the issue of the defendant having being unlawfully stopped was brought to the State's attention. The State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

31-Oct-2016|Case# 15-029720MU10A|Judge Gottlieb

Facts

The defendant was found by the officer passed out in his car in a travel lane. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. When the defendant was asked how much he had to drink, he replied "too much." The defendant made threatening comments and movements towards the officer so no roadside tests were conducted. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

The firm conducted a pretrial investigation into this arresting officer's background. It was discovered that he had a history of incidents of misconduct, including incidents involving untruthfulness. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dismissed.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed.

27-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-005429|Judge Bell

Facts

The defendant was stopped after an officer saw him hit a shopping cart being pushed by a pedestrian. He then caught up to the defendant and observed an odor of alcohol and he had a difficult time walking. A DUI unit was called. That officer observed an odor of alcohol, droopy eyelids, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had maybe 2, 4, or 6 drinks. He then performed the roadside tasks. On the one leg stand, the defendant almost fell over and the exercise was stopped. On the walk and turn, he used his arms for balance, stepped off the line, and did not understand many, if not all, of the instructions. The defendant was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI and Second refusal to submit to a breath test.

Defense

The arresting officer's report, which stated that the initial officer saw the defendant driving, was not true. That initial officer had stated that he heard the sound of a crash and then saw the defendant walking down the road. Thus, the two officers contradicted each other and no witness observed the defendant either driving or in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

25-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-006266|Judge Wilson

Facts

The defendant ran a red light and collided with another car. When the police arrived, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, and droopy/red eyes. He was also staggering and stumbling around. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance, counted incorrectly, and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

On video, the officer is seen and heard reading the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant requested a lawyer, however, the officer then proceeds to tell the defendant that he is "still required" to perform the roadside tests under the law. That statement was misinformation and a misstatement of the law as roadside tasks voluntary. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

24-Oct-2016|Case# 8622-XEQ|Judge Wolfson

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Due to discovery violations committed by the State, Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the day of trial, there was a speedy trial violation due to those discovery issues and the DUI was Dismissed.

The Result

The DUI was Dismissed.

13-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-002508CTAXMS|Judge Hitzeman

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/incoherent speech, and he was lethargic. The defendant leaned against the vehicle for balance and also had bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance, put his foot down, and he hopped. On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, and took an incorrect number of steps. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton discovered several inconsistencies in the officer's police reports and brought them to the attention of the prosecutor. After discussing the case with the State, they Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

13-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-009566|Judge Weis

Facts

The defendant was found asleep in his car in someone's driveway. 911 callers alerted police to the vehicle after they observed the defendant driving all over the road. When the officer arrived, he found the defendant passed out in the driver's seat. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant was not making any sense while talking and was incoherent. He was very off balance and had trouble standing. The defendant was only able to perform the finger to nose test. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton argued that despite being found in the driver's seat, the defendant did not have the capability to operate the motor vehicle at the time the officer arrived. As a result, the defendant was not in actual physical control of the motor vehicle in the presence of the officer.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

11-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-017045|Judge Koenig

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant also had bloodshot/watery eyes and his movements were "slow and deliberate." When asked to exit the vehicle, the defendant used the car to maintain his balance and he swayed while standing outside the car. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks and to provide a breath test. He refused both and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Under the law, a defendant who refuses the field sobriety tests must be advised of the "adverse consequences" for refusing. Here, the defendant was never told of any consequences for refusing. Also, under Florida law, a defendant can only be asked to take a breath test "after" being lawfully arrested. In this case, the defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath "prior" to being arrested for DUI in violation of the law.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

11-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-007634|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was stopped for drifting back and forth over the lane markers on at least five different occasions. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 2 to 3 Blue Moon draft beers. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks on video tape. After performing the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand tests, he was arrested for DUI.

Defense

On video, the defendant told the officer prior to performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tasks, he had very bad knees and may have trouble doing them. The officer still proceeded the have the defendant do them. It was unclear on tape whether any alleged impairment cues observed by the officer were due to alcohol or his bad balance from having two bad knees. Those physical exercises were contradicted by his performance on the non-physical finger to nose exercise.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

11-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-021995AXXX-XX|Judge Clarke

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, slurred/confused speech, and a red face. The defendant told the officer she had a few beers with dinner. The defendant used the steering wheel for support upon exiting the car and struggled to remove her seat-belt. Upon being asked to perform the roadside tests, the defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and refused to perform any others. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred which contradicted the officer's report. Also, the defendant was not told of the consequences for her refusal to perform the rest of the field sobriety tests which was in violation of Florida case law. Thus, her refusal would have been excluded as evidence.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

5-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CF-001190|Judge Briggs

Facts

A person called 911 alerting police that the defendant was highly intoxicated at a gas station. Officers arrived on the scene and came into contact with the defendant as he was pulling out. As one officer approached the defendant, his window was down, and the officer smelled an odor of alcohol. He also observed bloodshot eyes and slurred/mumbled speech. The officer asked the defendant to then step out of the car. The officer observed the defendant to sway, have poor coordination, and he admitted to drinking beer. Due to the heavy rain, all three officers on scene asked the defendant to step in front of the gas station entrance to perform roadside tasks in a dry area. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance and put his foot down a number of times. On the walk and turn test, he missed heel to toe, lost his balance during the instructions, and raised his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test. The defendant was charged with a Felony DUI since this was this was his Fourth DUI.

Defense

The firm took pretrial depositions of all three officers. Two officers on scene, including the DUI unit, had in-car cameras in their patrol vehicles, however, they were not utilized. The DUI officer testified under oath that she couldn't use her camera because it was raining so hard during the roadside tests and she could not get back to her car to turn it on. However, one other officer stated in deposition that the rain had stopped prior to ever even asking the defendant to perform the tests. He also had a camera in his car and when asked why he didn't utilize it, his answer was "I don't know." Also, the arresting officer stated "I don't remember" multiple times when being questioned about specific details of the field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officers contradicted each other on many aspects of the defendant's alleged impairment such as whether he actually had slurred speech or was even unsteady. The State, after reading the deposition transcripts, Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Oct-2016|Case# 2016-CT-007574|Judge Farr

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in his car in his neighbor's driveway. The neighbors had called 911 not knowing it was the defendant. When the officer arrived and awoke the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and dilated pupils. The defendant was extremely loud and uncooperative. The defendant did not perform to standards on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .119 and .121 in the breath machine.

Defense

No one ever observed the defendant driving. Thus, the State could not prove the defendant was in "actual physical control." Since he was sleeping in the car, he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle under the applicable Florida Statute.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

4-Oct-2016|Case# 16-CT-500193|Judge Hayward

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in his car in a condominium parking lot after a 911 caller noticed him slumped over the wheel. The officers attempted to wake the defendant up by knocking on the windows several times. Once he awoke, the car began to move forward until he finally put it in park. Officers noticed the defendant have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a dazed look. Once out of the car, he was swaying and appeared sleepy. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) since he had back injuries which prevented him from doing any other tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Pursuant to Florida Rule 3.220, the State has the obligation to disclose all evidence within their possession. This requirement extends to police agencies as well. Parks & Braxton determined that the police failed to adequately turn over the entire evidentiary packet. The discovery violation was brought to the attention of the Court.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

4-Oct-2016|Case# 15-026416MU10A|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, red eyes, and mumbled speech. The defendant told the officer that she had drank wine that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn task, the defendant missed heel to toe, used her arms for balance, and could not maintain her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down, used her arms for balance, and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .135 in the breath machine.

Defense

The defense brought to light an error that occurred in the machine as a result of radio frequency interference (RFI). The RFI occurred three times prior to the defendant providing her result of a .135. This RFI happening multiple times could have skewed the defendant's result to appear higher than what was her true breath alcohol level (BAC). On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

27-Sep-2016|Case# 2016-CT-032143|Judge Koons

Facts

The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the painted stop bar at a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Once out of the car, he swayed and appeared to be "unsure." The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton, in discussing the case with the prosecutor, pointed out that on tape, there was no slurred speech, no sway, and the defendant appeared to be totally coherent. Also, although the officer attempted to exaggerate the defendant's performance on the tests in his reports. The specific details written by the officer were contradicted by video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

23-Sep-2016|Case# 2016-CT-502058|Judge Swett

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost striking a curb. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had drank a glass of wine. The defendant appeared sluggish and avoided eye contact with the officer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line numerous times and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she stumbled and almost fell. She was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .105 and .095 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out that with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit (ie. .095). Also, the officer's reports about the defendant's extreme level of impairment was inconsistent with her breath test results. There was no in car camera.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

21-Sep-2016|Case# 2015-CT-001732|Judge Mcginnis

Facts

The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the stop bar at a red light and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and dry lips. Upon exiting the car, the defendant appeared off balance and unsteady and he stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests and was eventually arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, the defense and State had discussions about the case. The officer wrote a very vague report. The defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not described in any detail and there was no video tape at the scene. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

14-Sep-2016|Case# 2016-CT-005701|Judge Greco

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and hitting a curb. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish/clumsy movements. The defendant stated he had been at a club and had a couple of long island iced teas. He also stated that he was a little buzzed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out that on tape, the defendant was not clumsy or slow. In fact, he was being responsive and coherent. Also, he had no issues getting out of the car or walking around. Furthermore, the defendant's video contradicted the officer's reports as to his level of alleged impairment. It should be noted, the firm also represented the defendant on his last case four years ago and got that DUI Dropped too. In that case, he had blown a .14.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

13-Sep-2016|Case# 2015-CT-002236|Judge Hitzeman

Facts

The police were alerted to the defendant's truck by a 911 caller. The caller stated that the defendant and his passenger were passed out in a turning lane. When officers arrived, they found the defendant and his passenger asleep. The defendant was in the drivers seat, the engine was running, and the truck was in drive. When the officer reached in the truck to turn the truck off, the defendant awoke. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, a flushed face, and slow/mumbled speech. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests while still seated in the truck. He refused and was asked to exit the vehicle. The defendant was slow, lethargic, and leaned on the truck for balance. He was then placed under arrest for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton, during the pretrial discovery process, got the DUI video tape. On tape, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing the roadside tests as required by Florida law. Also, the defendant's speech was not mumbled and he did not appear off balance nor unsteady. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

30-Aug-2016|Case# 2016-CT-000957CTAXMX |Judge Roberts

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking 2-3 beers and staggered while walking. The defendant then performed the field sobriety exercises on video tape. She performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton watched the video tape during the discovery process. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and she spoke normally. Also, she never staggered and was never off balance or unsteady. Also, the alleged weaving was not captured on video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Aug-2016|Case# 16-CT-501227 |Judge Swett

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also had a dazed look. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests. He refused and was advised of the adverse consequences for refusing. The defendant still refused and was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The officer who arrested the defendant was wearing a department issued body camera. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what was written in the police reports. Also, on video, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Aug-2016|Case# 16-CT-501242 |Judge Swett

Facts

The defendant was observed by two civilians weaving on the roadway in front of them. All of the sudden, the driver's door opened and the defendant, who was the driver, fell out of the car onto the ground. The car kept going for a bit, until it ended up in a ditch. Police were called and the defendant was transported to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. Due to the defendant's high level of intoxication, no roadside tests could be conducted. The nurse told the officer that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .394 (nearly five times the legal limit).

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to various discovery issues during the pretrial process, the State was never able to retrieve the defendant's medical records. Thus, without the actual records, they wouldn't be able to introduce that blood alcohol result. On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Aug-2016|Case# 16-CT-008093 |Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car in a parking space. When the officers awoke the defendant, they asked him to step out of the car. Once outside of the car, the officers smelled an odor of alcohol, observed bloodshot and watery eyes, and the defendant staggered as he stood. When asked for his driver's license, the defendant gave the officer his bank card. At the request of the officers, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests which were captured on a body camera. According to the officers, he did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton received the body camera in discovery. Based on the video and the audio of the officers ordering the defendant to exit the car, there was no reasonable suspicion of crime (ie. DUI ) to justify ordering him out of the car. Thus, all evidence observed when the defendant was outside the car would have been excluded.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Aug-2016|Case# 2016-CT-002272 |Judge Cameron

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and the defendant had to grab the door for support while exiting the vehicle. The defendant admitted to consuming Johnnie Walker Black and beer. The defendant then attempted to perform the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, the officer had to explain the instructions 8 times. Based on the defendant's confusion, the officer proceeded onto the one leg stand. The defendant had to be explained the instructions numerous times once again. He did not perform that test either and was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and he also charged with a second or subsequent refusal to submit to breath testing. It should be noted, at the breath testing facility, the defendant was on video falling asleep and had his head down the entire time.

Defense

Parks & Braxton, learned through discovery, that the officer who stopped the defendant, conducted the DUI investigation, and made the arrest, was outside of his jurisdiction. He was supposedly part of a DUI saturation patrol pursuant to a mutual aid agreement. However, the mutual aid agreement was vague and did not specify whether an officer who was outside their jurisdiction had the right to conduct a DUI investigation, nonetheless arrest a suspect for DUI. The State agreed, Dropped the DUI, and the defendant received no criminal convictions. In addition, the refusal charge was dismissed.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Aug-2016|Case# 14-8982MU10A |Judge Lerner-Wren

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police after an anonymous BOLO (be on the lookout) went out about a driver (ie. the defendant) being passed out behind the wheel. When the officer saw the defendant's car, he conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and she admitted to drinking vodka with red bull. The defendant could not stand up without leaning on her vehicle. The defendant then performed the roadside tests and showed several signs of impairment. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .173 and .172 in the breath machine, over twice the legal limit.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the traffic stop was unlawful. We argued that under Florida law, there needs to be corroboration when the tip is anonymous. Here, not only was the defendant awake when the officer came into contact with her, but also there was no allegation of criminal activity. The Judge Granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State then Dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

2-Aug-2016|Case# 2016-302779MMDB |Judge Schuman

Facts

The defendant was seen by the police in a heavily occupied pedestrian area while on his motorcycle. The defendant abruptly applied his brakes and the motorcycle fell over, along with the defendant. The officer then went up to the defendant to see if he was alright. Upon contact, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slow/slurred speech. The defendant stated he had just drank a few beers. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests at the officer's request. He then performed the HGN (eyes test), Rhombeg balance (estimate 30 seconds), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor prior to setting the case for trial. We pointed out that since there was no video tape of the DUI, we had to rely on the officer's reports. In this case, the officer wrote only a half page report with no supplements. He wrote only one brief vague line describing the defendant's performance on each of the tests. The officer did not write one specific detail pertaining to any of the exercises, only vague statements.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Aug-2016|Case# 15-023982MU10A |Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and drifting within his lane of travel. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow and sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking tequila. At the request of the officer, the defendant performed the roadside tests. The defendant performed very poorly according the officer and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he also performed the roadsides on video tape at the Sheriff's sub station. Subsequent to performing them again, he then refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant’s performance on the roadside tests on video tape contradicted the level of impairment the officer allegedly stated he observed, which was not on camera. Also, the defendant 's speech was normal and clear on video versus the slurred speech that the officer wrote he noticed in his reports. On the day of jury trial the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Aug-2016|Case# 2016-CT-004951 |Judge Farr

Facts

The defendant was stopped for continuously weaving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick tongued speech, and a blank stare. The defendant stated she had nothing to drink and was swaying. The officer only performed the HGN (eye test) on the defendant and then she refused to perform any other tests. She was then arrested for DUI and then subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State just prior to trial. On video, the defendant was not swaying and her speech was clear as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Aug-2016|Case# 2016-CT-001007 |Judge Farr

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. After performing the roadside tests on video tape, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .117 and .113 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We discussed with the State, that on video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred at all. Also, we pointed out that based on the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower than .08 at the time of driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-Aug-2016|Case# 1806-XDZ |Judge Hague

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car collision, whereby he side swiped another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking 4 long island iced teas and also admitted to being buzzed. He then performed the roadside tests. On the one leg stand test, he put his foot down 7 times and lost his balance. On the walk and turn exercise, he stepped off the line a number of times, used his arms for balance, and was very unsteady. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .193 and .184 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle at the time of the crash, as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-Aug-2016|Case# A4AC7AE |Judge Seraphin

Facts

An anonymous person called 911 stating they observed a possible drunk driver who ran off the road. The police spotted the defendant's vehicle, which was the suspected vehicle, and conducted a traffic stop. Upon contact with the defendant, they observed her to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a flushed face. The defendant was unsteady, used her car for support, and swayed all over. She then performed the road side tests. The defendant exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Park & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Our legal basis for the motion was that under Florida case law, the officers must corroborate either a driving pattern or other facts indicating that the defendant may be intoxicated when the tip is anonymous. Here, there was none and the State agreed the stop was unlawful. The DUI was Dismissed.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

27-Jul-2016|Case# 48-2015-CT-001250-E|Judge Martinez

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and he spoke with a "heavy tongue." The defendant 's movements were slow and deliberate and he admitted having two glasses of wine at a bar. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, in pretrial talks with the prosecutor, we pointed out that the officer did not write or document any specific details of the defendant 's performance on the field sobriety tests. He wrote a very vague report and there was no on scene video tape. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

15-Jul-2016|Case# A0Z0BVP |Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving eastbound in the westbound lane. Cars had to brake to avoid a collision. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick tongued speech, and a flushed face. The defendant stated he drank three glasses of wine and appeared very unsteady. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After is arrest, he blew a .205, .184, and .204 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had to provide three breath samples instead of the legally required two. There were issues with the defendant's breath testing procedure. The State then Dropped the DUI after reviewing the breath materials.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jul-2016|Case# 2016-CT-000222-A-O |Judge Cameron

Facts

The defendant was stopped for failing to use his turn signal on two separate occasions. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and it was sometimes not even coherent. The defendant had an orbital sway and was unable to look at the officer in the eyes. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. He exhibited several clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .166 and .166 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that since no traffic was affected by the defendant 's actions of not signaling, the stop was unlawful. The State agreed after reviewing the applicable case law and then Dropped the DUI on the day of the motion hearing.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jul-2016|Case# 2015-CT-027593 |Judge Lefler

Facts

The police responded to a call about a reckless driver. The caller had stated the defendant was driving on the sidewalk a few times. The defendant was then found by the police in a parking lot and detained. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was swaying heavily. The defendant was stumbling while walking and also had watery eyes. Officers also saw a case of miller lite beers in the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. Since there was a minor in the car, she was charged with enhanced DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out that the initial contact (seizure) of the defendant was unlawful as the police could not corroborate any driving pattern as required by law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jul-2016|Case# 2015-CT-045187 |Judge Babb

Facts

The defendant was stopped for traveling 96 mph in a 60 mph zone and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated she had consumed a few drinks earlier in the night. She then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. She performed the walk and turn, HGN (eyes test), one leg stand, finger to nose, alphabet, and rhomberg balance exercises (estimate 30 seconds). According to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused to take the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. A week prior to the trial date, the defense pointed out to the State that the officer's written descriptions of her performance on the roadside tests was totally contradicted by the video tape. One major contradiction in the case was that although the officer arrested her and had told her that she failed the tests by not following his instructions (both physically and mentally), he then wrote in report that her ability to understand instructions was "good." On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Jun-2016|Case# 05-2015-CT-037509AXXXXX |Judge Presiding Judge: Division 6 (Formerly Judge Murphy's Division)

Facts

The defendant was parked behind a closed business. An officer spotted her car, drove around near it, got out of his car, and yelled “sheriff’s office.” There was no indication that the defendant ever saw or heard him. The defendant then drove away. The officer then got back in his car to stop the defendant to conduct a loitering and prowling investigation. While behind her, he observed her to be driving 30 mph in a 45 mph zone and she was allegedly swerving within her lane. Once stopped, the defendant was ordered out of her car at gun point by several officers and she was immediately handcuffed. She was cuffed for at least eight minutes or so and taken off camera. While off camera, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a clumsy demeanor. She also swayed and had bloodshot eyes. Once the cuffs were finally removed, the loitering and prowling investigation then turned into a DUI investigation. The defendant then performed several field sobriety tests on video tape. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put her foot down several times and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn exercise, she took the wrong number of steps, never touched heel to toe, and lost her balance. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was never arrested nor charged with loitering or prowling.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of any crime. In the other motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully arrested for loitering and prowling by the officer's actions of immediately handcuffing her, keeping her cuffed for a long period of time, and ordering her out of her car at gun point. At the motion hearing, the Officer could not remember any specifics of the alleged swerving such an the number of times she swerved, distance, or time frames. The judge Granted the illegal stop motion and threw out all the evidence. Thus, there was no need to ever argue the second motion. Without any evidence left, the State Dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

16-Jun-2016|Case# 2015-CT-016396 |Judge Cunningham

Facts

The defendant made an illegal u-turn and struck other vehicle. An off duty officer observed the crash. He then called for officers who were on duty. Upon their arrival, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant stated he had drank gin and juice. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the DUI officer, the defendant failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .091 and .084 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the officers in the case. At the depositions, the officers contradicted each other's testimony. For example, one officer stated that the defendant's speech was slurred, while the other testified it was normal with no slur. Also, the officers couldn't remember numerous details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tasks as there was no video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Jun-2016|Case# 2016-MM-000728 |Judge Steele

Facts

The defendant was involved in a two car crash whereby he rear ended someone. The defendant then drove down the road and stopped. When officers arrived, they came in contact with the defendant and immediately arrested him for leaving the scene of an accident. After that contact, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of marijuana coming from his person, dilated/watery eyes, and he was speaking slowly. They then added a charge of DUI. In a search incident to arrest, the police found some marijuana in the defendant's car. The police then added another charge of possession of marijuana. Later at the police station, the defendant refused to provide a urine test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that the defendant was the one who actually called 911 about the crash. Thus, he was not trying to leave the scene at all and simply pulled his car a little further down the road to get to a safer place. Also, the officers never even inquired of the defendant as to why he had driven down the road. Furthermore, as for the DUI, the officers never attempted to conduct any type of DUI investigation such as asking the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The State Dismissed the DUI and leaving the scene of an accident charges. The defendant also received no criminal conviction at all for the possession of marijuana charge.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

13-Jun-2016|Case# 2016-CT-002254-O |Judge Cameron

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he hit a parked car while leaving a parking lot. The defendant did not stop and continued driving. The incident was observed by a witness who notified police. When the police finally stopped the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a red face, and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank beer that day. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. He performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. After his arrest, he blew a .166 and .163 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State prior to trial. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction for the leaving the scene of an accident charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jun-2016|Case# 2016-CT-000007AXXX |Judge Bonavita

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash in which his car went off the road into a canal. His dog had jumped onto his lap causing him to swerve. He and the dog got out of the car and swam to safety. When the police arrived, the defendant was soaking wet and fire rescue took him to the hospital to get checked. While at the hospital, the police came to talk to the defendant. They observed him to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to perform the roadside tasks outside the hospital. The defendant initially refused and then agreed to do them. He exhibited several clues of impairment on video and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .178 and .173 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer misstated the law as it related to performing field sobriety tests. Thus, the State agreed that based on the case law, all the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Jun-2016|Case# A0Z16AP |Judge Krieger-Martin

Facts

An anonymous person called 911 stating that the defendant was passed out behind the wheel and in "distress." When officers arrived, the defendant was awake and talking on a cell phone. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. When asked if she had been drinking, the defendant stated "not a lot." After performing poorly on the the field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. While at the station, post Miranda, the defendant admitted to being impaired and that she should not have been driving. She then blew a .173 and .171 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under the law, when there is an anonymous tip, the officers must corroborate that tip. Here, the caller stated the defendant was passed out and in distress. However, when the police arrived, the defendant was awake and alert. Thus, there was no corroboration and the initial contact was unlawful.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Jun-2016|Case# 2016-CT-000326 |Judge Mcginnis

Facts

Officers responded to a car that was smoking and had blown out tires. Upon arrival at the scene, the officers noticed burnout tire marks all over the road leading up to where the defendant was found in his truck. Per the officer's report, the vehicle was disabled. The officers could also smell burnt rubber. Upon contact with the defendant, as he was seated in the driver's side of his vehicle, the officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unable to form a complete sentence and stumbled over his words. A bottle of liquor was found next to the defendant. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. He refused to perform them and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that when the officers arrived, the vehicle was actually "inoperable." There was no proof the defendant had ever driven the car to that location "while impaired" prior the car becoming inoperable, as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jun-2016|Case# A105LQP |Judge Krieger-Martin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a red light. When the officer asked the defendant for her driver's license, she stared into space. The officer also noticed an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests to which she refused. She was then arrested for DUI . After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. The firm represented the defendant on her first DUI five years ago and got that DUI Dropped as well.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm argued a motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform roadside tests. The Judge granted the motion and excluded the refusal from evidence. The State then dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

3-Jun-2016|Case# 2014-CT-008000AXXX |Judge Hanser

Facts

defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car at a red light with the car running. Upon the officer awakening the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed a couple of beers. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted that this was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. The firm also represented the defendant on his first DUI a few years back. The firm got that DUI Dropped as well.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the defendant was never advised of any "adverse consequences" by the officer for refusing to perform the roadside tasks. The Judge granted the motion and excluded the refusal from evidence. Thereafter, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

31-May-2016|Case# 2015-MM-007921 |Judge Woodard

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and thick tongued speech. The defendant admitted to drinking a strawberry daiquiri and some cognac. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. On the walk and turn, she missed heel to toe and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, she hopped and put her foot down. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .121 and .120 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton was involved with pretrial litigation to exclude the breath test results. The Judge granted the motion to suppress and excluded the defendant's breath test results from evidence.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

31-May-2016|Case# 2015-CT-003529 |Judge Obrien

Facts

The defendant was stopped by police for blocking traffic. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed her to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a wet stain on the pants. Once out of her car, the defendant appeared uneasy, unsteady, and very carefree. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks. The defendant stated she takes various controlled substances for medical issues. According to the officer, she exhibited numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she was asked to provide a urine sample. She complied, and once the results from the toxicology lab came back, it showed three different controlled substances in her system.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-May-2016|Case# 16-CT-500800 |Judge George

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving south in the northbound lane of travel. He was heading straight on toward a police car. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having a few glasses of wine. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. At one point, the defendant allegedly stated "he couldn't do them sober." According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .083 and .080 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged statement by the defendant about "not being able to do the field sobriety tests sober" was not captured on any video tape. Also, with the built in margins of error on the breath machine, both his test results could have been under the legal limit of .08.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-May-2016|Case# A1G8HNE |Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The defendant's car actually burst into flames upon contact. When officers arrived, the defendant was sitting on the back of a fire rescue truck. The defendant was uneasy on her feet, had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, she took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms to balance, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the other individual who was hit, never saw the defendant behind the wheel due to the car bursting into flames and the subsequent chaos at the scene. Since the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel, they Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

24-May-2016|Case# 2015-CT-050687 |Judge Babb

Facts

The defendant was pulled over for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. He performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). On the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and lost track of his count. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and then blew a .105 and a .094 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer was clearly a new officer in training. He was reading the field sobriety test instructions off some type of sheet, almost like a teleprompter. However, the officer kept saying contradictory things while giving the instructions causing clear confusion on behalf of the defendant. For example, he told the defendant he did not have to count out loud during the walk and turn and then told the defendant he was not counting out loud half way through the exercise. The defendant at one point even said, "do I count or not? " Also, with the margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath test results could have been lower than the legal limit.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

24-May-2016|Case# 15-1910MU10A |Judge Levey Cohen

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving 92mph in a 70mph zone. The initial officer observed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot watery eyes. During the conversation the officer stated that the defendant could not stop shaking. The defendant was asked if she took any medication and she handed over a prescription bottle of hydrocodone. Upon exiting the car she allegedly stumbled. The officer also stated that the defendant was continuously unsteady on her feet. She performed several field sobriety exercises including the walk and turn as well as the one leg stand. The investigating officer stated that she performed poorly and arrested her for DUI.

Defense

The investigating officer arrived on scene with his camera on. However, rather than place the defendant on video, the defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests away from the camera. In addition, the officer who was operating the camera never placed his microphone on, and therefore none of the conversation was recorded. With no erratic driving and an investigation that was never captured on video, the State agreed to drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-May-2016|Case# 2015-CT-022698 |Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a sway to his stance. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down and swayed. Also, on the walk and turn, the defendant did not touch heel to toe and stepped off the line. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .083 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant never stepped off the line on the walk and turn vs. what had been written in the report. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and he never swayed on video tape. In addition, there is a built in margin of error on the breath machine which could have put the defendant under the legal limit of .08.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-May-2016|Case# 15-CT-504554 |Judge Gagliardi

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down a few times and counted improperly. On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe several times and stepped off the line. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. We pointed out to the State that on video, one could not even see whether the defendant was not touching heel to toe due to the position of the camera. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and clear on tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report about it being slurred. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-May-2016|Case# 15-CT-505084 |Judge Hayes

Facts

The defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks. He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He performed the HGN (eye test) and then when asked to start the walk and turn test, the defendant stated he did not want to perform any more exercises. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point did not contain the necessary criteria as set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in the case law. Also, we pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences of his refusal to perform the field sobriety tasks as required by law.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

9-May-2016|Case# 2016-CT-000503AX |Judge Singer

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had bloodshot eyes, mumbled speech, and dilated pupils. He was off balance, unsteady, sluggish in his movements, and he also had body tremors. No odor of alcohol was detected. The defendant denied smoking marijuana, however, the officer stated he smelled it coming from his mouth. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose exercises. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that what the officer had written about his observations of the defendant's eyes on the HGN (eye test), was not consistent as set forth in the DRE (drug recognition manual) for someone who is alleged to have been impaired by marijuana.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

9-May-2016|Case# 14-2679MU10A |Judge Robinson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving on three flat tires. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After a long discussion, the defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. On video, the defendant stepped out of the instructional stance and failed to touch heel to toe on the walk and turn test. On the one leg stand, the defendant dropped his foot several times. The defendant was arrested for DUI and refused to submit to a breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed several motions to suppress based on an unlawful stop as well no reasonable suspicion to request roadside tests. At the motion to suppress, the officer who stopped the defendant completely contradicted the testimony of the arresting officer. In addition, despite the presence of a Spanish speaking officer, the investigating officer refused to allow him to interpret. Many of the problems that the defendant had during the roadside tests were equally attributable to the language barrier.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-May-2016|Case# 8622-GYZ |Judge Seraphin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and driving on a rim. The officer observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes, fumbling around with his paperwork, and difficulty following instructions. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. No odor of alcohol was detected. The officer, believing the defendant may be impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, requested the defendant to perform roadside tasks. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and rhomberg balance exercises. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant provided an urine sample and subsequently tested positive for marijuana at the toxicology lab.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that marijuana can be in one's system for at least 30 days. Unable to prove that the defendant was impaired by the marijuana at the time of the driving as required by Florida law, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Apr-2016|Case# 15-CT-505083 |Judge Adams

Facts

The defendant was stopped at a roadblock check point. Upon making contact with the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slow responses to the officer's questions, and he had to use the door to steady himself upon exiting. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant stepped off the line, did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The officer also observed nystagmus in the defendant's eyes while conducting the HGN (eyes test). The defendant was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton requested the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point from the State. Under Florida law, every individual roadblock must have a written set of guidelines. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, there must be specific criteria (factors) met by the police in each written set of guidelines or the entire roadblock becomes unlawful. In this particular case, the road block guidelines were defective in many areas pursuant to Florida case law. Prior to filing any motion to suppress the evidence based on the above, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Apr-2016|Case# 2015-CT-022803AXXX |Judge Cohen

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking vodka and she also swayed while she stood. According the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We showed them that on the video tape, the defendants speech was not slurred and she was not off balance. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to the setting any trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Apr-2016|Case# 7342-XEM |Judge Wolfson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. After she did them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .096 and .089 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the margin of error of .02 in the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit. Also, the officer did not obtain and angle of onset on the HGN test before 45 degrees which indicated that the defendant may have also been under the legal limit at the time of driving pursuant to Tharpes formula. Also, the officer did not write one specific detail regarding the defendant's performance on the roadsides in his reports. The defendant received no criminal conviction at all on her record.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Apr-2016|Case# 2015-CT-023072 |Judge Myers

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car in a parking lot by police. Upon awakening the defendant, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking beers. The defendant refused to do the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" as he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle while he was passed out.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Apr-2016|Case# 15-CT-504769, 70 |Judge Swett

Facts

The defendant crashed her car into a area full of trees. When the police arrived, the defendant was unresponsive and passed out. EMS was also on scene to see if the defendant required medical attention. Upon awakening the defendant who was very unresponsive, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unsteady on her feet once outside the vehicle. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks even after being made aware of the adverse consequences. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had made several requests, along with the prosecutor, to obtain a video tape of the DUI investigation. Since the police were ignoring all requests, there was a potential discovery violation. Prior to any evidentiary hearings on the issue, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Apr-2016|Case# 15-032125MU10A |Judge Robinson

Facts

The defendant almost caused a head on collision by driving on the wrong side of the road. As the other car veered away, the defendant's car hit the rear bumper panel of the other driver's car. When officers arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and red eyes. The defendant's speech was not understandable. He was very unsteady, and could not focus on simple questions. He performed very poorly on the roadside tasks and showed several indicators of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .209 and .207 in the breath machine (almost three times the legal limit).

Defense

Parks & Braxton took sworn pretrial depositions of the officers involved in the case. Based on the answers given in their depositions, the firm developed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the arrest based on improper police procedure. The firm then met with State and they agreed with the issue based on case law provided to them.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Apr-2016|Case# 2015-CT-011030 |Judge Bell

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and red blood shot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. Prior to roadside tests being administered, the defendant almost fell and stumbled onto the grass. According to the officer, she failed all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .113 and .115 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that the defendant was from another country, had a foreign driver's license, and her English was not good. No interpreter was ever called to the scene or the station. Thus, the defendant did not understand any instructions on the roadside tests, nor did she understand "implied consent" being read to her prior taking the breath test on tape. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Apr-2016|Case# 2013-MM-013483 |Judge Hanser

Facts

An anonymous person called the police stating they noticed the defendant to be passed out in his car in their neighborhood. When police arrived, they found the defendant's car parked against the curb, the defendant was slumped over, and drooling from the mouth. The vehicle was in park with the keys in the ignition. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a red/flushed face. On video, the defendant could hardly stand and his speech was not even understandable. The defendant attempted the roadside exercises but did not complete them. He was then arrested for DUI. The police also found marijuana in the car in a search incident to arrest. After his arrest, he blew a .201 and .198 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were involved in pretrial litigation to try to exclude the breath test results based on improper maintenance procedures conducted by FDLE on this particular machine. Prior to the motion being heard, the State agreed with the issue and Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received no criminal conviction for he marijuana charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Apr-2016|Case# 15-004032MU10A |Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag and revving his engine. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer and was off balance on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant. The videotape of the DUI investigation at the scene contradicted what was written in the police reports regarding the defendant's level of impairment. Prior to the motion being heard, the State watched the videotape and Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Apr-2016|Case# 2015-CT-023325 |Judge Gabbard

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car crash. When the officer arrived on scene, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant appeared off balance and unsteady while talking to the officer. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests which included the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He exhibited several signs of impairment. There was no video tape of the DUI investigation. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .091 and .091 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that the air bags had deployed and hit the defendant in the face. Thus, any impairment could have been as easily attributed to the injuries from the airbag versus alcohol. Also, there is margin of error on the breath machine in which we were able to place the defendant under the legal limit.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Apr-2016|Case# 13-017965MM10A |Judge Evans

Facts

The defendant was stopped for making a left turn on a red light. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face and slurred speech. Additionally, the officer located an open container in the center console. A DUI officer subsequently arrived on scene. In addition to the above observations, the DUI officer stated that the defendant was extremely lethargic. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand and HGN (eye test), the defendant was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Because of the inconsistency between the reports and the video, the State was unable to proceed.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Apr-2016|Case# 2015-CT-024375 |Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving with no head lights. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/watery eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, she failed and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that on tape, the officer followed her as she was driving without head lights for over a mile without stopping her on a residential street. The officer let the defendant drive onto the highway with no head lights. Furthermore, although the officer could have stopped her and done roadsides on a residential street, he chose to have her do them ten feet from cars and trucks on an interstate highway. We pointed out that this, her fear of being killed by a car or truck, could have contributed to her alleged poor performance. The State agreed after watching the whole video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Apr-2016|Case# 0506-XFE |Judge Altfield

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer who stopped the defendant, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He then called for a DUI unit, who arrived and made similar observations. That officer then requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within a five year period.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the DUI officer did not write one detail about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. All he did was check off the boxes on the DUI test report. Upon questioning the officer prior to trial, he could not remember one specific. The State then Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Apr-2016|Case# 15-009347MU10A |Judge Pole

Facts

The defendant was observed at a light screeching his tires as he proceeded forward. As he approached a second light, again the defendant proceeded forward while screeching and spinning his tires. Next, the officer observed the defendant failing to maintain a single lane. The defendant was subsequently stopped. As the officer spoke with the defendant, he detected a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, as well as slurred speech. He subsequently acknowledged coming from a bar and consuming a few beers. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose tests. He was arrested for DUI and blew a .136 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an improper stop. Specifically, screeching tires is not a violation of law. In addition, failure to maintain a single lane is only a violation if other traffic is affected. The officer testified that traffic could have been affected but could not recall if it was. In addition, he could not articulate how far the defendant veered or how many tires actually crossed over the line. The motion was granted and all of the evidence including the breath test was excluded.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

31-Mar-2016|Case# 2015-CT-010642 |Judge Bell

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a "drunk stare." The defendant was fumbling with his documents and almost dropped his phone. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests which were video taped and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .163 and .160 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on tape, the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better than as described in the police reports. Also, the defendant's breath test level was contradicted by his performance on the field sobriety tests, thus, it was clear his breath alcohol level may have been lower at the time of driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Mar-2016|Case# 12-003426MM10A |Judge Lerner-Wren

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed a strong odor of marijuana. The defendant consented to a search which revealed burnt marijuana as well as a pipe. Upon exiting the vehicle the defendant allegedly had a "drunk-like" walk. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant acknowledged that she had three beers and was driving home. She subsequently performed several field sobriety tests on video and was arrested for DUI as well as possession of cannabis and paraphernalia. At the breath alcohol testing facility she blew a .115.

Defense

Upon a review of the video, the defendant's performance contradicted the investing officer's police report. Specifically, on the one leg stand the defendant was able to maintain her balance for 52 seconds. On the walk and turn test despite a stumble on the turn, she was able to walk in a straight line. As such, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The DUI was dropped and the defendant was not convicted of any charges.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Mar-2016|Case# 2015-CT-009578-A-O |Judge Freeman

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a red light. When officers approached the defendant after he pulled into a gas station, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and and glassy eyes. The defendant was then asked to step out of the car as the officers wanted to conduct a DUI investigation. The defendant refused several commands to get out of the car and after a couple of minutes was forcibly removed from the vehicle. Once removed, the defendant was immediately cuffed and arrested. He was then taken to the breath testing facility where he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had gotten a cell phone video from the client of the incident at the car. This cell phone video showed the cops at the defendant's car trying to get him out of the car. It also showed they never mentioned any DUI investigation, versus what was in the reports. Also, once they got him out of the car he was immediately cuffed. No roadside tests were ever even offered to the defendant on scene or at the station. The officers were aware the defendant was filming them. The firm turned the cell phone video over the prosecutor to prove there was no DUI investigation ever even attempted. Thus, there was a lack of evidence of impairment and contradictions between the officer's written version and cell phone video. The State watched the cell phone video and Dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

9-Mar-2016|Case# 2015-CT-023628 |Judge Koons

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving too slow and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant swayed while standing and admitting to having consumed two beers. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests which were video taped. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .207 and .195 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State Attorney's Office over several months regarding issues about the case.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Feb-2016|Case# 2015-CT-022206 |Judge GABBARD

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant was slow to react to the police lights in pulling over. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, flushed face, and watery eyes. The defendant was requested by the officer to perform the roadside tests. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. There was no video at the scene. After his arrest for DUI, the defendant admitted to drinking beer, feeling the effects of the alcohol, and smoking marijuana earlier that day.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the prosecutor. We not only pointed out how poorly written and vague the police reports were, but also that there were numerous contradictory statements throughout the reports. With no video tape, the officers' credibility was called into serious question prior to trial.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

25-Feb-2016|Case# 14-023963MU10A |Judge Solomon

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a red light. The driving pattern, as well as the subsequent DUI investigation, was captured on video. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes as well as slurred speech. During a conversation with the defendant, he admitted to the officer that he was taking anti-anxiety medication as well as drinking. During the investigation, the defendant performed and subsequently failed the one leg stand, walk and turn and the finger to nose tests. The defendant was arrested for DUI and he blew a .178 and a .170 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took depositions (sworn statements) of all of the officers involved. The arresting officer acknowledged that he would have to rely on his report and was unable to recall specific details concerning the circumstances surrounding the investigation. We filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the arresting officer based on a lack of any independent recollection of the investigation. In addition, a motion to suppress the arrest for lack of probable cause was filed. The State conceded the motion and dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Feb-2016|Case# 2015-CT-039322-AXXX-XX |Judge ATKIN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a pale face, and clumsy dexterity. The defendant was slow to exit the car and swayed while standing outside the vehicle. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. He showed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .156 and .156 in the breath machine. The defendant was also video taped at the police station blowing into the machine and speaking with the officers.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was an error on the breath test print out sheet with the defendant's results due to a control test being out of the accepted range. The officers are on video tape telling the defendant he needed to blow again due to an error, but would not tell him what the error was on the machine. The defendant can be heard over and over asking for an explanation. The defendant then refused to give any more samples in that same machine. The State, after watching the video at the station and hearing the conversation between the officers and the defendant, agreed to Drop the DUI just prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Feb-2016|Case# 0436-XFE |Judge WOLFSON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant failed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she did not touch heel to toe and took an incorrect number of steps. On the one leg stand, she swayed, raised her arms for balance, and put her foot down. After her arrest, she blew a .101 and .094 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm had the opportunity to talk to the arresting officer. The officer contradicted himself not only by stating opposite facts as to what was written in his report, but also by adding several facts to the case that were not written in his very vague reports. Based on that pretrial conversation, the State Dropped the DUI due to the officer's credibility being called into question.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Feb-2016|Case# 15-003751CTAXMX |Judge ROBERTS

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police after he was seen driving out of an enclosed area which had barricades and posted signs stating to not enter. The area was closed off due to an art festival. The defendant was stopped at almost 3 a.m.. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, mumbled speech, and he was swaying. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks. On video, the defendant showed several signs of impairment and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .228 and .224 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence for an unlawful traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to believe the defendant committed any traffic infractions, nor was there any reasonable suspicion of a crime as he was "coming out of the area," not driving into the enclosed area in disregard of any signs. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Feb-2016|Case# 2015-CT-001343-E |Judge Starr

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding, swerving, and almost hitting a curb. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. When asked if he had been drinking by the officer, the defendant responded by telling the officer he had consumed 4 beers, 1 shot, and 1 mixed drink. According to the officer, the defendant admitted to being drunk. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests and showed several signs of impairment. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had questioned the officers prior to a trial date being set. The officers who were on scene contradicted themselves. Since there was no video at the scene, their credibility was called into question. Also, the defendant appeared sober on video at the breath testing facility which contradicted the officers account of what happened at the scene of the arrest.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Feb-2016|Case# 14-044649MU10A |Judge Levy Cohen

Facts

The defendant was involved in an accident which was witnessed by an off-duty officer. The officer approached the defendant's car and testified that he looked "out of it" but made no other observations. After several officers arrived on scene, a DUI investigation took place. The investigating officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. The defendant performed, and allegedly failed, the HGN (eye test), walk and turn as well as the one leg stand. However, none of these tests were captured on video. The officer stated that the defendant was off balance and unsteady throughout the investigation. The defendant was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took a deposition (sworn statement) of the arresting officer. The officer acknowledged that with the exception of the odor of alcohol, all of the other characteristics of impairment could just as easily be linked to a person who was in an accident resulting in injuries. This testimony was brought to the attention of the Supervising Prosecutor who ultimately dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Feb-2016|Case# 7144-XEM |Judge SERAPHIN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests. According to the officer, she did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .084 and .081 in the breath machine. Also, the police found marijuana in the defendant's car in a post arrest search.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the breath machine has built in margins of error which could have put the defendant's breath alcohol level lower than the legal limit of .08. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. Also, the possession of marijuana charge was dismissed.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Feb-2016|Case# 15-CT-017159 |Judge LEFLER

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash. The crash was witnessed by an off duty officer from a different jurisdiction. The off duty officer also observed the defendant weaving and almost striking another car prior to the crash. The defendant's car ended up in a ditch. When the officer approached the defendant to help, he noticed the defendant to have mush mouth speech and once he finally got out of the car, he almost fell. At that time, the defendant's wife had pulled up and they drove off to his house. Another local Deputy subsequently arrived on scene and then proceeded to the defendant's house. Once at the house, about 20 minutes later, the officer observed the defendant inside the residence to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and swayed as he stood. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .125 and .125 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under Florida Law, a defendant has to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving. In this case, since the initial officer never smelled any alcohol while the defendant was in his car at the crash scene, there was no way to prove that the defendant had been "driving" while under the influence of alcohol. It was not until 20 minutes later while the defendant had already been in his house did anyone smell any alcohol.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Feb-2016|Case# 15-CT-502996 |Judge HAYWARD

Facts

The defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint. Upon being stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having consumed three drinks that night. She was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests on video tape. The defendant started the one leg stand and could not do it and stated it was too hard. On the walk and turn, she stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .090 and .085 (both results above the legal limit).

Defense

Parks & Braxton got a copy of the written roadblock guidelines and procedures for this specific checkpoint. Prior filing a motion to suppress, the firm pointed out to the State that the written procedures in this case gave the officers on scene too much "discretion" at the checkpoint in violation of Florida Law. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Feb-2016|Case# 15-CT-502983 |Judge HAYWARD

Facts

The defendant was found sleeping in his car on the side of the road. The officer could not awake the defendant by tapping on the window so he opened the door to see if he was ok. Once the defendant finally awoke, the officer smelled an odor of alcohol, noticed watery/dilated eyes, and the defendant had difficulty following instructions. The defendant's speech was slurred and he admitted to drinking bud light. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks and according to the officer he failed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was doing the right thing by sleeping on the side of the road versus driving around intoxicated. Also, the defendant was legally not in "actual physical control" of the car as he had no capability to operate the car while he was sleeping.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Feb-2016|Case# 14-038695MU10A |Judge Gottleib

Facts

Two officers in different cars heard a loud noise coming from the defendant's vehicle. Ultimately, the defendant was stopped for driving on two rims. Upon questioning, the defendant admitted to drinking at a club. The officers both observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes as well as a flushed face. The defendant was unclear where he was. The defendant performed the walk and turn test whereby he consistently stepped off of the line. On the one leg stand test he kept dropping his foot on the ground. After two more failed sobriety tests he was arrested for DUI. He blew a .172 and a .175 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took a deposition of each of the witnesses. Subsequently, the firm argued a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was pulled over unlawfully in violation of his fourth amendment rights. After testimony and argument, Judge Gottleib granted the motion and excluded all of the State's evidence.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

28-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-002653 |Judge HITZEMAN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was unsteady and off balance while standing outside of her car. The officer even had trouble understanding her while she was speaking and noticed her to be very lethargic. The defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down a number of times. Finally, she said she could not do it and just stopped. She was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on video, the defendant did not appear off balance or unsteady. Also, on tape, the officer never asked her to repeat herself. Furthermore, the defendant was able to properly perform the walk and turn which contradicted her poor performance on the one leg stand.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-000963 |Judge ISENHOWER

Facts

The defendant was found by the police sitting in her car. The car had two flat front tires and the vehicle looked like it had been in a crash. As the officer began to speak to the defendant, she was confused and her clothes were covered in vomit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was off balance upon standing outside the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we moved to suppress the refusal to perform roadside tests. We alleged that when the defendant refused to perform the tests, she was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing. In our other motion, we moved to suppress the refusal to provide a breath sample as the defendant was improperly read implied consent prior to being arrested for DUI. Prior to even setting a hearing date on the motions, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-015816 |Judge BONAVITA

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving, almost striking a curb, and crossing into oncoming traffic. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant was fumbling with his items in the car. The defendant then refused to perform all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused to take the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The week before trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Jan-2016|Case# 2014-MM-010633 |Judge KRAUSE

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving past the stop bar. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and was off balance. He refused to perform any more roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although the officer had a dash cam video, no one could even the see the HGN being conducted. Also, the defendant was never even placed in front of the camera until he was actually arrested for DUI. At the station on video, the defendant appeared sober which contradicted the officer's reports about his level of intoxication at the scene.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-016551 |Judge MCNEIL

Facts

The defendant had struck an elevated sidewalk and ended up in a ditch. When police arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred/mumbled/incoherent speech. She also had blood shot eyes and was argumentative. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests which were not video taped. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out many discrepancies in the officer's reports. First, he wrote there was a video tape and there ended up being none. Also, he wrote the defendant's speech was incoherent, on the other hand, he wrote her ability to understand instructions was good. Furthermore, he did not write any specifics as it related to her performance on the roadside tests and only wrote vague statements.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CF-008933 |Judge HOLDER

Facts

The defendant was first observed by a citizen passed out in her car in a neighborhood. He then called the police. The paramedics arrived first and got he defendant out of the car. When the police arrived, the defendant was laying on the grass with the paramedics. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was also using abusive language towards the police and paramedics. As the officer was attempting to begin the DUI investigation, the defendant spit at him and became combative. As the officer was escorting her to his patrol car, the in car camera captured the defendant kick him in the leg. She was then arrested for DUI and Felony battery on a law enforcement officer.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, since no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel, and there was no crash exception, the officer did not observe an essential element of the DUI (ie. the defendant either driving or in actual physical control). Thus, the State, after being provided case law, Dropped the DUI. Furthermore, the defendant did Not receive any felony conviction for the felony charge. Therefore, she will Not be a convicted felon.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Jan-2016|Case# 2013-CT-006733-A-O |Judge CAMERON FOR ADAMS

Facts

The defendant was found by the police sleeping on the grassy shoulder of an exit ramp. The officer observed the defendant, upon waking him, to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. An unopened bottle of wine was seen in the car. The defendant failed all the field sobriety tests. There was no video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant almost fell and had his arms out for balance. 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 .249 and .249 in the breath machine (over three times the legal limit).

Defense

Parks & Braxton were involved in pretrial litigation to exclude the breath results. The Judge granted the motions pertaining to our client and other defendant's and excluded all breath test results from evidence. The defense announced ready for trial. On the day of the trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Jan-2016|Case# A3P1LNE |Judge BEDINGHAUS

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police as they observed him throw trash outside his moving vehicle. Upon being stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant's movements were lethargic and clumsy. Once outside the car, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, the defendant failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .115 and .113 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton spoke to the State. We pointed out that the defendant's breath test results could have been reading falsely high. The reason is that the control test solutions were reading higher on the day he blew and also on the maintenance on the machine. Furthermore, the video contradicted the written reports of the officer as it related to the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jan-2016|Case# 15-CT-504402 |Judge GONZALEZ

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a head on crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have slow reactions, bloodshot eyes, and had trouble answering any questions. She had a blank stare and could not find her driver's license. The officers on scene believed the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, a chemical, and/or controlled substance. There was no odor of alcohol. The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused to provided a breath and urine sample.

Defense

Parks & Braxton called the prosecutor early on in the case. We pointed out that under Florida law, if alcohol is not involved, then the State must prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant. Here, there was no specific evidence of either. A person cannot just be alleged to have been impaired by "anything." The State agreed and Dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

11-Jan-2016|Case# 13-020659MM10A |Judge Lerner-Wren

Facts

The defendant was involved in a traffic crash and stopped for allegedly trying to flee the scene. While speaking with the defendant the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, a flushed face as well as slurred speech. A civilian witness provided a detailed statement indicating his belief that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant refused to participate in any tests and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Because the defendant was not provided with any adverse consequences, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the refusal to submit to testing. In addition, after taking testimony from the officers, they all agreed that the defendant was not trying to flee the scene. Because of the lack of evidence, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-006635 |Judge GRECO

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have and odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slurred speech, and had slow movements. The defendant had difficulty exiting the car and the officer had trouble understanding him speak. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests and showed numerous signs of impairment. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .147 and .138 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton convinced the prosecution that based on the defendant's medical conditions, the DUI should be Dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-008211-A-O |Judge McGINNIS

Facts

The defendant was involved in a two car crash. She was not the at fault driver. When officers arrived on scene, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was then requested to perform roadside tests. During the walk and turn test, the defendant became argumentative and took the wrong number of steps and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, the defendant started the test but never completed it. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the defense pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant kept telling the officer she had back and equilibrium issues. Yet, the officer insisted that she perform the physical tests like the one leg stand and walk and turn even though she kept telling him she could not do them. Also, the defendant was the one who was hit and not the cause of the crash. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-015963 |Judge GABBARD

Facts

The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. He was observed weaving all over the roadway. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, fumbling fingers, slurred speech, and difficulty opening his car door. The defendant admitted to having consumed a couple of beers. He was asked to perform roadside tasks and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on the roadside video, the officer was using language during the DUI investigation, that made it clear he was going to arrest the defendant no matter whether he did the roadside or not. This clearly showed the officer had no intent on letting the defendant try to show him, via the roadsides, that he was not impaired. The defendant even stated at one point, "whether I do them or not, your taking me to jail anyway" and the officer arrested him within seconds. Just prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-MM-01322-A-K |Judge FOWLER

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a refuge boat and a trailer at a high rate of speed. The impact caused the defendant's air bags to deploy. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant, post Miranda, admitted to consuming five beers and that he had stopped drinking an hour before the crash. He was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests which were captured on video tape. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. He had displayed numerous signs of being off balance and unsteady on the tests.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the airbags had hit the defendant in the face, chest, and arms after a severe crash. Thus, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired by alcohol or injuries sustained in the crash.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jan-2016|Case# 2015-CT-002292 |Judge CARR

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road, which was captured on video tape. Upon being stopped, the defendant stated he was lost and looking for the place he was heading to. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks, and as he exited his truck, he stumbled. The officer performed only the HGN (eye test). The defendant refused all further testing and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that since there was no sound on video tape, one could not hear whether the defendant's speech was actually slurred, nor could anyone hear any conversation between the officer and the defendant. Furthermore, upon a close viewing of the tape, there was a span of 6 minutes missing. The allegation that the defendant stumbled and that the HGN was performed was missing from the tape. The State reviewed the tape and Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jan-2016|Case# 15-CT-501703 |Judge HAYES

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Upon being pulled over, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and watery eyes. The defendant was swaying side to side once out of the car. The defendant then performed the roadside tests, which were captured on a body camera. For example, on the walk and turn, the defendant missed heel to toe, made an improper turn, and swung his right leg up during the turn. On the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down three times and swayed. The officers noticed several empty beer cans in the bed of the defendant's pick up truck. Also, the officers noticed beer cans in the truck which were cold to the touch. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The officer's observations of the defendant, as written in his report, were contradicted by the body camera. We pointed out that the defendant never swayed and his speech was normal. Also, the defendant had two passengers in the truck. Thus, there was no way to prove that the beers were the defendant's. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Jan-2016|Case# 8091-XBP |Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police after a BOLO went out about the defendant driving recklessly. When the officer spotted the defendant, he observed her to be weaving all over the road. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slow speech. Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers observed the defendant to be so intoxicated, that for safety reasons, no roadside tests were performed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, the defendant blew a .332 and .315 in the breath machine (nearly 4 times the legal limit).

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, we pointed out to the State that upon looking at the breath results paper that prints out from the machine, it displayed an initial "purge fail" prior to the defendant providing the two breath results. No officers could explain why that happened on the machine or most importantly if that "purge fail" affected the defendant's breath readings in any way.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Dec-2015|Case# 2015-CT-001357-A-E-X |Judge STARR

Facts

The defendant drove against traffic in the wrong direction and crashed into another car. Upon arrival, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant's motor skills were slow and he admitted drinking whiskey. The defendant then refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .195 and .184 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Dec-2015|Case# 2015-CT-033147-AXXX-XX |Judge Murphy

Facts

The police responded to a call about an unconscious driver who may have been involved in a crash. The caller advised that the defendant may have been sleeping, but was breathing. When fire rescue arrived, there was no crash and the defendant was seen walking down the road. The police then found the defendant walking down the road. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. He was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. It should be noted, one could hardly see the defendant's performance on tape and there was no sound. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The defendant was also charged with second or subsequent refusal to provide a breath sample as this was his Third DUI arrest with one prior DUI conviction.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest of the defendant was unlawful because no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel. Under Florida law, unless there is a crash and/or crash investigation, the officer must see all elements of the crime. (ie. for DUI, the first element of the crime, that the defendant was driving or in actual physical control). The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge. The defendant received no criminal convictions.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Dec-2015|Case# 2015-CT-013464AXXX |Judge BRYSON

Facts

The defendant crashed her car into a street sign causing her to veer off the roadway. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no indication that the defendant was driving recklessly which caused the crash. We also told the State than any slurred speech could have been caused by hitting her head during the crash. There was also no video at the scene of the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Dec-2015|Case# 2015-CT-010690 |Judge GRECO

Facts

The defendant was stopped after a 911 caller stated the defendant was driving recklessly. The officer located the defendant's car and observed her to be weaving, almost sideswiping another car, and making jerky motions with the vehicle. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was off balance exiting the car and she admitted to drinking vodka. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton was ready for trial. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Dec-2015|Case# 2015-CT-020279AXXX |Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and "fumbling" fingers. He also observed her to be very slow and deliberate in her movements. While speaking to the defendant, the officer saw a half filled bottle of wine on the passenger side floorboard. After refusing to perform the roadside tasks, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .196 and .189 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton researched the past history of the breath machine the defendant had blown into on the night of her arrest. We then pointed out to the State there had been previous maintenance problems with the specific breath machine in question.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Dec-2015|Case# 1189-XCF |Judge HAGUE

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police for "attaching a tag not assigned." Once stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant could not perform any field sobriety tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .211 and .211 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The basis of our motion was that the defendant was driving a car with a "dealer tag" and it was a car off the lot where he works at. There was no probable cause justifying the initial stop of the defendant's car. The defense provided the actual plate to the State along with the registration to the car. Prior to the motion being heard, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Dec-2015|Case# 14-023641MU10A |Judge LEVY-COHEN

Facts

The defendant was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes resulting in a head on crash. Upon arrival, the officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes and a pale face. In addition, her speech was extremely slurred. After meeting with medical personnel, the defendant was taken to the hospital. At the hospital the officer requested a blood draw which resulted in a reading of .200.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that a breath test was not impractical or impossible. Based on the above circumstances, Florida law only permits a blood draw when a breath test is either impractical or impossible. At the motion, the officer was unable to testify that the defendant had injuries that would prevent her from providing a breath test. In addition, the officer failed to speak with any medical personnel to determine when the defendant was going to be released from the hospital. The motion to exclude the blood test was granted.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Nov-2015|Case# 15-CT-501854 |Judge GONZALEZ

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and a broken tag light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and extremely slurred speech. On video, the defendant performed the roadside tests. He performed the walk turn, one leg stand, and alphabet tests. Prior to the roadsides being administered, the defendant told the officer about a concussion he had recently suffered. He exhibited several signs of intoxication on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton acquired the medical records from the defendant relating to his concussion. We pointed out to the State that any impairment seen an tape could have been as easily attributed to his head injury versus intoxication by alcohol. This information was provided to the State Attorney's Office who in turn to agreed to Drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Nov-2015|Case# 13-017291MM10A |Judge BROWN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed, failing to maintain a single lane, and improper passing. The officer had to use his horn and lights to get the defendant to pull over. The defendant exhibited an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for support as he almost fell over. He failed every roadside test and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the all the officers involved in the case. Each officer contradicted the other's description of events from that night. After reading the sworn transcripts, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

19-Nov-2015|Case# A0Z4UIP (Jury Trial)|Judge MCKYTON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also alleged that the defendant was swaying. He then had the defendant step out the car and the officer performed the HGN (eyes test). The officer then had the defendant walk across the parking lot to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises. After performing them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After being arrested, the officer then asked the defendant if his passenger had been drinking. The defendant responded by stating "yes he has, but not as much as me." He was then transported to the police station to provide a breath sample. The defendant complied and blew a .137 and a .142 (almost twice the legal limit). The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took the case to a jury trial. At trial, the firm first pointed out to the jury that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape and he was not swaying as the officer testified. We also pointed out though cross examination that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better on tape than the officer testified to. On cross examination, the firm went through every specific thing that the defendant performed correctly on the roadside tests. The officer testified that the defendant stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. It was clear on tape that he never did. The officer testified he swayed during the one leg stand, It was clear on video he was not swaying. Thus the officer's credibility was called into question. In addition, the officer followed the defendant for about two miles plus over 3 minutes on tape and the defendant never failed to maintain a single lane. The defense's argument that was made to the jury was that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. As to the breath test, the firm argued that the State presented no evidence or testimony as to what the defendant's breath alcohol level was at "the time of driving" as required by Florida law. We also argued that the solutions that were used on the maintenance of this machine to stimulate a breath test were reading higher than the labeled bottle. Thus, the firm argued that the defendant's breath test results could have been skewed higher. Also, we argued that the machine was portable and had a handle. No one called to have the machine brought to the scene so that the breath test could have been administered closer in time to when the defendant was stopped. Finally, the firm pointed out that the video tape contradicted the breath test results which clearly showed that the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty.

The Result

The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

19-Nov-2015|Case# A0Z0QKP |Judge DENARO

Facts

The defendant was stopped for reckless driving. The officer alleged the defendant was driving over 100 mph, running a red light, and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer and showed several signs of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant admitted to consuming 5 beers. He then blew a .163 and .167 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the State prior to trial. After pointing out how vague the police reports were, the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-Nov-2015|Case# 2015-MM-002437A |Judge GALLUZZO FOR WOODARD

Facts

The defendant was first observed by the officer on video tape for speeding. The defendant was clocked at 79 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer then made a U-turn to catch up to the defendant. The defendant was finally stopped about 3 to 4 miles later. The defendant could not be seen on tape at all until he was eventually stopped. The officer stated at one point he got his patrol car up to speeds of 110 mph. The officer alleged in his report he constantly maintained visual contact of the defendant the entire time except for a about fifteen seconds. The officer stated at one point the defendant slowed at a light and did a "California Roll" through a red light. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer immediately ran up to the car, ordered him to open the door and shut off the engine. He was then immediately taken out of the car, handcuffed, and arrested for reckless driving. Upon being arrested for reckless driving, the officer then noticed an odor of alcohol and marijuana from the defendant's breath, along with bloodshot eyes. A search incident to arrest led to the officer finding marijuana on the defendant. Later at the station, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. The breath tech officer also noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued and the defendant displayed a "carefree" attitude." The police then added the charge of DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was eventually charged by the State with DUI, possession of marijuana, and reckless driving.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. The primary basis of our motion was that speed alone was not enough to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. At the hearing, the Judge had the opportunity to hear the officer's testimony, watch the video, and listen to argument from the attorneys. In the hearing, the officer testified that the defendant was swerving, taking turns fast, and could be seen at a close range of 600 feet doing the California roll. Not only was none of the alleged weaving and taking turns too fast not in the officer's reports, but no California roll through a red light could be seen on tape. There was no testimony that any cars were affected by the defendant's driving. The Judge Granted the motion throwing out all the evidence. The Judge determined that although the defendant was lawfully stopped, however, the officer had no probable cause to handcuff him and arrest him for reckless driving. The State then Dismissed the DUI, the possession of marijuana charge, and the reckless driving charge.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

17-Nov-2015|Case# 14-031740MU10A |Judge Diaz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for screeching his tires and jerking his car out of his lane of travel almost off the roadway. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant pulled out his credit cards instead of his driver's license. The defendant then used the door for balance while exiting the car. During the conversation outside the car, none of the defendant's answers to the officer's questions made any sense. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line numerous times, did not touch heel to toe, and lost his balance. During the one leg stand exercise, the defendant put his foot down 6 times and almost fell. The officer stopped the exercise for safety purposes. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Testimony was taken at the hearing from the stopping and arresting officers. The motion to suppress was Granted as the Judge found no probable cause justifying the stop. All the evidence was thrown out and the DUI was then Dismissed.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

13-Nov-2015|Case# 2015-CT-002762AXXX |Judge CUNNINGHAM

Facts

The defendant allegedly bumped another car at a McDonald's drive thru. It happened to be the defendant's neighbor who he has had problems with in the past. The defendant got scared and left. When officers caught the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, and glazed eyes. The defendant told the police he had drank a half a bottle of wine with his girlfriend. The defendant showed signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .102 and .106 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton immediately got pictures of the defendant's car after he retained the firm. There was no damage at all. We then showed the pictures to the State and pointed out to them that there was no "accident" as defined by case law and this was a neighborly quarrel. Thus, we explained to the prosecutor that officers had no right to stop our client because there was no accident. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the Leaving the Scene of the Accident charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Nov-2015|Case# CTC-14A1MARLETWS (JURY TRIAL)|Judge Salton

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. When asked to produce his driver's license, the defendant fumbled while looking for it and then dropped it. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady getting out of his car and swaying while walking to the spot to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape at the request of the officer. According to the officer, the defendant failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .089 and .087 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton proceeded to jury trial. After a three day trial, the jury was undecided. Specifically, five jurors voted not guilty and one voted for guilty. As a result, of the hung jury, the case was reset to be tried a second time. Prior to the new trial date, and after listening to the testimony of the witnesses during trial, the State agreed to drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Nov-2015|Case# 15-029049TC10A |Judge Brown

Facts

Several officers responded to a crash scene in reference to a possible traffic homicide investigation. Upon their arrival it was determined that despite the severity of the accident, none of the parties involved died. After speaking with the independent witnesses, the officers went to the hospital to speak with the defendant. At the hospital, the lead officer asked the doctor whether an odor of alcohol was observed. The doctor responded by disclosing that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .217. Subsequently, the State attempted to secure the defendant's medical records.

Defense

Parks & Braxton objected to the State's request for medical records. At the motion, we explained to the Judge that the only thing the officer could have done with the information he received from the doctor was to request a "legal" blood draw. The Judge agreed and refused to permit the State from acquiring the medical records which contained the blood result. As a result, the State was prevented from filing the DUI charge.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

3-Nov-2015|Case# 13-014188MM10A |Judge Diaz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for drifting across the lane markers several times. Upon making contact with the defendant the officer observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. In addition, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet. She performed the field sobriety tests at the scene which were not on video. While the report indicated that the defendant's performance was poor, he failed to state with any degree of specificity what the defendant did wrong. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. At the breath alcohol testing facility, the defendant was placed on video. Despite some minor slurred speech, there was no unsteadiness throughout the entire video.

Defense

Based on the conflict between the officer's report and the video, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to picking a jury the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Nov-2015|Case# 2015-CT-010483 |Judge LEFLER

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. There was hardly any damage, if any. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. She performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. She displayed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .125 and .136 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out that the defendant performed much better on the field sobriety tests on video than as described. Also, her speech appeared normal and she was not off balance or unsteady. The video clearly showed she may have been under the legal limit at the time of driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Nov-2015|Case# 2015-CT-009108 |Judge LEFLER

Facts

The defendant was found by the police with a flat tire in a handicap parking space. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, she seemed confused, and had watery eyes. The defendant then admitted to drinking vodka cranberry cocktails that night. According to the officer, the defendant failed the videotaped roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .085 and .087 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton showed the State that the officer made up his mind to arrest the defendant even before the DUI investigation began. He stated on video that "he has zero tolerance for drinking and driving." It is not a crime to simply drink and drive. Furthermore, the defendant's video tape of her roadside tasks contradicted the written reports. Also, we pointed out that with the .02 margin of error on the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit a the time of driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Oct-2015|Case# 2015-CT-012570AXXX-XX |Judge KOONS

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to be fumbling around for his items. The officer also noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant would not get out of the car and had to be physically removed. He was then asked to perform roadside tasks to which he refused. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and resisting an officer without violence for refusing to get out of the car. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention that in one report, the officer wrote that the defendant had refused the roadside tasks. Yet, on another supplement, the same officer wrote that the defendant actually performed the tests and was arrested based on his performance. Also, the defendant's speech did not sound slurred on the videotape and when confronted about it, he stated "my speech is not slurred." The State dismissed the resisting charge and dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Oct-2015|Case# 14-016505MU10A|Judge Levine

Facts

The officer said that he observed the defendant weaving in and out of the bicycle lane. At the same time, he stated that smoke was coming out of the front of the defendant's vehicle. After stopping the vehicle the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The defendant performed poorly on three sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. At the station, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test but performed the sobriety tests on video. The defendant had trouble answering basic questions including his social security number. On video, he failed each sobriety test. This was the defendant's Third DUI offense.

Defense

Upon noticing the officer behind him, the defendant pulled out his phone and began to record the entire driving episode. The video was completely different from the description the officer provided. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. On the morning of the motion, the video was provided to the prosecutor for her review. Ultimately, the State conceded the issue of the invalid stop.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Oct-2015|Case# 2015-CT-015782AXXX |Judge SHEPHARD

Facts

The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car in a parking lot. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbling speech, and he was making illogical statements. The defendant was very argumentative. He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He refused and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle. One cannot have the "capability" to operate a motor vehicle while asleep.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Oct-2015|Case# 14-030349MU10A |Judge SOLOMON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving as well as speeding. The officer stated that the defendant had difficulty retrieving his license and registration. During conversations the officer said that the defendant's speech was slurred. He noticed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot eyes and subsequently called for a DUI officer to conduct an investigation. The DUI officer arrived and stated that the defendant was off balance exiting the car. When asked how much he had to drink, the defendant stated "a flight and a pint." The defendant performed poorly on all three field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He subsequently blew a .132 in the breath machine.

Defense

Upon receiving the evidence, it was clear that the video was inconsistent with many of the officers' conclusions. In addition, the defendant's breath test was not known at the time of driving. The two results demonstrated that his alcohol level was still rising rather than eliminating. As a result, the State would not be able to prove that the defendant was above a .08 while driving as required by law. As a result, the defense announced ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Oct-2015|Case# 2015-CT-029698AXXX-XX |Judge GARAGOZLO

Facts

The defendant was stopped for erratic driving and driving up on a curb. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had a couple of beers. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests while he was still seated in his car. The defendant refused to perform them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. Also, partially cold filled beers were found in the defendant's car.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred. Also, the defendant, when asked to get out of the car, was not off balance or unsteady. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform the roadside tests.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Oct-2015|Case# 1851-XGR |Judge DENARO

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 3 scotches. On the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, the defendant exhibited almost every single indicator of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to issues with the State having provided late discovery, they Dropped the DUI prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI prior to trial.

7-Oct-2015|Case# A1R1MAP |Judge WOLFSON

Facts

The defendant and his passengers were stopped based on an anonymous call about the defendant and his passengers having drugs. Upon being stopped, the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car as well as the defendant's breath. The defendant told the police he had smoked about 10-15 minutes prior to the stop. The defendant also had very watery eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks as the officer believed the defendant was impaired by marijuana. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana. Back at the station, the defendant provided a urine sample which came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out to them that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The reason was that the caller was "anonymous" which led to the traffic stop. The police, upon stopping the car, had no "corroboration" as required by the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts justifying the stop of the defendant's car. The State conceded that the stop was unlawful and all of the evidence would have been excluded.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

6-Oct-2015|Case# 2015-CT-009644 |Judge FARR

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and swerving. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she was covered in vomit. The defendant stated she was sick and that's why she had vomited all over the car and herself. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew .090 and .086 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the .02 margin of error with breath test results, the defendant may have been under the legal limit. Also, the defendant performed better on the field sobriety tests on tape than as described on the written police reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Oct-2015|Case# 2015 307211 MMDB |Judge FEIGENBAUM

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming two beers after being read her Miranda rights. The defendant was requested for perform the roadside tests to which she complied. For example, on the one leg stand exercise, she put her foot down and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, she did not touch heel to toe and raised her arms for balance. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that the DUI officer's report was so vague in that he did not go into any details or specifics of the defendant's performance on the the roadside tests. There was no video at the scene. There was a video at the station whereby the defendant was speaking normally, not off balance or unsteady, responsive and coherent.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Oct-2015|Case# 2014-CT-015664 |Judge BONAVITA

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection after a caller dialed 911 alerting them to his car. The officer who arrived, found the defendant passed out and he was blocking traffic. Upon awakening the defendant, he simply ignored the officer and drove off. The officer then got behind him and attempted to imitate a traffic stop. The defendant was captured on video weaving and driving on the opposite side of the road. The officer followed the defendant with her police lights flashing for several minutes until the defendant finally stopped. He was then ordered out of the car by several officers. A DUI officer then took over the investigation. That officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and poor coordination. The defendant swayed prior the roadside tasks and stated he had drank vodka and cranberry juice. 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

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out that on the DUI officer's video tape, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady. In addition, his speech was normal vs. what the officer had written in his report. We discussed with the State that the video of the defendant's roadsides showed he was not impaired. That evidence was contradictory to his video of the driving pattern. Due to the conflict in the evidence (i.e.. the two videos) the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Oct-2015|Case# A0Z0FKP |Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car rear end crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line several times, lost his balance, and did not touch heel to toe. The defendant was unable to perform the one leg stand test due to his high level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .157 and .151 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel of the motor vehicle at the time of the crash. The defendant was standing around outside his car when police arrived on scene.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-Oct-2015|Case# 14-029069MU10A |Judge LEVINE

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and blood shot eyes. Upon exiting the car, the defendant was unsteady and had a circular sway. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his his foot down seven times. On the walk and turn the defendant missed heel to toe eight separate times. On the finger to nose, he missed the tip of his nose five times. On the rhomberg balance test, he estimated 40 seconds for 30 seconds. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, be blew a .137 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton challenged the validity of the breath test based on police misconduct by the breath tech operator. The State conceded the issue and they Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Sep-2015|Case# 2015-CT-016173 |Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost colliding into other cars. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking 3-4 alcoholic beverages. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .149 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out that the video of the field sobriety tests was not turned over in a timely fashion by the State in order to give the defense enough time to prepare for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Sep-2015|Case# 15-501519CT |Judge ADAMS

Facts

The defendant was stopped for stopping in the middle of an intersection and driving on the sidewalk. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also unsteady on her feet. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down numerous times. She was then arrested for DUI and after her arrest blew a .141 and .140 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Sep-2015|Case# A0Z4Z9P|Judge BEDINGHAUS

Facts

video tape. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant would take only three steps and stop and do that over and over. He did not follow one instruction the officer was giving. On the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down several times, used his arms for balance, and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .231 and a .231 in the breath machine (nearly three times the legal limit).

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress, challenging the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to believe the defendant committed any traffic infractions justifying the stop of his vehicle. We argued in our motion that no traffic or pedestrians were affected by the squealing of the tires as required by case law. Also, the officers were not able to provide any evidence the defendant was traveling over the posted speed limit in that area. On the day the motion was going be argued, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Sep-2015|Case# 2015-CT-007115 |Judge STARR

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way. The officer who stopped the defendant, observed the defendant to have sluggish speech, slow movements, and heavy/droopy eye lids. He had a dazed look and blank stare during the entire investigation. He admitted to taking anti-anxiety medications that day which were controlled substances. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by those controlled substances, asked the defendant to perform the roadside tasks. The defendant refused and was arrested for DUI. At the station, he provided a urine sample. That sample eventually came back from the lab and was positive for a controlled substance.

Defense

Parks & Braxton argued that the State did not provide the urine report in a timely fashion as previously ordered by the court prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Sep-2015|Case# 15-001010CT |Judge PROVOST

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving and crossing lane markers. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had nothing to drink even after the officer confronted her numerous times about the odor of liquor coming from her breath. She was also unsteady on her feet according the officer. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, she showed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern.

Defense

Parks and Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape as she had a very thick accent. Also, she was not unsteady on her feet on video tape. Furthermore, the defendant told the officer upon being stopped that she was lost and was on the phone trying get directions home. Also, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests on tape contradicted the description given in the officer's report.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

21-Sep-2015|Case# A10I8QP |Judge SERAPHIN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant lost his balance while outside of his car. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the walk and turn test, he took an incorrect number of steps, did not touch heel to toe, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand exercise, he swayed and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .135 and .125 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out that the police reports did not adequately describe the details of the roadside tasks. There was no video tape in the case. Also, the control tests were reading high on the breath test result print out which could have led to falsely high breath test results.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-Sep-2015|Case# 2014-CT-011558-O |Judge Bell

Facts

No The defendant was stopped for failing to yield to oncoming traffic and speeding. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 3-4 beers. The defendant then perform the roadside tasks on video tape. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .161 and .156 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video contradicted the officer's police reports. The video showed the defendant did much better on the roadside tests than the officer described in his written reports. Also, we pointed out that the the defendant was clearly absorbing alcohol and his breath alcohol level was lower than the legal limit at the time of driving based on the video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Sep-2015|Case# 4119-XEX|Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police for having illegal dark window tinting on his car windows. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also noticed cups in the car with alcohol in them. Bottles of brandy were also found in the car. The defendant performed the roadside exercises at the request of the officer. According to the officer, the defendant exhibited numerous sings of intoxication and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to case law, the defendant may have been unlawfully stopped based on the alleged shade of tint he had on his windows.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Sep-2015|Case# 2015MM4328 |Judge HERR

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he wiped out on his motorcycle. The defendant was ejected from the bike and slid on the ground per the witnesses who called 911. The defendant had injuries to his head and shoulder. Prior to the defendant being taken to the hospital, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. Post Miranda warnings, the defendant stated he had drank three mixed drinks. The defendant was then transported to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer ordered a blood draw. When the blood results came back from the toxicology lab, they showed the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .177 and .177.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the blood was unlawfully taken by the officer. We indicated to the State, that based on the reports, a breath test was not impractical or impossible as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Sep-2015|Case# A1REZMP |Judge GONZALEZ-WHYTE

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant appeared to be acting slowly, have dilated pupils, and watery eyes. The officer also observed body and eyelid tremors. The officer concluded the defendant may be impaired by a controlled substance, as no odor of alcohol was detected. The defendant preformed the roadside tests and according to the officer he failed them. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a further investigation was conducted called a Drug Recognition Evaluation. That officer, called a DRE (drug recognition expert), concluded that the defendant was impaired by either a CNS stimulant and/or marijuana. The officer then requested a urine test to which the defendant complied.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. First, the defense pointed out to the State that there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime to even conduct any type of DUI investigation. Also, we pointed out that there was no "reasonable cause" to even ask for urine test on these facts pursuant to Florida case law and the Florida Statutes. Finally, the State never provided the urine results in a timely fashion per court orders. Thus the State was prohibited from using any test results. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

9-Sep-2015|Case# 2015-MM-003937 |Judge COLLINS

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, heavily slurred speech, and water/glassy eyes. The defendant stated he drank a few beers. The defendant swayed and staggered as he walked. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was normal and he was not off balance or unsteady. The video also showed the defendant walking normally. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction at all on his record.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Sep-2015|Case# 7172-XEQ |Judge Seraphin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving 102 mph in a 55 mph zone on the highway. He was also cutting in and out of traffic and tailgating. The officer stopped the defendant for reckless driving. That officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He then called for a DUI unit who made similar observations. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. According to the officer he failed. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped of the line and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, he put his foot down, swayed, and used his arms for balance. The defendant was arrested for reckless driving and DUI. It should be noted this was the defendant's second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the morning of trial, the officer who stopped the defendant was asked numerous questions by the defense before trial got started. There were several things the officer added to the alleged driving pattern that were not written his report. For example, he stated the defendant almost rear ended him and was driving on the lane marker for a mile. The DUI officer also wrote a very vague report without including any specifics about the roadside tests. Prior to picking a jury, the State dismissed the reckless driving charge and Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Sep-2015|Case# 2015-CT-500643 |Judge HAYWARD

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby his vehicle struck a stop sign and ran into a chain link fence which caused extensive damage to the defendant's car. The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer wrote in his report the defendant was uneasy on his feet and almost lost his balance falling into the car. According to the officer, the defendant then failed the field sobriety tests on video and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on tape, the defendant’s speech was not slurred and he was not off balance or unsteady like the officer made him out be in the reports. Also, the description of the field sobriety tests in the police reports making the defendant out to be highly intoxicated was contradicted by the video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-Sep-2015|Case# 2015 303293MMDB|Judge DAVIDSON

Facts

The defendant was seen by the police in a parking lot doing "burn outs" on his motorcycle. There were about 20 people standing around watching. Officers approached the defendant and got him off his motorcycle. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking Bud Light beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests which were not video taped. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down 7 times and stumbled backwards. On the walk and turn exercise, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the initial seizure of the defendant by ordering him off his bike was unlawful. Pursuant to Florida case law, since no one standing around watching was affected by the defendant's acts of doing burn outs (i.e.. spinning his tires), there was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Aug-2015|Case# 1577-XEO |Judge HORROX

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and while out of the car he swayed. The defendant admitted to drinking Corona beer. The officer also found a beer can with beer in it inside the car. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within five years.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The week before trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer’s reports were totally contradicted by the defendant's video tape. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant was swaying, yet he was never off balance on tape. Also, the defendant's cousin was in the car and was prepared to testify that it was his beer can.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Aug-2015|Case# 05-2014-CT-052319-AXXX-XX |Judge Murphy

Facts

The defendant was observed by the officer driving in what he described as an "S" pattern, drifting within her lane. The defendant's car also made a left turn and made contact with an orange plastic construction traffic barrel located in that lane. The barrel was protruding over the painted pavement markings. The officer then conducted a traffic stop. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant lost her balance numerous times, put her foot down, and raised her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, she did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The defendant was eventually arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. It should be noted the entire driving pattern was captured on video along with the DUI investigation.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the stop of the defendant's car. At the motion hearing, the Judge watched the video, listened to the officer's testimony, and heard argument of counsel. The Judge determined based on the officer's testimony that the officer did not consider the "S" driving pattern in his decision to stop the defendant's vehicle and that he did not even write it in his report. The officer also did not note any damage in his reports nor did he testify to any damage. The Judge concluded that the officer only made the stop because of the contact with the barrel. The Judge, in his legal conclusion, found that making contact with an improperly placed traffic barrel in the middle of the roadway did not amount to any legal basis for stopping the defendant. He went on to state that any reasonable person might have hit that barrel. In fact, on video, the officer himself had to actually slow down to avoid the barrel. The Judge granted the motion to suppress, finding no probable cause of any traffic infractions, nor reasonable suspicion of any crime. All the evidence was then excluded.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

26-Aug-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000741AXMX|Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was involved in a collision. Upon arrival, the first officer observed the defendant hanging out of the vehicle. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech. At some point, the defendant allegedly admitted to drinking "way too much." The defendant was subsequently taken to the hospital. At the hospital, the investigating Trooper made contact with the defendant. In addition to the above observations, the Trooper also noticed bloodshot, watery eyes. While at the hospital, a nurse approached the Trooper and revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .257 (over three times the legal limit). The Trooper asked the defendant if he would consent to turning over his medical records including the blood result. The defendant refused. As a result, the Trooper spoke with an investigator for the State Attorney's Office who subsequently acquired the results through a subpoena. The defendant was eventually charged with enhanced DUI.

Defense

Medical records involve an issue of privacy. In order to acquire the records, as well as the blood results, the State Attorney's Office must first provide the defendant with written notice. Upon receipt of such notice, the defendant through his lawyer has the opportunity to object upon which a hearing is held. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the medical records including the blood results for failure to provide notice. Days before the hearing, the prosecutor sent over a copy of the notice that they say was sent prior to acquiring the medical records. At the motion, Parks & Braxton argued that the prosecutor's office was manufacturing evidence that never existed. Specifically, that the notice was created after they acquired the blood results. The State's investigator took the stand and admitted that the prosecutor never signed the notice, but rather it was a computer generated signature. More important, the investigator testified on cross examination that the notice was sent out on March 15, 2015 However, the accident didn't occur until March 19, 2015.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Aug-2015|Case# 2015-MM-001406|Judge WOODARD

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a tree. He was found unconscious and the airbags had deployed. The car was destroyed. Numerous civilians had called 911. When police arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. The officer on scene. noticed a beer can which had beer in it next to the driver's seat. The officer then went to the hospital. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and asked the defendant for a blood sample. The defendant refused. The defendant was later charged with DUI by the State Attorney's Office.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that was no reasonable suspicion of a crime based on odor alone to even ask the defendant for blood pursuant to Florida Statutes and case law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Aug-2015|Case# 2014-MM-001878|Judge WOODARD

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and thick tongued speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant lost his balance, stepped off the line, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down, swayed. Also, on the estimation of time test, the defendant estimated 69 seconds for 30 seconds. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .136 and .140 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the in-car camera utilized by the officer to tape the roadside tests was completely blurry. Thus, one could not see the defendant's actual performance. Also, the defense was to exclude the breath test results because FDLE did not follow their own procedures relating to breath testing.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Aug-2015|Case# 2015-CT-001366|Judge GABBARD

Facts

The defendant as stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also was observed to be unsteady on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI within ten years.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that when the DUI officer turned on his video camera, you could only see the defendant for a short period of time. The officer kept the defendant off camera for almost the entire investigation. Also on video, the defendant's speech was normal as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports about it being slurred. Furthermore, the defendant did not appear unsteady when he was visible on camera.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Aug-2015|Case# 14-009258MM10A |Judge SOLOMON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant told the officer he had drank some Corona beers. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he lost his balance and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, he put his foot down and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Aug-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000235|Judge CUPP

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to drinking 6 beers. She then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she failed them all and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Aug-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000901-E |Judge ALLEN

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. He hit the back of a bus. The bus driver expressed concern that the defendant was either drunk or on drugs. When police arrived, they noticed the defendant leaning on his car and was very unsteady. The officer noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued, his eyes were glazed, and he was moving very slow and lethargically. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant consented to performing field sobriety tests. The defendant had trouble understanding almost every instruction and showed an overwhelming number of clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert), who is an officer with specialized training in detecting impairment by drugs, was called to do further evaluation on the defendant. That officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS Depressant.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

4-Aug-2015|Case# 2015-CT-017335AXXX-XX |Judge FRIEDLAND

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer who made the traffic stop made some DUI observations so he called for a DUI unit. When the DUI unit arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant was slow to exit the vehicle and slow walking around. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video. According to the officer, he failed the walk and turn test in addition to the one leg stand exercise. The defendant was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the stopping officer never wrote a report detailing his alleged DUI observations. Also, the video contradicted the officer's reports as it related to the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. Finally, the officer improperly explained the instructions on the one leg stand which caused confusion on the defendant's behalf.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jul-2015|Case# 7894-XEM|Judge Denaro

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and sluggish movements. According to the officer, the defendant showed several cues of intoxication on the roadside tests. The defendant also admitted to drinking 3-4 beers. The defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .176 and .186 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton spoke to the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Jul-2015|Case# 2015-CT-009277ANB|Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police after being seen driving on a blown out tire. Sparks were flying all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slow movements. The defendant was also unsteady, off balance, and admitted to drinking vodka. The defendant failed all the sobriety tests. For example, the defendant mixed up the letters on the alphabet test exercise at least three times. On the one leg stand test, the defendant lost his balance and could not even complete the task. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .122 and .117 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted talks with the State prior to setting the case for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Jul-2015|Case# 6599-XDX|Judge HAGUE

Facts

THE DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED FOR SPEEDING AND WEAVING. THE OFFICER OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE AN ODOR OF ALCOHOL, VERY SLURRED AND RAPID SPEECH, AND BLOODSHOT EYES. THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO PERFORM THE ROADSIDE TASKS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE WALK AND TURN EXERCISE, HE STEPPED OFF THE LINE NUMEROUS TIMES, MISSED HEEL TO TOE, AND MADE AN IMPROPER TURN. ON THE ONE LEG STAND TEST, THE DEFENDANT SWAYED AND USED HIS ARMS FOR BALANCE. ON THE ESTIMATION OF TIME TEST, THE DEFENDANT ESTIMATED 48 SECONDS FOR 30 SECONDS. HE WAS THEN ARRESTED FOR DUI. AFTER HIS ARREST. HE REFUSED THE BREATH TEST. THERE WAS NO VIDEOTAPE USED.

Defense

PARKS & BRAXTON HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STATE TO GET THEM TO DROP THE DUI.

The Result

THE STATE DROPPED THE DUI.

17-Jul-2015|Case# 2014-CT-048175|Judge KOENIG

Facts

THE DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED FOR SPEEDING. THE OFFICER NOTICED THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE AN ODOR OF ALCOHOL, GLASSY/WATERY EYES, AND MUMBLED SPEECH. WHEN THE DEFENDANT EXITED THE CAR, HE APPEARED TO BE SLOW AND UNSTEADY. THE DEFENDANT WAS REQUESTED TO PERFORM THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS TO WHICH HE REFUSED. THE OFFICER EXPLAINED THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS REFUSAL, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT STILL REFUSED. HE WAS THEN ARRESTED FOR DUI. AFTER HIS ARREST, HE REFUSED THE BREATH TEST.

Defense

PARKS & BRAXTON HAD PRETRIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO SETTING A TRIAL DATE.

The Result

THE STATE DROPPED THE DUI.

13-Jul-2015|Case# 2014-MM-011279A|Judge Collins

Facts

The defendant was approached by an officer at a McDonald's drive thru because he and his passengers were honking the car horn a few times. When the officer, who was also in the drive thru lane in front of the defendant, approached the defendant's car, he smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car. He also noticed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes. The officer took the defendant's license and returned to his car. Once the officer paid for his food, he waited for the defendant and his passengers to pay for theirs. Once they paid, he ordered the defendant to pull his car over and get out. Once out, the officer separated the defendant from the car and observed the odor of alcohol on his breath. He also observed the defendant to be swaying. When the officer asked the defendant how much he had drank, the defendant responded by saying "not too much." The defendant then performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. He exhibited several cues of intoxication and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

ordering him to pull over and get out of his car. We argued that the defendant was unlawfully seized by the officer's actions as there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause that any traffic infraction occurred. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Jul-2015|Case# 14-010207MM10A|Judge Pole

Facts

The defendant was stopped for not wearing his seat belt. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and constricted pupils. The defendant told the officer he had been drinking beers at a bar. Once out of the car, the defendant stumbled and almost fell. The defendant also had a difficult time standing. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety exercises due to the officer not giving the defendant any adverse consequences. Also, the officer would not let the defendant go to the bathroom unless he agreed to take a breath test. Thus, we pointed out to the State that the defendant never actually refused to take the breath test on video tape and simply was begging to use the restroom.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Jul-2015|Case# 2015-CM-000821|Judge FARR

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According the officer, the defendant failed all the video taped roadside tests and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. Furthermore, upon a search incident to arrest, the officer found marijuana in the defendant's car and he was also charged with possession.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer's description of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests was contradicted by the video tape. The State not only dropped the DUI, but also dismissed the possession of marijuana charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jul-2015|Case# 13-016066MM10A|Judge SOLOMON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was allegedly traveling 85 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a blank stare. His movements in the car were slow and sluggish. The defendant had to use the car door for assistance and was very unsteady outside the car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the both the officer who stopped the defendant and the DUI officer who arrested the defendant. Both officers contradicted each other on almost every fact in the case. The firm showed the depositions to the State prior to trial in an attempt to get them to drop this Third DUI. After reading the transcripts, the State realized that the credibility of the officers was compromised.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-Jul-2015|Case# 05-2014-CT-053813|Judge CLARK

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving and having an inoperable tag light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol on his breath, mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant stated he had drank three or four alcoholic beverages. The defendant seemed lethargic and was swaying. A 24 pack of beer was also found in the defendant's car. The defendant stated he had a"bum" knee and refused to perform the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying at all as the officer wrote in his reports. Furthermore, the officer did not turn the sound on on his microphone so nothing could be heard on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusing the roadside tests.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jun-2015|Case# 13-020592MM10A|Judge LEVEY-COHEN

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in his car at an intersection. The car was running and the defendant's head was tilted back. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he admitted to consuming four beers. Vomit was found inside the driver's door panel. While outside the car, the defendant was swaying. Upon being asked to perform the field sobriety tests, the defendant indicated he was "completely disabled" and could not pass them . However, the defendant still agreed to perform them at the request of the officer. He showed numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton presented a detailed medical history of the defendant's injuries and disabilities. The firm also showed the State x-rays of the defendant's foot which had numerous screws. Subsequently, the State recognized based on those injuries and the defendant's physical limitations, they could not prove that he failed the roadside tests due to alcohol impairment versus his numerous medical conditions.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Jun-2015|Case# 2013-CT-001324-E|Judge WILSON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was unsteady on her feet and swaying. The defendant also vomited on scene. The defendant showed several signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .201 and .202 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several negotiations with the State regarding recent issues that have arisen regarding the breath test.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Jun-2015|Case# 2013-CT-001324-E|Judge Wilson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was unsteady on her feet and swaying. The defendant also vomited on scene. The defendant showed several signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .201 and .202 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several negotiations with the State regarding recent issues that have arisen regarding the breath test.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Jun-2015|Case# 14-A0Z4R2P|Judge MCKYTON

Facts

The defendant was involved in a sideswipe crash in which the defendant's driver's side was demolished. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred / mumbled speech, bloodshot / glassy eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside tests even though he had stated to the officer on video tape that he was unable to do them because of the severity of the crash, he was very upset, and he had been covered in glass. According to the officer, he failed the videotaped tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the prosecution. We pointed out that any alleged impairment seen on tape was not due to alcohol, but from the severity of the crash. On tape, the defendant had no shirt on and was barefoot because he had been covered in glass from the driver's side window shattering all over him. We gave the State several pictures of the defendant's mangled car. The officer even had the defendant perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests while barefoot on concrete after he had just taken off his socks that had glass in them. We also pointed out how on tape the defendant kept telling the officer how upset and shaken up he was from the crash.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

22-Jun-2015|Case# 14-A0Z4R2P|Judge Mckyton

Facts

The defendant was involved in a sideswipe crash in which the defendant's driver's side was demolished. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred / mumbled speech, bloodshot / glassy eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside tests even though he had stated to the officer on video tape that he was unable to do them because of the severity of the crash, he was very upset, and he had been covered in glass. According to the officer, he failed the videotaped tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the prosecution. We pointed out that any alleged impairment seen on tape was not due to alcohol, but from the severity of the crash. On tape, the defendant had no shirt on and was barefoot because he had been covered in glass from the driver's side window shattering all over him. We gave the State several pictures of the defendant's mangled car. The officer even had the defendant perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests while barefoot on concrete after he had just taken off his socks that had glass in them. We also pointed out how on tape the defendant kept telling the officer how upset and shaken up he was from the crash.

The Result

The State Dropped the DUI.

16-Jun-2015|Case# 14-CT-048681|Judge LEFLER

Facts

The defendant was involved in a rear end crash. According to the officer, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking shots. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .222 and .240 in the breath machine

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Jun-2015|Case# 14-CT-048681|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was involved in a rear end crash. According to the officer, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking shots. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .222 and .240 in the breath machine

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-002984-A-O|Judge CLARK

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash in his parking garage. A civilian witness saw the crash and believed the defendant to be highly intoxicated, even though he never got up close. He called 911 to alert the police and the police then came to the parking garage. Soon after, they located the defendant via his vehicle tag and went to the defendant's apartment in the building where the crash occurred. At the apartment, the defendant opened the door and was highly intoxicated. The officers smelled and odor of alcohol and his speech was not understandable. The defendant was very off balance and had to sit down to keep from falling. The defendant denied being in the crash and stated he only had drank beers while inside his apartment. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test and was also charged with a second refusal. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that neither the officers, nor the civilian witness, smelled any alcohol on the defendant's breath at the time of the crash or shortly thereafter. Thus, they could prove he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash (while driving) as required by law. The State dismissed the second refusal charge and the DUI was Dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-002984-A-O|Judge Clark

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash in his parking garage. A civilian witness saw the crash and believed the defendant to be highly intoxicated, even though he never got up close. He called 911 to alert the police and the police then came to the parking garage. Soon after, they located the defendant via his vehicle tag and went to the defendant's apartment in the building where the crash occurred. At the apartment, the defendant opened the door and was highly intoxicated. The officers smelled and odor of alcohol and his speech was not understandable. The defendant was very off balance and had to sit down to keep from falling. The defendant denied being in the crash and stated he only had drank beers while inside his apartment. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test and was also charged with a second refusal. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that neither the officers, nor the civilian witness, smelled any alcohol on the defendant's breath at the time of the crash or shortly thereafter. Thus, they could prove he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash (while driving) as required by law. The State dismissed the second refusal charge and the DUI was Dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-008747AXXX|Judge SHEPHERD

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant stated he drank three beers. The defendant used the door for balance as he exited the car. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, he stumbled, took the wrong number of steps, and lost his footing several times. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000358|Judge FARR

Facts

The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car on the side of the road in a parking space. Upon awakening the defendant after several minutes, the officers on scene noticed the defendant to have and odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. After displaying several signs of intoxication on the video taped field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .155 and .144 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that someone who is sleeping in their car has no capability of operating the vehicle. Thus, they would not be able prove actual physical control.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jun-2015|Case# 2014-CT-049373|Judge OVERTON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was also unsteady on his feet. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .158 and .153 the first time in the breath machine. The second time he blew a a .131 and a .150.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the DUI video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, there was no slurred speech and the defendant was not unsteady. Furthermore, we pointed out to the prosecutor that after the first breath test results were obtained, the breath card indicated a problem with the machine. However, the proper steps were not taken, nor documented, by the breath test operator as to how the machine allowed two more samples of the defendant's breath.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jun-2015|Case# 2014-CT-049373|Judge Overton

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was also unsteady on his feet. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .158 and .153 the first time in the breath machine. The second time he blew a a .131 and a .150.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the DUI video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, there was no slurred speech and the defendant was not unsteady. Furthermore, we pointed out to the prosecutor that after the first breath test results were obtained, the breath card indicated a problem with the machine. However, the proper steps were not taken, nor documented, by the breath test operator as to how the machine allowed two more samples of the defendant's breath.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000358|Judge Farr

Facts

The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car on the side of the road in a parking space. Upon awakening the defendant after several minutes, the officers on scene noticed the defendant to have and odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. After displaying several signs of intoxication on the video taped field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .155 and .144 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that someone who is sleeping in their car has no capability of operating the vehicle. Thus, they would not be able prove actual physical control.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-008747AXXX|Judge Shepherd

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant stated he drank three beers. The defendant used the door for balance as he exited the car. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, he stumbled, took the wrong number of steps, and lost his footing several times. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jun-2015|Case# 56-2015-CT-000150-A|Judge NELSON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving, almost running into a curb, and speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant admitted to having a drink or two and had poor balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks and Braxton questioned the arresting officer at the civil administrative driver's license hearing soon after the defendant's arrest. The firm then ordered the transcript and provided it to the State. In the hearing, the officer misstated the law and also contradicted herself. This led not only to the defendant getting his driving privileges fully restored but also the State dropping the DUI in court.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jun-2015|Case# 56-2015-CT-000150-A|Judge Nelson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving, almost running into a curb, and speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant admitted to having a drink or two and had poor balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks and Braxton questioned the arresting officer at the civil administrative driver's license hearing soon after the defendant's arrest. The firm then ordered the transcript and provided it to the State. In the hearing, the officer misstated the law and also contradicted herself. This led not only to the defendant getting his driving privileges fully restored but also the State dropping the DUI in court.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Jun-2015|Case# 2015 302031 MMDB|Judge SCHUMANN

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he hit a parked car in a parking lot and was doing a "burn out." The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 6 or 7 beers earlier in the evening. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .112 and .117 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State from the beginning of the case and then a couple of weeks before the trial date to try to get them to drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Jun-2015|Case# 2015 302031 MMDB|Judge Schumann

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he hit a parked car in a parking lot and was doing a "burn out." The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 6 or 7 beers earlier in the evening. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .112 and .117 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State from the beginning of the case and then a couple of weeks before the trial date to try to get them to drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-003939-O|Judge BELL

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three beers. According to the officer, he failed all the roadside tests which were not video taped. The defendant was arrested for DUI. Later, the defendant tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, however the officer noticed a blue coating on the defendant's tongue and then suspected drug use.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State early on after the defendant's arrest that the defendant did not make any statements about taking any chemical or controlled substances. Thus, the State could not prove by which specific drug was alleged impairing the defendant as the officer concluded based on some blue coating.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

4-Jun-2015|Case# 2015-CT-003939-O|Judge Bell

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three beers. According to the officer, he failed all the roadside tests which were not video taped. The defendant was arrested for DUI. Later, the defendant tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, however the officer noticed a blue coating on the defendant's tongue and then suspected drug use.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State early on after the defendant's arrest that the defendant did not make any statements about taking any chemical or controlled substances. Thus, the State could not prove by which specific drug was alleged impairing the defendant as the officer concluded based on some blue coating.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

1-Jun-2015|Case# 303382-X|Judge NEWMAN

Facts

The defendant was involved in a two car crash. Upon arrival, officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was also screaming and flailing his arms. He admitted to consuming two beers and almost fell down two times as he lost his balance. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton made several requests for discovery items from the State, including various police reports. After the third time requesting them, the State dismissed the DUI due to the police not turning over the documents to them. Thus, they could not turn them over to the defense.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

1-Jun-2015|Case# 303382-X|Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was involved in a two car crash. Upon arrival, officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was also screaming and flailing his arms. He admitted to consuming two beers and almost fell down two times as he lost his balance. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton made several requests for discovery items from the State, including various police reports. After the third time requesting them, the State dismissed the DUI due to the police not turning over the documents to them. Thus, they could not turn them over to the defense.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

14-May-2015|Case# 05-2013-CT-065706|Judge CLARKE

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving, failing to stop a red light, and driving under and over the speed limit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. She also had a flushed face. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, she hopped and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and she later refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape clearly showed that the roadside tests were conducted off to the side of the road in a sloped ditch. The defendant even stated to the officer on tape that she did not believe the ground was level. However, the officer did not move her to the side where the ground was level and had her do them on uneven ground. Furthermore, the defendant's speech sounded normal on video. The firm announced ready for jury trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-May-2015|Case# 05-2013-CT-065706|Judge Clarke

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving, failing to stop a red light, and driving under and over the speed limit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. She also had a flushed face. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, she hopped and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and she later refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape clearly showed that the roadside tests were conducted off to the side of the road in a sloped ditch. The defendant even stated to the officer on tape that she did not believe the ground was level. However, the officer did not move her to the side where the ground was level and had her do them on uneven ground. Furthermore, the defendant's speech sounded normal on video. The firm announced ready for jury trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-May-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000538-A-E|Judge ALLEN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer which were not video taped. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, the defendant swayed and counted wrong. The defendant was asked if he was also taking any medications and the defendant stated "yes" but he did not specify which medications and when he took them. The officer concluded that the defendant was impaired not only by alcohol, but also a chemical and/or controlled substance based on the defendant's statements about taking medications.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the State could not prove by which chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant based on his vague statements and the officer not obtaining specifics as to the medications. A few weeks prior to the trial date, the State dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

11-May-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000538-A-E|Judge Allen

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer which were not video taped. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, the defendant swayed and counted wrong. The defendant was asked if he was also taking any medications and the defendant stated "yes" but he did not specify which medications and when he took them. The officer concluded that the defendant was impaired not only by alcohol, but also a chemical and/or controlled substance based on the defendant's statements about taking medications.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the State could not prove by which chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant based on his vague statements and the officer not obtaining specifics as to the medications. A few weeks prior to the trial date, the State dismissed the DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

5-May-2015|Case# 2015-CT-500334|Judge MANN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving in and out of lanes and making an improper right turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was repeating the same thing over and over. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady and off balance outside her car. She failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. There was no video tape used by the officer.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged weaving was not described in any detail. Also, the officer hardly wrote any specifics about the defendant's alleged performance on the roadside tasks.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-May-2015|Case# 2014-CT-149893|Judge LEFLER

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving and drifting. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She leaned against her car for balance and was swaying. Three empty vodka bottles were found in the defendant's back seat. She refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote in his reports that an in car camera was used during the entire DUI investigation. However, upon investigation, it was determined that the video could not be retrieved off the department's computer server. No explanation was ever given by the police as to why the video was purged.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-May-2015|Case# 2014-CT-149893|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving and drifting. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She leaned against her car for balance and was swaying. Three empty vodka bottles were found in the defendant's back seat. She refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote in his reports that an in car camera was used during the entire DUI investigation. However, upon investigation, it was determined that the video could not be retrieved off the department's computer server. No explanation was ever given by the police as to why the video was purged.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-May-2015|Case# 2015-CT-500334|Judge Mann

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving in and out of lanes and making an improper right turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was repeating the same thing over and over. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady and off balance outside her car. She failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. There was no video tape used by the officer.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged weaving was not described in any detail. Also, the officer hardly wrote any specifics about the defendant's alleged performance on the roadside tasks.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-May-2015|Case# 2014-CT-145299|Judge LEFLER

Facts

The police were called out as someone saw the defendant passed out in a bar parking lot. They gave a description of his car. When officers responded, the defendant was driving off. The officers followed and observed the defendant weaving all over the road. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant used his hands to balance himself on the car and swayed as he stood. He refused to perform the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying as the officers had written and his speech was not slurred on tape. Also, the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing the field sobriety tests as required by law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-May-2015|Case# 2014-CT-145299|Judge Lefler

Facts

The police were called out as someone saw the defendant passed out in a bar parking lot. They gave a description of his car. When officers responded, the defendant was driving off. The officers followed and observed the defendant weaving all over the road. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant used his hands to balance himself on the car and swayed as he stood. He refused to perform the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying as the officers had written and his speech was not slurred on tape. Also, the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing the field sobriety tests as required by law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Apr-2015|Case# A0Z0OWP|Judge KRIEGER-MARTIN

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in a drive thru by police. After finally awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to consuming 4-5 beers. He failed all the roadside tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .173 and .167 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Apr-2015|Case# A0Z0OWP|Judge Krieger-Martin

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in a drive thru by police. After finally awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to consuming 4-5 beers. He failed all the roadside tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .173 and .167 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-025761AXXX|Judge BONAVITA

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he was very confused, and stated he had drank three whiskey and cokes. The defendant was not making sense in his responses to questioning by the officer. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests on videotape to which he complied. According to the officer, he showed signs of intoxication and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant's performance on the tests contradicted the beginning portion of the video tape as to his level of alleged impairment. The week before a jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-025761AXXX|Judge Bonavita

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he was very confused, and stated he had drank three whiskey and cokes. The defendant was not making sense in his responses to questioning by the officer. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests on videotape to which he complied. According to the officer, he showed signs of intoxication and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant's performance on the tests contradicted the beginning portion of the video tape as to his level of alleged impairment. The week before a jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Apr-2015|Case# CTC14-5994XBCNC|Judge PIERCE

Facts

The defendant rear ended another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. While standing, she was unsteady and staggering according to the police reports. The officer asked her to perform the field sobriety tests and she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the videotape at the scene, the defendant's speech appeared normal versus what the officer wrote in his report. Also, she was not off balance or unsteady on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences relating to her refusal to perform the roadside tests as required by case law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Apr-2015|Case# CTC14-5994XBCNC|Judge Pierce

Facts

The defendant rear ended another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. While standing, she was unsteady and staggering according to the police reports. The officer asked her to perform the field sobriety tests and she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the videotape at the scene, the defendant's speech appeared normal versus what the officer wrote in his report. Also, she was not off balance or unsteady on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences relating to her refusal to perform the roadside tests as required by case law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

24-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-022764AXXX|Judge WEISS

Facts

The defendant was involved in a rear end crash in which she was the at fault driver. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was observed staggering and swaying upon exiting the car. The defendant failed the roadsides tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the prosecutor for a few months to convince them to drop the DUI. We pointed out to them that the roadside report was very vague and there were hardly any details of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Also, we showed them pictures that there was no damage to the other car as it was just a slight bump at a traffic light.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

24-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-022764AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was involved in a rear end crash in which she was the at fault driver. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was observed staggering and swaying upon exiting the car. The defendant failed the roadsides tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the prosecutor for a few months to convince them to drop the DUI. We pointed out to them that the roadside report was very vague and there were hardly any details of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Also, we showed them pictures that there was no damage to the other car as it was just a slight bump at a traffic light.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-505243|Judge GAGLIARDI

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and almost hitting another car. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have rapid speech, poor coordination, and difficulty focusing in on answering basic questions. She had no odor of alcohol. The defendant stated she takes numerous prescribed controlled substances for anxiety, depression, and ADHD among other medical conditions. The defendant performed field sobriety tests, and according to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI (chemical and/or controlled substance). Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert) was called in to conduct a further investigation. One the evaluation was concluded, that officer with specialized training, concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, a CNS stimulant, and a narcotic analgesic. A urine sample was then provided to the police by the defendant. The toxicology lab determined via testing that there were amphetamines, also known as CNS stimulants, in her system.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous talks with the State pretrial. We pointed out that the DRE was wrong in that he concluded she was impaired by a CNS depressant and narcotic analgesic and none were found in her system. Also, the field sobriety tests he conducted back at the station contradicted her performance at the scene. There was no video tape. His conclusions contradicted the urine results. Also, we showed the State a letter from her Dr. who prescribes all her medications. He was with her just hours before the arrest and he observed no signs of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no criminal conviction at all.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-505243|Judge Gagliardi

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and almost hitting another car. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have rapid speech, poor coordination, and difficulty focusing in on answering basic questions. She had no odor of alcohol. The defendant stated she takes numerous prescribed controlled substances for anxiety, depression, and ADHD among other medical conditions. The defendant performed field sobriety tests, and according to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI (chemical and/or controlled substance). Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert) was called in to conduct a further investigation. One the evaluation was concluded, that officer with specialized training, concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, a CNS stimulant, and a narcotic analgesic. A urine sample was then provided to the police by the defendant. The toxicology lab determined via testing that there were amphetamines, also known as CNS stimulants, in her system.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous talks with the State pretrial. We pointed out that the DRE was wrong in that he concluded she was impaired by a CNS depressant and narcotic analgesic and none were found in her system. Also, the field sobriety tests he conducted back at the station contradicted her performance at the scene. There was no video tape. His conclusions contradicted the urine results. Also, we showed the State a letter from her Dr. who prescribes all her medications. He was with her just hours before the arrest and he observed no signs of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no criminal conviction at all.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Apr-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000273-E|Judge CLARK

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and her movements were slow and lethargic. Her eyes were red and her pupils were dilated. The defendant stated she had been drinking beers. She was asked to perform the roadside tasks to which she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial , we pointed out to the State that none of the alleged driving pattern was on video tape. Once the officer stopped the defendant, she then turned on the camera. During half of the video tape, the officer, for some unknown reason, took the defendant away from the camera so the defendant's actions could not be seen. Also, we pointed out that some of the defendant's normal faculties were not impaired on video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Apr-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000273-E|Judge Clark

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and her movements were slow and lethargic. Her eyes were red and her pupils were dilated. The defendant stated she had been drinking beers. She was asked to perform the roadside tasks to which she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial , we pointed out to the State that none of the alleged driving pattern was on video tape. Once the officer stopped the defendant, she then turned on the camera. During half of the video tape, the officer, for some unknown reason, took the defendant away from the camera so the defendant's actions could not be seen. Also, we pointed out that some of the defendant's normal faculties were not impaired on video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-008989AXXX|Judge CUNNINGHAM

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police for having his tail lamps out. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the "interior of the car" and a beer bottle in the back passenger floorboard. The officer had his police lights on and told the defendant to "stay put" as he went back to his patrol car. Upon entering his patrol car, he began typing out traffic citations for no tail lamps and for the defendant not carrying his registration. He had also called for a DUI unit. The defendant sat in his car for an extended period of time waiting for the DUI unit to arrive even after the citations had already been typed. When the DUI unit arrived on scene, he went up to the defendant's car and observed an odor of alcohol from the defendant himself, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn deposition testimony of the officer who stopped the defendant. After taking the deposition, the firm filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no "reasonable suspicion" of a crime justifying the initial detention of the defendant at the scene longer than it was necessary to write the civil traffic citations, while awaiting arrival of a DUI unit some time later. The Judge was presented case law by the defense, heard argument, and then Granted the motion thereby excluding all the State's evidence against the defendant.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

14-Apr-2015|Case# 2014-CT-008989AXXX|Judge Cunningham

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police for having his tail lamps out. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the "interior of the car" and a beer bottle in the back passenger floorboard. The officer had his police lights on and told the defendant to "stay put" as he went back to his patrol car. Upon entering his patrol car, he began typing out traffic citations for no tail lamps and for the defendant not carrying his registration. He had also called for a DUI unit. The defendant sat in his car for an extended period of time waiting for the DUI unit to arrive even after the citations had already been typed. When the DUI unit arrived on scene, he went up to the defendant's car and observed an odor of alcohol from the defendant himself, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn deposition testimony of the officer who stopped the defendant. After taking the deposition, the firm filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no "reasonable suspicion" of a crime justifying the initial detention of the defendant at the scene longer than it was necessary to write the civil traffic citations, while awaiting arrival of a DUI unit some time later. The Judge was presented case law by the defense, heard argument, and then Granted the motion thereby excluding all the State's evidence against the defendant.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

10-Apr-2015|Case# 15-CT-500050|Judge ADAMS

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and he swayed back and forth while outside the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .113 and .115 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State in pretrial negotiations that the video contradicted the breath test results. We discussed with the State how the defendant's performance on the video was contradicted by the written police reports and that his breath alcohol level could have been lower at the time of driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Apr-2015|Case# 2012-CT-001647-O|Judge WILSON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he swayed once outside the car. According to the officer he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. While at the station, the officer came to the conclusion that the defendant was impaired by a controlled substance after having found amphetamines salts in the car. A drug recognition expert officer was called to conduct a further investigation. That officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS stimulant (ie. amphetamines). The officer then requested a urine test. The defendant complied and later tested positive amphetamines.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had lengthy discussion with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Apr-2015|Case# 15-CT-500050|Judge Adams

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and he swayed back and forth while outside the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .113 and .115 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State in pretrial negotiations that the video contradicted the breath test results. We discussed with the State how the defendant's performance on the video was contradicted by the written police reports and that his breath alcohol level could have been lower at the time of driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Apr-2015|Case# 2012-CT-001647-O|Judge Wilson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he swayed once outside the car. According to the officer he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. While at the station, the officer came to the conclusion that the defendant was impaired by a controlled substance after having found amphetamines salts in the car. A drug recognition expert officer was called to conduct a further investigation. That officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS stimulant (ie. amphetamines). The officer then requested a urine test. The defendant complied and later tested positive amphetamines.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had lengthy discussion with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

31-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-317967 MMDB|Judge DAVIDSON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and he admitted to drinking beers. He was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. According the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a.100 and .092.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor about dropping the DUI prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

31-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-317967 MMDB|Judge Davidson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and he admitted to drinking beers. He was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. According the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a.100 and .092.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor about dropping the DUI prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CF-002722AX|Judge ECONOMOU

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out in his car as it was parked in front of a convenience store. The defendant was slumped over the wheel, the engine was on, and the a/c was running. The officers finally awoke the defendant and noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and there was a pool of vomit right outside his car. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. While in the back seat of the patrol car, the defendant was cursing the entire car ride to the jail. At one point, he allegedly spit at the officer though the cage and that led to him being charged with an additional crime of Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor just prior to the taking of pretrial depositions on the case. After our talk, the State agreed to Drop the DUI and also Drop the Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer down to a misdemeanor. On both charges. the defendant received NO criminal convictions on his record.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CF-002722AX|Judge Economou

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out in his car as it was parked in front of a convenience store. The defendant was slumped over the wheel, the engine was on, and the a/c was running. The officers finally awoke the defendant and noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and there was a pool of vomit right outside his car. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. While in the back seat of the patrol car, the defendant was cursing the entire car ride to the jail. At one point, he allegedly spit at the officer though the cage and that led to him being charged with an additional crime of Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor just prior to the taking of pretrial depositions on the case. After our talk, the State agreed to Drop the DUI and also Drop the Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer down to a misdemeanor. On both charges. the defendant received NO criminal convictions on his record.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

24-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CT-504094|Judge PALUCK

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, incomprehensible speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for balance and also swayed while outside of the vehicle. According to the officer, the defendant appeared heavily intoxicated. He did not perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had told the police on scene he had bypass surgery and also was diabetic. EMS was called to check the defendant. We discussed with the State that any impairment observed could have been due from the defendant's diabetes and his past bypass surgery.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

24-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CT-504094|Judge Paluck

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, incomprehensible speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for balance and also swayed while outside of the vehicle. According to the officer, the defendant appeared heavily intoxicated. He did not perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had told the police on scene he had bypass surgery and also was diabetic. EMS was called to check the defendant. We discussed with the State that any impairment observed could have been due from the defendant's diabetes and his past bypass surgery.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Mar-2015|Case# 4209-XEX|Judge SERAPHIN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and striking a curb two times. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and red eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three gin and tonics. He then performed the field sobriety exercises whereby the defendant displayed several signs of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .203 and .200 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Mar-2015|Case# 4209-XEX|Judge Seraphin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and striking a curb two times. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and red eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three gin and tonics. He then performed the field sobriety exercises whereby the defendant displayed several signs of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .203 and .200 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Mar-2015|Case# 14-CT-504722|Judge SWETT

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a palm tree causing extensive damage to his car. When the police officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, slow and lethargic movements, and disarranged clothing. The defendant failed the field sobriety exercises. For example, on the walk and turn test, he failed to touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, lost his balance, and did not count out loud. On the one leg stand exercise, he swayed, put his foot down, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out first that there was no video tape at the scene and the roadsides were vaguely described. Also, more importantly, back at the breath facility, after his arrest, the defendant was offered a breath test. The defendant stated he would provide a breath sample. However, the police could not locate someone qualified to administer the test. It was unclear what efforts if any were taken by the police to locate a breath machine operator. Thus, the State had no refusal to argue consciousness of guilt or breath test results to rely upon.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Mar-2015|Case# 14-CT-504722|Judge Swett

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a palm tree causing extensive damage to his car. When the police officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, slow and lethargic movements, and disarranged clothing. The defendant failed the field sobriety exercises. For example, on the walk and turn test, he failed to touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, lost his balance, and did not count out loud. On the one leg stand exercise, he swayed, put his foot down, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out first that there was no video tape at the scene and the roadsides were vaguely described. Also, more importantly, back at the breath facility, after his arrest, the defendant was offered a breath test. The defendant stated he would provide a breath sample. However, the police could not locate someone qualified to administer the test. It was unclear what efforts if any were taken by the police to locate a breath machine operator. Thus, the State had no refusal to argue consciousness of guilt or breath test results to rely upon.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Mar-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000707AXXX|Judge SHEPHERD

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slow reactions. The defendant had to lean against the car for balance and admitted to drinking beer. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .153 and .151 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted pretrial talks with the prosecutor.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Mar-2015|Case# 2015-CT-000707AXXX|Judge Shepherd

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slow reactions. The defendant had to lean against the car for balance and admitted to drinking beer. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .153 and .151 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted pretrial talks with the prosecutor.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CT-027517AXXX|Judge JOHNSON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and an "orbital" sway. The defendant stated she had been drinking beer and also kept fumbling around looking for her license, registration, and insurance while still seated in the car. She then performed the roadside tasks. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped field sobriety tests. For example, the defendant could not properly state the alphabet. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. Subsequently, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted a pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Mar-2015|Case# 14-CT-145522|Judge MYERS

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a concrete barrier wall. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He was also very unsteady on his feet. The defendant admitted to consuming 2-3 beers. According to the Trooper, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that on the video tape, the officer did not properly angle the camera. Thus, no one could properly view the defendant's entire performance on the roadside tests. Also, the video tape contradicted the officer's reports as the defendant's speech appeared normal on tape and he was not unsteady.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Mar-2015|Case# 14-CT-145522|Judge Myers

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a concrete barrier wall. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He was also very unsteady on his feet. The defendant admitted to consuming 2-3 beers. According to the Trooper, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that on the video tape, the officer did not properly angle the camera. Thus, no one could properly view the defendant's entire performance on the roadside tests. Also, the video tape contradicted the officer's reports as the defendant's speech appeared normal on tape and he was not unsteady.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CT-027517AXXX|Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and an "orbital" sway. The defendant stated she had been drinking beer and also kept fumbling around looking for her license, registration, and insurance while still seated in the car. She then performed the roadside tasks. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped field sobriety tests. For example, the defendant could not properly state the alphabet. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. Subsequently, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted a pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Mar-2015|Case# 14-009274MM10A|Judge SOLOMON

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant did not pull over immediately, even with the officer's lights flashing and sirens on. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to consuming 3-4 beers. According to the officers, the defendant showed several signs of intoxication during the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took a sworn pretrial deposition of the lead investigating officer involved in the case. The officer made several statements under oath in his deposition that contradicted both his police reports and the DUI video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Mar-2015|Case# 14-009274MM10A|Judge Solomon

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant did not pull over immediately, even with the officer's lights flashing and sirens on. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to consuming 3-4 beers. According to the officers, the defendant showed several signs of intoxication during the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took a sworn pretrial deposition of the lead investigating officer involved in the case. The officer made several statements under oath in his deposition that contradicted both his police reports and the DUI video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Mar-2015|Case# 13-015733MM10A|Judge BROWN

Facts

The defendant was involved in a traffic accident. He was alleged to have cut in front of another driver in an intersection. He was found to be the at fault driver by the police. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant also had a flushed face. According to the officer, he failed all the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he swayed and put his foot down. On the walk and turn test, he stepped off the line and lost his balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton investigated the case and pointed out that the officer embellished the defendant's level of impairment in his reports. We pointed out to the State that the video tape contradicted the written reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Mar-2015|Case# 13-006125MM10A|Judge EVANS

Facts

The defendant was stopped after an officer observed him driving off the shoulder and almost hitting detour signs. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The initial officer called for a DUI unit to conduct an investigation. The DUI task force officer conducted several roadside sobriety exercises and arrested the defendant for driving under the influence.

Defense

Parks & Braxton compared the officer's report with his in car video. Ultimately, there were several inconsistencies between the officer's report and the video. For example, the officer lied about the number of times the defendant dropped his foot on the one leg stand. In addition, the summary concerning the walk and turn test was exaggerated as well. Counsel told the defendant not to take a plea to DUI and proceed to trial. Prior to trial the State agreed to drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Mar-2015|Case# 13-006125MM10A|Judge Evans

Facts

The defendant was stopped after an officer observed him driving off the shoulder and almost hitting detour signs. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The initial officer called for a DUI unit to conduct an investigation. The DUI task force officer conducted several roadside sobriety exercises and arrested the defendant for driving under the influence.

Defense

Parks & Braxton compared the officer's report with his in car video. Ultimately, there were several inconsistencies between the officer's report and the video. For example, the officer lied about the number of times the defendant dropped his foot on the one leg stand. In addition, the summary concerning the walk and turn test was exaggerated as well. Counsel told the defendant not to take a plea to DUI and proceed to trial. Prior to trial the State agreed to drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Mar-2015|Case# 13-015733MM10A|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was involved in a traffic accident. He was alleged to have cut in front of another driver in an intersection. He was found to be the at fault driver by the police. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant also had a flushed face. According to the officer, he failed all the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he swayed and put his foot down. On the walk and turn test, he stepped off the line and lost his balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton investigated the case and pointed out that the officer embellished the defendant's level of impairment in his reports. We pointed out to the State that the video tape contradicted the written reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CT-010690|Judge ADAMS

Facts

Police were called after the defendant allegedly threw a beer can onto the victim's yard. The victim then followed the defendant in his car and and threw the beer can at the defendant's truck. When the police arrived, they found the defendant standing in his driveway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a sway to his stance, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. No roadside tests were conducted due to an injury the defendant previously sustained and also due to his level of intoxication. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that no police officer observed the defendant driving or actual physical control as required by Florida Statutes when there is no traffic crash involved. Thus, the State could not prove the first element of the crime of DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

2-Mar-2015|Case# 2014-CT-010690|Judge Adams

Facts

Police were called after the defendant allegedly threw a beer can onto the victim's yard. The victim then followed the defendant in his car and and threw the beer can at the defendant's truck. When the police arrived, they found the defendant standing in his driveway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a sway to his stance, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. No roadside tests were conducted due to an injury the defendant previously sustained and also due to his level of intoxication. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that no police officer observed the defendant driving or actual physical control as required by Florida Statutes when there is no traffic crash involved. Thus, the State could not prove the first element of the crime of DUI.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

26-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-027757AMB|Judge SHEPHERD

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving aggressively and almost colliding with other cars. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, she seemed dazed and confused, and slurred speech. The defendant stated she had drank 2-3 glasses of wine. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .105 and .112 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-027757AMB|Judge Shepherd

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving aggressively and almost colliding with other cars. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, she seemed dazed and confused, and slurred speech. The defendant stated she had drank 2-3 glasses of wine. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .105 and .112 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-142610|Judge MYERS

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three scotches. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State a few days prior to the trial date. We pointed out that none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired on video as it was alleged in the police reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-142610|Judge Myers

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three scotches. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State a few days prior to the trial date. We pointed out that none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired on video as it was alleged in the police reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-001812-W|Judge MCGINNIS

Facts

The defendant was stopped for an alleged violation of a traffic control device pursuant to Florida Statute 316.074. He was in a turning lane with a white arrow on the road indicating one should turn left. He decided to cut over a couple of lanes as were needed to go right instead of making a left. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred speech, and red eyes. According to the officer, he performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, at the station and on video, the defendant stated he knew he would blow over a .08. The defendant then took a breath test and blew a .248 and .253 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to stop the defendant as all he was doing was deciding to switch his direction of travel. Thus, no traffic infraction had been committed. The day prior to the motion hearing, the State stated they would drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-001812-W|Judge McGinnis

Facts

The defendant was stopped for an alleged violation of a traffic control device pursuant to Florida Statute 316.074. He was in a turning lane with a white arrow on the road indicating one should turn left. He decided to cut over a couple of lanes as were needed to go right instead of making a left. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred speech, and red eyes. According to the officer, he performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, at the station and on video, the defendant stated he knew he would blow over a .08. The defendant then took a breath test and blew a .248 and .253 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to stop the defendant as all he was doing was deciding to switch his direction of travel. Thus, no traffic infraction had been committed. The day prior to the motion hearing, the State stated they would drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Feb-2015|Case# 15-CT-500436|Judge GONZALEZ

Facts

The defendant was seen by the police standing on the side of the road with his hand up trying to flag someone down. The officer got out of his car and came in contact with the defendant. The officer observed the defendant to be bloody, have an odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had been drinking at a bar and his friend threw him out of the truck while it was moving. He then refused any medical treatment by fire rescue. The defendant refused to performed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer, nor anyone else, ever observed the defendant driving or in actual physical control of the truck. Thus, the first element of a DUI charge could not be proven.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

11-Feb-2015|Case# 15-CT-500436|Judge Gonzalez

Facts

The defendant was seen by the police standing on the side of the road with his hand up trying to flag someone down. The officer got out of his car and came in contact with the defendant. The officer observed the defendant to be bloody, have an odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had been drinking at a bar and his friend threw him out of the truck while it was moving. He then refused any medical treatment by fire rescue. The defendant refused to performed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer, nor anyone else, ever observed the defendant driving or in actual physical control of the truck. Thus, the first element of a DUI charge could not be proven.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

10-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-003242|Judge PROVOST

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The trooper observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted having consumed two drinks and smoking some marijuana earlier in the day. After performing the roadside tests on video tape, she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, and at the station, the trooper believed she was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance. He then called for another officer to conduct a DRE (drug recognition exam). That exam was conducted by a more experienced officer who had the defendant perform field sobriety tests again as part of the entire DRE exam. Once that exam was complete, she provided a urine sample to the police.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State very early on in the case, after reviewing the discovery, that the two officers were contradicting each other in both their observations, as well as conclusions. Furthermore, a pre-trial investigation by the firm of the arresting trooper revealed FHP had tried to fire him due to allegations of severe misconduct.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

10-Feb-2015|Case# 14-CT-505072|Judge MANN

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol from his breath, slow/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had just come from a nightclub and had consumed a few drinks. He showed several signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State Attorney's Office prior to setting a trial date which led to them dropping the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Feb-2015|Case# 14-CT-505072|Judge Mann

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol from his breath, slow/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had just come from a nightclub and had consumed a few drinks. He showed several signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State Attorney's Office prior to setting a trial date which led to them dropping the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-003242|Judge Provost

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The trooper observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted having consumed two drinks and smoking some marijuana earlier in the day. After performing the roadside tests on video tape, she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, and at the station, the trooper believed she was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance. He then called for another officer to conduct a DRE (drug recognition exam). That exam was conducted by a more experienced officer who had the defendant perform field sobriety tests again as part of the entire DRE exam. Once that exam was complete, she provided a urine sample to the police.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State very early on in the case, after reviewing the discovery, that the two officers were contradicting each other in both their observations, as well as conclusions. Furthermore, a pre-trial investigation by the firm of the arresting trooper revealed FHP had tried to fire him due to allegations of severe misconduct.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

9-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CF-013385000AHC|Judge FERNANDEZ

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and she appeared unsteady on her feet. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .143 and .149 in the breath machine. The defendant was eventually charged by the State with a Third Degree Felony DUI due to the fact this was her Third DUI within ten years of her last DUI conviction.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that on the video tape at the breath testing facility, the arresting officer was giving legal advice to the defendant. Thus, he was misleading her, providing misinformation, and coercing her into taking a breath test. We also pointed out that the defendant's performance on the video taped field sobriety tests contradicted the police reports. Prior to trial and the motion ever being heard, the State Dropped the Felony DUI all the way down to a Misdemeanor Reckless Driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

9-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CF-013385000AHC|Judge Fernandez

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and she appeared unsteady on her feet. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .143 and .149 in the breath machine. The defendant was eventually charged by the State with a Third Degree Felony DUI due to the fact this was her Third DUI within ten years of her last DUI conviction.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that on the video tape at the breath testing facility, the arresting officer was giving legal advice to the defendant. Thus, he was misleading her, providing misinformation, and coercing her into taking a breath test. We also pointed out that the defendant's performance on the video taped field sobriety tests contradicted the police reports. Prior to trial and the motion ever being heard, the State Dropped the Felony DUI all the way down to a Misdemeanor Reckless Driving.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

6-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-029576|Judge SILVERMAN

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash. His car ended up mounted upon a concrete wall in a construction area. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant also appeared very unsteady. The defendant explained to the officer how the crash had occurred, talked about his intoxicated state, and that he knew he was drunk. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the defendant's alleged statements. In our motion, we alleged that the officer never read the defendant his Miranda rights. Thus, the accident report privilege was violated. We also filed a motion to suppress the defendant's refusal to give a breath test based the fact that the officer misstated the law. Finally, on the entire video tape at the scene, you never hear the defendant stating "he knew he was drunk" or anything about him talking about his level of intoxication as the officer wrote in his report.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-029576|Judge Silverman

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash. His car ended up mounted upon a concrete wall in a construction area. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant also appeared very unsteady. The defendant explained to the officer how the crash had occurred, talked about his intoxicated state, and that he knew he was drunk. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the defendant's alleged statements. In our motion, we alleged that the officer never read the defendant his Miranda rights. Thus, the accident report privilege was violated. We also filed a motion to suppress the defendant's refusal to give a breath test based the fact that the officer misstated the law. Finally, on the entire video tape at the scene, you never hear the defendant stating "he knew he was drunk" or anything about him talking about his level of intoxication as the officer wrote in his report.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-022518|Judge Atkin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The defendant stated he had spilled a beer in the car while driving which caused him to swerve. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. He was also unsteady on his feet. According to the arresting officer, the defendant did not perform up to standards on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer had a working in car video camera on scene. However, the officer did not videotape the defendant performing the roadside tests as the camera was on, but facing in a different direction. Thus, no one could see how the defendant actually performed.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-047130|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was stopped after he was involved in a hit and run accident. He allegedly sideswiped another car. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-139226|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and his rear brake light was inoperable. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant was trying to conceal the odor of alcohol by wearing extra cologne and using breath mints. After performing the field sobriety tests on video tape, the defendant was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had negotiations with the State just prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-122587|Judge Jeske

Facts

The police were called to investigate the defendant based on the fact he was causing a disturbance and was intoxicated. When officers arrived, they spotted the defendant's car and followed him. They noticed him weaving and driving on the grass median. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he swayed while standing outside the car. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the police reports were very vaguely written. Also, the officer's camera was not working at the scene so no tests were video taped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Feb-2015|Case# CTC147422XFGASP|Judge Overton

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant swayed and staggered upon exiting the car. He also admitted to consuming three beers. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .084 and .085 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted pre-trial negotiations with the State about dropping the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-CT-02023-A-K|Judge Fowler

Facts

The defendant drove up to an officer on his motorcycle in a parking lot to ask if the officer could spare some gasoline. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and an "abnormal gait." According to the officer, he failed the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .082 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor a couple weeks before the trial date. We pointed out that the video tape contradicted the officer's reports. Also, we pointed out that with the margin of error on breath testing, the defendant's .082 result could have been below the legal limit.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Feb-2015|Case# 2014-MM-007920A|Judge Schott

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out in his car in a bar / shopping center parking lot. A 911 caller alerted police to his car by stating he had been passed out for about three hours. When officers arrived, they awoke the defendant. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol, noticed slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had a couple of beers a few hours ago. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He refused the breath test after his arrest. This was the defendant's third DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We pointed out to the State that the defendant's field sobriety test performance on video contradicted the officer's written reports. Also, we pointed out that a person who is sleeping in a car cannot be in "actual physical control" as they have no "capability" of operating the vehicle while sleeping. On the day of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jan-2015|Case# 2014-CT-001246-E|Judge Wilson

Facts

The defendant was allegedly involved in a side swipe crash. When the police arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. He swayed as he stood outside the car. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .171 and .157 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State prior to trial that there were three people in the defendant's car at the time of the crash. We talked with the State and also pointed out that the alleged victim in the crash could not properly identify the defendant as the driver based on statements and her description. Thus, the State could not place the defendant in actual physical control as the driver at the time of the crash.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Jan-2015|Case# 13-020017MM10A|Judge Solomon

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash. She hit a barrier wall and also smashed into a another car. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mush mouthed speech, and watery eyes. The police observed her to sway, appear unsteady, and also have a blank stare. The defendant admitted to consuming 3 beers and 3 shots. According to the officers, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .109 and .107 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Jan-2015|Case# 13-023560MM10A|Judge Pole

Facts

The defendant was originally observed by a civilian witness crashing into a posted "no u-turn" sign. The witness subsequently contacted the police. When the deputy located the defendant he noticed the defendant 's tires spinning despite being in a stopped position. The officer approached the vehicle and observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. In addition, the defendant's movements were extremely lethargic throughout the investigation. Upon exiting the car, the defendant was seen stumbling while walking and swaying while standing. The defendant refused all testing and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's third DUI.

Defense

The original civilian failed to provide their personal information. Therefore, the law considers that person to be at the low end of the reliability scale as far as the information they provide. In order to prove a lawful stop the officer needed to be able to corroborate some type of driving infraction. Spinning tires is not enough to lawfully stop a vehicle. Despite the fact that this was the defendant's 3rd offense for DUI, after taking testimony from the officers, the State could not proceed.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Jan-2015|Case# 7939-XEM|Judge Hague

Facts

The defendant rear ended another car. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. According to the officers, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .153 and .152 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

20-Jan-2015|Case# 2014-CT-026549AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his car by the police. The car was running and the transmission was in drive. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank some "Kahlua" earlier in the day and had no answer for the officer as to why he was asleep in the roadway. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The officer believed the defendant was actually impaired by a controlled substance and not alcohol after concluding his investigation.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no evidence of what "specific" controlled substance the officer believed was impairing the defendant as required by Florida Statutes.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

8-Jan-2015|Case# 2014-CT-011400-O|Judge Miller

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. When the defendant was asked how much he had drank, he responded by saying "not much." He then told the officer he had one drink. The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests even after being advised of the adverse consequences. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had immediate pretrial discussions with the prosecutor within weeks after the defendant's arrest. At the first pretrial court hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Jan-2015|Case# 14-CM-009517|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was detained by the police after he rear ended another car in a parking lot. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to having a couple of shots of alcohol. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .089 in the breath machine. The defendant was also charged with possession of marijuana and paraphernalia that was found in the car after his arrest for DUI.

Defense

Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer's observations in the reports contradicted the defendant's field sobriety test performance on the video tape. The State then Dropped the DUI. The drug charges were dismissed under the theory of a lack of constructive possession.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Jan-2015|Case# 14-CT-121830|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding, cutting across lanes of traffic, and following other cars too close causing them to brake. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant was unsteady on his feet and was making unusual statements. After performing the HGN (eye test), he refused to perform any other tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State a couple of weeks prior to the trial date.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Jan-2015|Case# 2014-CT-024198AXXX-XX|Judge Koons

Facts

The defendant was found by the police after his car went into a ditch. The defendant stated he had a coughing attack which caused him to drive off the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and was unsteady on his feet. The officer also observed the defendant to be clumsy, unsure, fumbling around, a pale face, and disarranged clothing. The defendant was read his Miranda rights and stated he wanted an attorney. According to the officer, he refused to perform the roadside tests and was was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second dui arrest. The entire event at the scene was captured on video tape.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence based on a lack of probable cause to make the arrest. In our motion. we alleged numerous factors pointing out inconsistencies between the officer's reports versus the video tape. For example, on video the defendant was never asked to perform roadside test even though it was written in the police report. Also, the defendant's speech was normal, his face was actually red, not pale, and his clothes were not disarranged. The defendant was also never off balance or unsteady and was responsive and coherent. Prior to the motion being heard, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Dec-2014|Case# 2014-CT-105718|Judge Greco

Facts

The defendant crashed her car in the airport parking garage. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have slurred speech, uncoordinated movements, and she seemed lethargic. The officers smelled no alcohol on her breath but the defendant admitted to taking Xanax that morning. No roadside tasks were conducted due to the defendant's injuries from the crash. The defendant complained of pain in her back, neck, arms, and knee from the airbags hitting her upon them deploying. She was then taken to the hospital. She agreed to provide a blood sample. When the blood test came back from the lab, the defendant tested positive for Xanax. She was later charged with Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (ie. Xanax).

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had not taken the medication for hours as the crash occurred late at night. Also, we pointed out that any impairment the officers observed was due to the injuries from the crash and airbags deploying versus any alleged impairment from the Xanax.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Dec-2014|Case# 2014-CT-001346-E|Judge Blechman

Facts

The defendant was involved in a single car crash. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to be unsteady, have bloodshot eyes, lethargic movements, and slurred speech. Although the officers did not smell any alcohol, they felt he was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance. According to the officers, he exhibited several cues of impairment on the field sobriety tests and was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no specific evidence by which the State could prove that the defendant was impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance as required by Florida law.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

12-Dec-2014|Case# 2014-CT-009560-O|Judge Martinez

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, unstable balance, and glossy eyes. The defendant's speech was also heavily slurred. He failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. The officer found marijuana in the car and he was also charged with possession of marijuana. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .108 in the breath machine per the breath test card printout.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer had written in one paragraph of his report that the defendant was stopped for driving without headlights, however, in the next paragraph he wrote that he arrived on scene to find fire rescue giving sternum rubs to the defendant as he was passed out at an intersection. The officer also wrote in his report that the defendant blew a .186 and .176 in the breath machine which was different than the breath card. It was totally unclear to both the State and defense whether the officer was writing about this client or another defendant. Due to the major contradictions in the police reports and breath test results, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the possession charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Dec-2014|Case# 14-CT-066124|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped by police after pulling out of a parking lot at a high rate of speed, screeching his tires, and cutting off another car. This all was captured on the officer's in car video tape. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. On video, the defendant was rambling on and on about different things and then admitted to drinking two beers. The defendant then refused to perform the field sobriety tests even after being warned of the adverse consequences. He was subsequently arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State about dropping the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-Dec-2014|Case# 2014-CT-001298CTAXMX|Judge Cupp

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. Once the defendant was outside the car, she was very unsteady and off balance. She failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. The defendant admitted to consuming four beers. Once at the station, she vomited in a trash can after taking the breath test. She blew a .188 and .178 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the breath machine that the defendant blew into had major mechanical problems during the months leading up to her arrest. Also, the officer wrote a very vague report as to the details of her alleged performance on the roadside tasks.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Dec-2014|Case# 7819-GWZ|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils. The officer also smelled marijuana coming from her breath. She was then asked to perform field sobriety tests which she allegedly failed. She was then arrested for DUI. A Drug Recognition Officer was called to the station to perform a special evaluation called a DRE exam to try to come to a conclusion as to what controlled substance may be impairing the defendant. That officer with special training concluded she was impaired by marijuana and CNS depressants. A urine sample was then taken from the defendant. After being tested at the lab, the defendant's urine came back positive for marijuana.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the amount of time marijuana can stay in one's system even weeks after they last smoked. The reason that was important is that the defendant did not admit to smoking pot that day.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Dec-2014|Case# 2014-CT-022175AXXX|Judge Shepherd

Facts

The defendant was stopped based on an anonymous tip that he was driving all over the road and almost striking other cars. The officers spotted the defendant's car which matched the description and conducted a traffic stop. The officers on scene noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant seemed confused, was swaying, and admitted to drinking. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the traffic stop may have been unlawful as there appeared to be no "corroboration" of the alleged driving pattern as required by law when a driver is stopped based on an anonymous tip.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-Dec-2014|Case# 14-CT-080009|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for making an illegal left turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitting to drinking Heineken beers. According to the officer, he failed the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .127 and .133 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State. We pointed out to the State that the defendant's roadside task performance on the video tape contradicted the breath test results.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Nov-2014|Case# 2014-CT-022565|Judge Overton

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police and given a citation for careless driving. According to the officer's report, he allegedly almost struck another car while negotiating an improper turn. This alleged driving pattern was captured on video tape. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had consumed two vodka drinks. The defendant was ask to perform the roadside tests and he complied. On video tape, the defendant exhibited several clues of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .136 and .138 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence based on unlawful traffic stop by the officer. In our motion, we alleged, that on video tape, one could clearly see that the defendant never cut anyone off. In fact, the defendant was stuck in a no left turn lane and had no choice but to actually let traffic pass in order to move over into the appropriate right lane of travel. The Judge watched the video and listened to the arguments of the attorneys. He then Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence in the case.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

21-Nov-2014|Case# 13-000709MM10A|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant's vehicle was originally seen by an officer sitting in the middle of the roadway at a flashing yellow light. The officer drove by the intersection and saw the same car parked in the middle of the roadway. The officer approached the car and noticed an individual sleeping inside. After banging on the window for approximately a minute the defendant woke up. The officer asked several questions and stated that the defendant was lethargic and slow to respond. Additionally, he stated that he observed bloodshot eyes. He subsequently called for a DUI officer to conduct an investigation. The DUI officer arrived minutes later and observed slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and extreme unsteadiness as he stood up. After performing the HGN (eye test), the defendant refused to perform any additional tests. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest within a few months.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion based on a lack of reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant for the purpose of conducting a DUI investigation. During the motion, the defense impeached the credibility of the officer. Before the Judge issued her ruling, the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Nov-2014|Case# 12-019040MM10A|Judge Gottleib

Facts

The defendant was stopped for excessive speed. As the officer approached the vehicle he smelled a strong odor of alcohol. Upon reaching for his license and registration, the defendant appeared dazed and had slow reactions. The officer next observed bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming alcohol at the American Legion. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), rhomberg balance test as well as the finger to nose. He was asked to perform the walk and turn as well as one leg stand but the defendant stated he was overweight and could not perform them. Upon arrest the officers discovered marijuana as well as a pipe in the vehicle.

Defense

First, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to dismiss the charging document because it alleged that the defendant was under the influence of both marijuana and alcohol. The marijuana was fresh and as a result, there was no evidence that he was under the influence of it. Next, the defense presented a video that contradicted many of the officer's observations.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

19-Nov-2014|Case# 2014-CT-019263AXXX|Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped by the police, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. Once out of the car, the defendant was off balance. On the video tape, the defendant showed several clues of impairment on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line several times and raised his arms for balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down numerous times and counted improperly. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .134 and .129 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton spoke to the State on several occasions to try to get the DUI dropped prior to a trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-Nov-2014|Case# A0Z0NP6|Judge Altfield

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in his car in a turning lane by police. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant appeared very sleepy. According to the arresting officer, he failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .129 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

18-Nov-2014|Case# 12-010483MM10A (JURY TRIAL)|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was involved in a collision on the highway. Upon arrival, the trooper observed that the defendant was unsteady while exiting the vehicle as well as while standing. Upon face to face contact, he observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was cooperative and agreed to perform field sobriety tests. In his report, the Trooper indicated that the defendant failed all three roadside sobriety exercises. The defendant was arrested and subsequently provided a breath sample of .094.

Defense

After taking the arresting officer's deposition, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During trial the State presented expert testimony to support their position that the defendant was above the legal limit while driving. The expert witness attempted to use a formula called retrograde extrapolation. On cross examination, Parks & Braxton presented the expert with a transcript from 2011 whereby she disagreed with the formula and the concept of retrograde extrapolation. Specifically, Parks & Braxton presented in front of the jury, prior testimony where the State's expert referred to the formula as "bad science". In addition, a Trooper took the stand. He attempted to talk about a bottle of alcohol that was supposedly found in the car but never written down in any report. The Trooper admitted in front of the jury that he changed his story several times. After two days of trial the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI

12-Nov-2014|Case# 2014-CT-021603-AXXX-XX|Judge Baker

Facts

The defendant drove up along the side the officer's patrol car in his truck as that officer was conducting a traffic stop on his friend. The defendant was inquiring as to what was happening. When the officer went up to the defendant's truck, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had 2 beers, then 4 beers, then 5 beers. According to the officer, he failed the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Nov-2014|Case# 14-CT-098783|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in his car underneath an overpass. When the officers awoke the defendant, they smelled an odor of alcohol, observed watery eyes, his fingers were fumbling around, and was sweating. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down several times and swayed. The defendant was arrested for DUI and then blew a.109 and .109 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State. We pointed out that the defendant defendant had no "capability" of operating the car while he was sleeping. Therefore, he was not in "actual physical" control.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Nov-2014|Case# 2014-CT-020192AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was stopped after he was seen by police driving on the rims of his tires with four flat tires. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he drank two beers. According to the officer, the defendant showed several signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Nov-2014|Case# 14-CT-113454|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped for making an unlawful turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant seemed confused. The defendant appeared to be lethargic and sleepy. The officer asked the defendant to perform roadside tests and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Nov-2014|Case# 13-022525MM10A|Judge Pole

Facts

The defendant was initially seen driving in a heavily populated pedestrian neighborhood. An off duty police officer observed the defendant run a red light and almost make contact with several individuals crossing the street. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer made observations consistent with intoxication and called for a DUI task force officer. The DUI officer smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage and noticed a flushed face with watery eyes. The officer asked the defendant if she takes any medication or drugs and the defendant explained that she takes anti-anxiety medication. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests after being explained the adverse consequences of refusing. She was then arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton reviewed the video tape and discussed the inconsistencies of the case with the defendant. The firm announced ready for jury trial. On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

Parks & Braxton reviewed the video tape and discussed the inconsistencies of the case with the defendant. The firm announced ready for jury trial. On the morning of trial , the State Dropped the DUI.

30-Oct-2014|Case# 2014-CT-017324AMB|Judge Shepherd

Facts

The defendant crashed her car into a ditch after crossing lanes of traffic and hitting a chain link fence. The car ended up upside down. A civilian witness saw the accident and identified the defendant as the driver. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She was then taken to the hospital because of her injuries. At the hospital, she consented to a blood draw to test her for alcohol. The results of the her blood test were a .178, over two times the legal limit. She was subsequently charged with DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several discussions with the prosecutor to get the DUI dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Oct-2014|Case# 2014-MM-004062-A|Judge Woodard

Facts

The defendant was found by the police after he crashed into a control box at the gate of a subdivision. A few people had called 911 to alert the police to the crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and balance issues. The defendant was immediately read his Miranda rights and he stated he did not want to make any statements without an attorney. He then refused to perform any field sobriety tests. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State a couple of weeks before the trial date. We pointed out that on video tape, after his arrest and at the station, the defendant's speech was normal, he was responsive and coherent, and was not swaying. This was contradicted by the written observations by the police at the scene.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Oct-2014|Case# CTC14-8147XBCANC|Judge Pierce

Facts

The defendant was rear ended by another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes, and fair balance. The defendant admitted to drinking a few beers and a shot of whiskey. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor pointing out that the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired on the video tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Oct-2014|Case# 14-CT-066145|Judge Greco

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. After the officer conducted the HGN (eye test) on the defendant, she refused to perform any further roadside tasks. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Oct-2014|Case# 13-010986MM10A|Judge Solomon

Facts

An officer observed the defendant to be passed out in his car in the middle of an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he admitted to drinking three beers. When the defendant was asked for his drivers license, he passed over it three times. A DUI unit was then called to the scene. That officer made similar observations. He was then placed on video tape to perform the field sobriety tasks. For example, on the walk and turn test, he lost his balance during the instructions, stepped off the line, and missed heel to toe. On the finger to nose test, he did not keep his eyes closed, did not use the tip of his finger, and failed to remove his hand from his nose. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .161 and .152 in the breath machine

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on video tape, the defendant was "coerced" into performing the tests by the officer. The Judge agreed, granted the motion, and excluded the roadside tests from evidence. The State then Dropped the DUI as they were now missing a crucial piece of evidence.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Oct-2014|Case# 2014-CT-013054AXXX|Judge Damico

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash in which he hit a utility pole. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy eyes. The defendant appeared unstable and off balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the officer found a little bottle of rum in the defendant's pant's pocket. Later at the station, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Oct-2014|Case# 2014-CT-006105AXXX|Judge Hanser

Facts

Police dispatch received a call about a truck that had hit a barrier wall on the highway and lost a tire. The officer spotted the truck and saw the defendant driving on a blown out tire. The officer conducted a traffic stop and noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to drinking some wine. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several discussions with the State prior to setting a trial date.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Oct-2014|Case# 2014-CT-066615|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. That officer then called for a DUI unit to come to the scene. The DUI officer made similar observations in addition to observing the defendant swaying and leaning leaning against his car. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the observations alleged in the reports were contradicted by the video tape. Also, we pointed out to the State that on the DUI unit's video tape, that officer mentioned that the officer who made the traffic stop had an operational camera which would have captured all the initial contact, observations, and the defendant's driving. However, that video tape was never uploaded, copied, or created.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Oct-2014|Case# 8294-XEU|Judge Denaro

Facts

The defendant was kicked out of a bar for being intoxicated. An officer was called to the scene and observed the defendant swaying as he walked and then attempting to get on his motorcycle. The defendant then mounted his motorcycle and attempted to start the engine. The officer approached the defendant and ordered him to get off the bike. The officer then observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and mumbled speech. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer had no reasonable suspicion of a crime based on the limited facts and observations known to the officer before ordering the defendant off his bike. After negotiations prior to trial the State Dropped the DUI .

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Oct-2014|Case# 2014-CT-016153AXXX|Judge Johnson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and appeared disoriented. The defendant admitted to having two beers. According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests which were not video taped and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State.

The Result

The state dropped the DUI.

30-Sep-2014|Case# 2014-MM-017577|Judge Koenig

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and glassy/watery eyes. He swayed and stumbled as he talked to the officer. The defendant stated he had drank a couple of beers. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor before setting the case for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Sep-2014|Case# 2014-CT-307448|Judge Davidson

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash. She backed her car into a chain in a boat docking area. The crash shattered the entire back window. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she swayed while standing. According to the officer's report, the defendant could barely keep her balance. The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. Officers found several beer bottles in the defendant's car in a search incident to arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Sep-2014|Case# 12-014922MM10A|Judge Gonzalez-Levine

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, lethargic movements, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. For example, on the walk and turn test, he lost his balance during the instructions, missed heel to toe, and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand test, the defendant swayed, put his foot down a few times, and raised his arms for balance. After his arrest, he refused the breath test on video tape. The officer did not have an in car video camera to capture the investigation at the scene.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer since there was no video tape evidence at the scene. In his deposition, the officer contradicted himself and could not provide numerous specific details relating to the investigation prior to the defendant's arrest. The firm then announced ready for jury trial. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

19-Sep-2014|Case# 2014-CT-007003AXXX|Judge Hanser

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into some bushes while driving at a high rate of speed. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and mood swings. He admitted to drinking 4-5 beers. According to the officer, he failed the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several discussions with the prosecutor handling the case prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Sep-2014|Case# 9704-XEQ|Judge Altfield

Facts

The defendant rear ended a car while the vehicle was stopped at a red light. The crash was so hard that it caused that car to roll over and then hit another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he appeared sleepy. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The State initially charged the defendant in circuit court with Felony DUI causing serious bodily injury to another person.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State about the weaknesses of the DUI case. We pointed out that no specific injuries were set out in any reports with any amount of detail. Also, the firm pointed out to the State that officer wrote a very short and vague report relating to the entire DUI investigation. After those talks, the State then sent the Felony DUI case from circuit court down to the county court. The defense then announced ready for trial. On the the day of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI out right.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Sep-2014|Case# 14-CT-500194|Judge Hayward

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving several times. The defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath, watery eyes, and seemed disoriented. While standing outside his car, he swayed. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI . After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State just prior to the trial call.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Sep-2014|Case# 13-CT-504324|Judge Mann

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have mumbled speech, poor dexterity, and he was very unsteady outside the car. Although the officer could not smell any alcohol coming from the defendant, he suspected that the defendant was under the influence of a chemical and/or controlled substance. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tasks. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. The officer, in a search incident to arrest, found prescription pill bottles which were controlled substances in the defendant's car. Back at the station, the officers requested the defendant to submit to Drug Recognition Exam which he refused. They then requested that the defendant provide a urine sample to which the defendant complied. The toxicology report indicated that the defendant tested positive for two controlled substances. The State charged the defendant with driving under the influence of controlled substances to the extent his normal faculties were impaired.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed pretrial motions to exclude evidence and limit certain aspects of the officer's testimony. After several discussions with the State, they dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Sep-2014|Case# 9981-XDY|Judge Seraphin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for cutting off another car. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued and mumbled speech, and poor dexterity. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .158 and .161 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the Prosecutor's office to get the DUI dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Aug-2014|Case# 2013-MM-017460ANB|Judge Hanser

Facts

The defendant was stopped in a wildlife park by Fish and Wildlife Officers. The were doing a daily permit check. Once stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and he admitted to drinking six beers. According to the officer, he failed eight roadside tests which were not video taped. He was arrested for DUI and then he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pre-trial depositions of the two officers involved the case. After deposing them and researching the issue of permit check traffic stops in wildlife areas, the firm filed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. We alleged there was no probable cause that a traffic infraction occurred nor was there reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying the stop. Just prior to the motion hearing date, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Aug-2014|Case# 2013-CT-030420AMB|Judge Bonavita

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a pole after jumping over a curb and driving at a high rate of speed. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and he admitted to having three strong beers. The defendant also stated that he "f'd" up. According to the officer he failed the roadside tests which were not video taped. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the majority of the defendant's statements at the scene. In our motion, we alleged that the officer did not read the defendant his Miranda rights and that all statements made by the defendant were protected under the accident report privilege. The State read the police reports and agreed with our position prior to any motion hearing.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Aug-2014|Case# 13-01062MM10A|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was approached by officers as his car was stopped and blocking traffic at an intersection. When the police made contact with the defendant, his head was slumped back and he was unresponsive. When they finally woke him up, the defendant took his foot off the brake and the car rolled fifteen feet. An officer then entered the defendant's car and he still sped up ending up on a curb causing his tires to blowout. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted having a few drinks. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. He was then subsequently charged with refusal to submit to a breath test along with the DUI. This was the defendant's Third DUI arrest in ten years and he had one prior conviction.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample. In our motion, we alleged that the officer misinformed the defendant of the law. The State conceded the motion based on our questions in pretrial depositions. It should be noted, this was the second time the firm has represented the defendant. The firm won his second DUI and now the State Dropped this third DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Aug-2014|Case# 13-002614MM10A|Judge Pole

Facts

While driving into a taco bell drive thru, the defendant drove completely over the curb. Upon speaking, a member of the staff noticed mumbled and slurred speech. After completing his order and believing that he was impaired, the restaurant staff contacted the police. While driving home and moments after leaving taco bell, the defendant was involved in an accident. The defendant exited the car and walked towards his home. Upon arriving at the accident scene, the police observed the defendant's drivers license sitting on the front seat. After confirming his address, the officers approached the defendant's home. After hearing screaming in the back of the house, the officers ran towards him and grabbed the defendant off of his porch. After making several observations consistent with impairment, the officers called the employee from taco bell to confirm that this was the same person. After a positive identification, the officers arrested the defendant for leaving the scene of an accident as well as DUI. He subsequently failed field sobriety tests and refused a breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a warrantless arrest. Despite the taco bell employee's claim, the officers were not entitled to enter the defendant's private residence without a warrant. In deposition, the officer admitted that he entered an enclosed portion of the defendant's house. In addition, he agreed that he grabbed the defendant despite the fact that there were no exigent circumstances allowing him to do so. The State conceded the motion to suppress and dropped all charges.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

22-Aug-2014|Case# CTC13-05461MMAWS|Judge Wansboro

Facts

The defendant crashed his motorcycle on a road in a wooded area. When the police arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and admitted to having three beers. He also told the officer that an animal had run out in front of him causing him to crash the bike into the woods. On video tape, the defendant was covered in blood, had visible injuries, and kept kneeling down because he was in pain. The officer only did the HGN (eye test) and the estimation of time tests due to the defendant's condition. However, the officer still arrested the defendant for DUI. He subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that any alleged impairment that the officer observed such as balance and speech issues on video tape were clearly from the crash and not from alcohol.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-Aug-2014|Case# CRC13-03548CFAWS|Judge Webb

Facts

The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes, eyelid tremors, constricted pupils, and slurred speech. She also swayed while she stood, staggered, and her coordination was poor. The defendant performed the finger to nose test whereby she missed the tip of her nose and used the wrong hand. She also could not even say the alphabet correctly four times. The walk and turn and one leg stand tests were not conducted for the defendant's safety. The defendant stated she took pain medications, however, no specific drugs were mentioned. Since there was no odor of alcohol, the officers concluded she was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance. She was arrested for DUI and then refused to provide a urine sample. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI and the State charged her with a Felony DUI in Circuit Court where she faced a mandatory felony conviction and state prison time.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took over the case almost a year after the date the defendant was arrested from another law firm. Once our firm reviewed all the evidence, we filed several motions including, but not limited to, a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop and a motion to exclude the defendant's statements. Our firm was successful in negotiating with the State prior to the motion hearing and got the Felony DUI Dropped. Also, the firm was successful in preventing the defendant from losing her driver's license for the rest of her life.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Aug-2014|Case# CT-8325-XEP|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and stopping beyond the stop bar at a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and watery eyes. According to the officer she failed the roadside tests which consisted of the walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and HGN (eye) tests. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. The entire incident, including the driving pattern, was captured on video.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant never weaved all over the road on video as stated by the officer in his reports. Also, the defendant's speech appeared normal and not slurred. Furthermore, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests contradicted the officer's written reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Aug-2014|Case# 2014-CT-012923AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, slurred speech, and red eyes. According to the officers, he failed the video taped roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .187 and .184 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton negotiated with the State prior to any trial date being set.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

8-Aug-2014|Case# 13-003432MM10A|Judge Gottlieb

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road by an officer who was outside of their own jurisdiction. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant appeared to be very unsteady once outside his car. The officer detained the defendant until another officer from another jurisdiction arrived to conduct a full DUI investigation. According to that DUI officer, the defendant failed all the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After the defendant's arrest, he blew a .137 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress based on an illegal detention. At the motion to suppress, the State provided a mutual aid agreement to the defense. The agreement gave initial officer the right to stop the defendant's vehicle. However, the agreement further required that the officer contact the municipality that the stopping officer was in to conduct any DUI investigation. At a pretrial deposition, the officer who made the traffic stop, stated they contacted the wrong municipality who then went on to conduct the DUI investigation and arrest the defendant. The State conceded the motion to suppress.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Aug-2014|Case# 12-CT-2485-K|Judge Fowler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving off the roadway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glazed eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had a five vodka drinks. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .136 and .134 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several pre-trial discussions over several months with the State. Prior to any trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Aug-2014|Case# CT-9856-XCL|Judge Myers

Facts

The defendant crashed his car after driving up on a curb and then skidding into the middle of the road. Officers noticed the car had a broken axle and a flat tire. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, lethargic movements, and slurred/slow speech. Prior to the roadside tests, the defendant appeared to be unsteady. According to the officers, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape, the arresting officer was yelling at the defendant and interrupting him while he was trying to do the tests. It was also apparent on video tape, the defendant's car was being towed away while the defendant was still performing the roadside tasks. This showed that the officers made up their minds to arrest the defendant even before finishing the full DUI investigation.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Aug-2014|Case# 13-CT-505847|Judge Paluck

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and watery/bloodshot eyes. The defendant also kept repeating himself several times. He refused to to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The defendant was also charged with the crime of a second refusal to take a breath test as he had been arrested for DUI in the past and also refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous discussions with the State prior the trial date which was a week away. We pointed out that none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired as required by Florida law for both the DUI and Refusal charges. The DUI and Refusal charges were both dismissed.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

4-Aug-2014|Case# 2014-CT-010695-AXXX-XX|Judge Atkin

Facts

The defendant was stopped after cutting off an officer on his police motorcycle. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank a couple of drinks. The defendant was unsteady and stumbling as he walked. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton presented to the prosecutor the defendant's medical history that he had a major speech impediment which caused his speech to appear very slurred. We also showed them medical records that he also had severe balance and hearing issues. All of these injuries were sustained years ago while in the military.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Aug-2014|Case# 8252-XEQ|Judge Hague

Facts

The defendant was seen by an officer coming out of a bar with keys in his hand. The officer observed the defendant to be stumbling and missing steps. As he got got closer to his motorcycle, the officer observed the defendant having trouble maintaining balance of the bike so the officer ordered the defendant to remove his motorcycle helmet. He then complied. The officer saw the defendant attempt to put the keys in the bikes ignition before the order to remove his helmet. The officer then observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and confused, thick tongued speech. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. A DUI unit was called who made similar observations. According to that officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the officer's order that the defendant remove his bike helmet was a show of authority without sufficient facts to warranting reasonable suspicion of a crime. Also, on the morning of jury trial, we also pointed out to the State that based on the facts, the defendant was not legally in actual physical control of the motorcycle. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI prior to any motions being argued.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Aug-2014|Case# CTC14-4525XDUTWS|Judge Roberts

Facts

The defendant was found passed out by the police in his car in front of a convenience store. The car was running when police arrived just shortly after fire rescue had arrived on scene. The officers found the defendant in the driver's seat and observed him to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, dilated pupils, and slurred speech. Once the defendant got out of the car, he stumbled, swayed, and had to use an object for support. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. He refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI.. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the prosecutor to get the DUI Dropped. We pointed out that the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform the field sobriety tests as required by Florida case law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Jul-2014|Case# CT-8604-XEP|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and continuously weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The entire incident, including the alleged driving pattern, was captured on video tape.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the police reports contradicted the video tape. For example, the defendant had no slurred speech and was not continuously weaving on video as the officer stated.. Also the defendant never stepped off the line on the walk and turn test even though the officer told him on tape that he did. Furthermore, the officer even asked the defendant for a breath test as soon as the defendant exited his vehicle, before he was even told what was going on or had been arrested.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Jul-2014|Case# 2014-CT-020719AXXXXX|Judge Friedland

Facts

The defendant was found by police slumped over the wheel of his car on the shoulder of the road. The defendant's truck was running. EMS was called and the defendant refused any treatment. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, red eyes, and a flushed face. Officers observed the defendant to be unsteady and he stumbled upon exiting the car. The defendant allegedly refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he allegedly refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officers on scene had a working video camera. The defendant was initially on video, however, when it came time to begin a DUI investigation, they took the defendant off camera so he could not be seen or heard refusing any field sobriety or breath tests, nor anything else for that matter. Also, when the defendant was seen on video tape, he was not off balance and his speech appeared fine. Thus, the video tape contradicted the written police reports.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Jul-2014|Case# 2014-CT-003983-O|Judge Bell

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed and cutting off another car. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, droopy eye lids, and slurred speech. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests which consisted of the HGN (eye test) , walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. The defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .113 and .102 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State the week before the trial date. The Judge had already excluded from evidence any evidence of the defendant's breath test results. We pointed out to the prosecutor that the video contradicted the written reports regarding the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. The defendant even walked backwards instead of forward on the walk and turn on the back nine steps and kept his balance.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jul-2014|Case# 3874-XEX|Judge Wolfson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three glasses of wine. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton negotiated with the State to get the DUI dropped prior to a trial date.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jul-2014|Case# 7199-XEM|Judge Wolfson

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out in his car, with the engine running, and his foot on the brake. Once the officers awoke the defendant, they observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant was unable to perform any roadside tests due to safety concerns as he had major problems even standing on his own. The defendant admitted to drinking five Coronas. After his arrest, he blew a .156 and .141 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had several pretrial discussion with the prosecutor.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Jul-2014|Case# 1093-XEV|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear-end crash while he was driving at a high rate of speed. When officers arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he stepped off the line numerous times, took an incorrect number of steps, and failed to touch heel to toe. On the estimation of time test, the defendant was asked to estimate 30 seconds in his own mind. He estimated 8 seconds for 30 seconds. On the finger to nose, he missed the tip of nose every time and kept his eyes open. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down four times, hopped, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.

Defense

After over a year of negotiating with State, Parks & Braxton was able to negotiate with the prosecutor to drop the DUI before trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jun-2014|Case# 2014-CT-005888AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving with no head lights. The defendant had an odor of alcohol on her breath, glassy eyes, a flushed face, and admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. According to the officer, she did not perform up to standards on the video taped roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand she put her foot down a few times and and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, she stumbled on the turn, did not touch heel to toe, and used her arms for balance. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .086 and .083 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton spoke with the prosecutor ahead of any trial dates in order to attempt to negotiate them dropping the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jun-2014|Case# CT-7208-XEP|Judge Greco

Facts

The defendant was stopped for spinning his tires and making a wide turn into the oncoming traffic lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he admitted to having some drinks. According to the officer, he failed the video taped field sobriety exercises which consisted of the walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and count the numbers backward tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a a .144 and .132 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted negotiations with the State prosecutor prior to trial. We pointed out out that the defendant's performance on the video taped roadside tests contradicted his alleged breath alcohol level.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jun-2014|Case# 2014-CT-008260AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in her car by police at a red light. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and balance issues. She refused to do any roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .191 and .179 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State to get the DUI dropped prior to a trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

26-Jun-2014|Case# 2013-CM-020146|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car at a red light with the engine running. Several other cars were honking their horns. When the police arrived, they got the defendant out of the car on video tape and placed him in hand cuffs. Once he was eventually uncuffed, the police observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol on this breath, red eyes, and slow movements. He also had trouble keeping his balance. He was then moved to a different location to perform field sobriety tests to which he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. During a search of the defendant's vehicle after the arrest, the police found some marijuana and paraphernalia.

Defense

Prior to a trial, Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State about the video tape and all the various police reports written by the different officers on the scene. We pointed out that not only was each police report contradictory in nature about the facts, but the video was also contradicted by what had been written. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received No convictions on his record for any drug charges.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Jun-2014|Case# 2014-CT-009036AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat in his car at an intersection. Officers, upon awaking the defendant, noticed an odor of alcohol and red eyes. The defendant stated he had been drinking earlier at a golf event. He failed the roadside tests which were video taped and then was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .109 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial to get the DUI dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Jun-2014|Case# 14-CT-500140|Judge Gagliardi

Facts

An anonymous caller called 911 stating that the defendant was driving all over the road and almost hitting cars. The officer spotted he defendant's car and noticed her take a wide / slow turn and over correct to get back on the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant also had blood-shot eyes and appeared sleepy. The defendant admitted to having four glasses of wine. According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .180 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-May-2014|Case# 2014-CT-015857AXXX|Judge Hanser

Facts

The defendant crashed his car into a giant palm tree. He took a turn too fast which resulted in the the defendant losing control of the car. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant bleeding from his head, complaining of leg pain, and fire rescue had to extract him from the car. The officer observed slurred speech and the defendant could not complete a coherent sentence. The defendant was transported to the hospital. The officer, believing that the defendant may be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical or controlled substance, ordered a blood draw from the defendant while the he had a breathing tube in his mouth and was sedated. The blood was sent to the toxicology lab and resulted in a blood alcohol level of .129 and .129.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the blood results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer did not have the requisite probable cause to order a blood draw. We argued in our motion that the officer did not have any "reasonable cause" to believe that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and/or a chemical or controlled substance as required by Florida law. Prior to the motion ever being argued, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

19-May-2014|Case# 13-006127MM10A|Judge Lerner-Wren

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police after weaving several times and causing a taxi to brake in order to avoid a collision. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and a flushed face. Once outside the car, the defendant was swaying. The defendant stated he was coming from the Blue Martini and could not remember how much he had to drink. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant took an incorrect number of steps, did not touch heel to toe, and was confused prior to turning back down the line. On the finger to nose, he missed the tip of his nose with his finger and did not keep his head back as instructed. He was then arrested for DUI. After the defendant was arrested, he refused the breath test. However, the defendant was later taken to the hospital and submitted to a blood test. The blood tested positive at a .18 blood alcohol level.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, the firm alleged that there was a lack of probable cause to make the arrest. Prior to the motion, the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

15-May-2014|Case# 12-004534MM10A|Judge Diaz

Facts

The defendant was involved in a traffic crash. The defendant was identified as the driver by an independent witness who wrote a separate affidavit. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer stated the defendant was tripping over his feet. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. After allegedly performing poorly on the sobriety tests the defendant was arrested for DUI.

Defense

Parks and Braxton filed a motion to suppress the arrest based on a violation of 316.645. Specifically, when an individual is involved in a crash that results in a DUI investigation, there is a protocol that must be followed prior to making a lawful arrest. Based on the violation, the defense filed the motion to suppress. The State conceded the motion and dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-May-2014|Case# 7151-XEM|Judge Altfield

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving to closely behind another car at a high rate of speed. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and watery/blood-shot eyes. A DUI enforcement officer was called to the scene and made similar observations as to that of the officer who made the traffic stop. According to the officer, he exhibited several signs of intoxication on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .206 and .209 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted pre-trial negotiations with the State to have the DUI Dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-May-2014|Case# 2013-CT-073003AXXX-XX|Judge Clarke

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving over a grass median. The officer noticed the defendant to have a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, watery eyes, and thick tongued speech. The defendant stated he had drank a "few" drinks. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were not video taped. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine. However, the officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

9-May-2014|Case# 12-020074MM10A|Judge Gottlieb

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash. He was speeding down the road, almost hitting curbs, and finally hit the center median and blew out his tires. When the police arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol , blood-shot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated to the police that "he was very drunk", "should not have been driving", "he drank too much", and also stated he “consumed three vodka tonics." The defendant was very unsteady and stumbling around prior to being asked to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant refused to perform the tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took sworn pre-trial depositions of all the witnesses. The firm then filed a motion to suppress all of the defendant's statements to the police as listed above. In our motion, we alleged they were obtained by the police in violation of Florida's accident privilege. The Judge granted the motion and excluded all of the defendant's statements.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-May-2014|Case# 5719-XEQ|Judge Seraphin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unable to keep his balance once outside the car. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .288 in the breath machine and then failed to provide a second sample of his breath. The police then alleged he refused the breath test because he did not provide two valid samples of his breath.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the prosecutor prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-May-2014|Case# 13-CT-505628|Judge Swett

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving based on a 911 call. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and a flushed face. According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State to get the DUI Dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

1-May-2014|Case# 2014-CT-000299AXMX|Judge Skidmore

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police after someone called 911. The caller, who later gave a written statement, told police that the defendant was driving all over the road and crossing lane markers multiple times for several miles. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, dilated pupils, and mush mouthed speech. According to the officer, she was unsteady, acting clumsy, had slow reflexes, and exhibited mood changes. After performing the HGN (eye test), the defendant then failed the walk and turn and one leg stand tests according to the officer. There was no video tape of the incident. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest for DUI, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor just prior to trial and the firm was able to convince the State to Drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Apr-2014|Case# 12-005608MM10A|Judge Robinson

Facts

The defendant was involved in a head on crash. The accident was observed by an independent witness. A deputy arrived on scene and observed the defendant attempting to exit the vehicle. The deputy observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, as well as bloodshot eyes. A DUI task force deputy arrived and continued with the investigation. After observing the same indicia of impairment, the defendant admitted to drinking three glasses of wine. The defendant was also observed to be unsteady on her feet. She was arrested for DUI and refused a blood test in the ambulance.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude all statements based on the accident report privilege. The Judge subsequently granted the motion and threw out the statements. Without the statements, the State would have difficulty proving that the defendant's impairment was from alcohol as opposed to the accident. The State then listed the fire rescue officers as witnesses. The goal was to prove that she was not injured and therefore the impairment was a result of the alcohol. However, Parks & Braxton took independent statements from each of the witnesses. Each statement revealed that the two deputies were not telling the truth with regards to how the defendant looked that evening. Specifically, the witnesses denied observing slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or any lack of balance. Based on the lack of credibility of the police the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Apr-2014|Case# 45-2013-CT-000582AXYX|Judge Williams

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and a flushed face. He was also unsteady outside his vehicle. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The offcer alleged in his reports that the defendant stated he had drank "15" drinks. After his arrest, he blew a .105 and .105 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State Attorney's Office. We pointed out that there was no sound on the video. Thus, everything the defendant did and said could not be put into context. For example, the officer stated the defendant messed up the alphabet test, however, one could not hear it being recited. Furthermore, the officer did not have the camera in focus on the defendant the majority of the time so one could not truly see the defendant's full performance of the roadside tests. Also, we pointed out that if the defendant truly said he had fifteen (15) drinks, his breath alcohol level would have been much higher. That then called into question the officer's credibility.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Apr-2014|Case# 2014-CT-003307AXXX|Judge Damico

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. That driving pattern was captured on video tape. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, dilated pupils, slurred speech, and the defendant stated he had two vodka drinks. According to the officer, he faiiled the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .099 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor's office in order to discuss the facts of the case and dropping the DUI prior to setting a trial date.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

21-Apr-2014|Case# 11-CT-503758|Judge Mann

Facts

The police came in contact with the defendant after he allegedly backed into another car. According to the officer's report, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slow slightly slurred speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .133 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, the firm alleged that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant. At the motion hearing, the officer's testimony was contradicted (impeached) many times. Also, the officer stated that the defendant was not at fault in the crash. Finally, he could recall many important facts of the case during his testimony. The Judge Granted the motion determining a lack of credibility.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Apr-2014|Case# CTC-98-399986VANC|Judge Horrox

Facts

The defendant was involved in a single car crash as he hit a utility pole. When the officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. When asked for his phone number, the defendant gave a "1-800 number" and stated that he forgot. The defendant was transported to the hospital due to his injuries. At the hospital, the police ordered that blood be drawn from the defendant. The results of the blood test showed the defendant had a blood alcohol content of a .292 and .290. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton conducted a pre-trial investigation after taking over the case from another law firm. Our firm found numerous problems with the toxicology lab, the VHS tape, and the witnesses.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

10-Apr-2014|Case# 59193-JA|Judge Denaro

Facts

A police officer noticed the defendant drinking in a bar while the the officer was having a meal. The officer noticed that the defendant appeared very intoxicated. He then saw the defendant leave, get in his car, and start the engine. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .237 and .237 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State in order to get the DUI Dropped prior to a trial date.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Apr-2014|Case# 13-CT-505875|Judge Paluck

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving with an inoperable tag light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. Once outside the car, the officer observed him swaying. On video tape, the defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the defendant's refusal to perform the roadside tests. In our motion, we alleged that the officer never advised the defendant of any "adverse consequences" for his refusal to perform the tests. Prior to the motion hearing date, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Apr-2014|Case# 7996-HBI|Judge Greco

Facts

The defendant was found by police passed out in his vehicle at an intersection. Once the police finally awoke the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. He also appeared unsteady outside the vehicle. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine. However, the officer felt he was impaired by a chemical and / or controlled substance.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial. The State would have been unable to prove by what "specific" chemical and / or controlled substance the officer thought was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by Florida Law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

28-Mar-2014|Case# 6153-XDX|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash which was witnessed by a police officer. When the officer came into contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slow speech, and a noticeable sway. The defendant admitted to consuming three whiskeys with sprite. He then failed the roadside tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .115 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous discussions with the State prior to setting a trial date.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Mar-2014|Case# 13-CT-504589|Judge Gagliardi

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights.. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, watery eyes, and she admitted to consuming three beers. According the officer, she did not perform well on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. There was no video tape at the scene. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor about the case prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Mar-2014|Case# 2013-CT-006384|Judge Fegers

Facts

The defendant was stopped on his motorcycle because the officer could not read his tag. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face, and also found a "mostly" empty bottle of vodka between the cables by the headlight and handle bar. The defendant stated he had drank a "few". The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. This, however, was the first time the firm represented this client.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State in pre-trial discussions that there was a lack of evidence indicating that the defendant's "normal faculties were impaired."

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

25-Mar-2014|Case# 12-006021MM10A|Judge Murphy

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the one leg stand exercise, he put his foot down three times, swayed, and raised his arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. At the scene of the incident, the defendant allegedly told the officer that "he was to drunk to drive." The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

The defense that the firm put forth was based upon the fact that just because an officer says something took place, doesn't always mean it is the truth. Based on the numerous contradictions between the officer's version of the facts and the defendant's side of the story, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The day before jury trial, the State agreed to Drop the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

21-Mar-2014|Case# 05-2013-CT-063862-AXXX-XX|Judge Babb

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. He was traveling 90 mph in a 45 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and he admitted to drinking beer. The defendant also used the driver's door for balance while stepping out of the car. He then performed the field sobriety tests on videotape. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .152 and .165 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged, that on videotape at the breath alcohol testing facility, the officer misinformed the defendant as to the law in an attempt to get him to take a breath test. Thus, we argued that he was coerced into taking the test based on the misstatements by the officer. Prior to the motion being argued, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Mar-2014|Case# 9855-XEQ|Judge Hague

Facts

The police were called after the defendant was observed getting into his car by a security guard who believed the defendant was intoxicated. The officer then observed the defendant swerving and conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, red eyes, and balance issues. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer did not write one specific pertaining to the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Thus, the complete performance was unknown.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Mar-2014|Case# 6721-XEM|Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was stopped after an anonymous person told the officers that the defendant was driving all over the road. The defendant, for some unknown reason, then pulled behind the officers and they made contact. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant showed signs of impairment on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he only blew one breath sample of a .241 and then refused the second breath breath test. The police then called it a refusal to submit to breath testing because they only obtained one breath sample and not two as required.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State about the case.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Mar-2014|Case# CTC-13-2636SSLTWS|Judge Salton

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving off the roadway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, lethargic and sleepy movements, and slow hand / eye coordination. The defendant admitted to drinking wine. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were video taped and he was arrested for DUI. During an inventory search of the defendant's car, the officer found a few prescription bottles for anti-depressants. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol in the breath machine. The officer, however, concluded on his DUI ticket that the defendant was impaired by those controlled substances.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although the officer found the controlled substances (ie. the anti-depressants in the car), he never even asked the defendant if he took them that day. Furthermore, the officer never even asked for a urine test. Thus, the State could not prove though any testimony what specific controlled substance was "allegedly impairing" the defendant as required by Florida Law. Also, the video tape of the defendant's roadside tests contradicted the reports about the level of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction for any crime at all.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Mar-2014|Case# 2012-CT-018600AXXXMA|Judge Higbee

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow movements, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, she missed heel to toe every time, stepped off the line, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .144 in the breath machine.

Defense

Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton had several discussions about the contents of the video tape with the State. On video, the defendant was distressed and kept stating to the police officer that a male individual she had been with had attempted to assault her and that is why she drove in order to get out of the house. Her friend, who she had picked up from around the corner after she left the male's house, stated the same thing to police over and over on video. They both kept telling the officer that they were just trying to get home in order to figure out how to handle the attempted assault situation. The officer showed hardly any interest on tape about hearing their story and appeared to be only concerned with conducting the DUI investigation. The defendant and her friend even indicated to the officer that they believed the male in question was following them just before they were pulled over. Thus, the firm pointed out to the State, that the defendant only drove her car out of "Necessity" which is a defense under the law solely in order to get away from a potentially violent situation.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Mar-2014|Case# 6715-XCM|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was driving 90 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Prior to a trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote a very vague report and did not write any details about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Mar-2014|Case# 2013-CT-011145-A-O|Judge Freeman

Facts

The defendant was found by police passed out in her car at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant after numerous attempts, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and mumbled speech. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .137 and .127 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor about various issues relating to the facts of the case prior to trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

11-Mar-2014|Case# CT-A150GIE|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for straddling the center white line a couple of times and "drifting". The officer who made the traffic stop, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant stated he drank a couple of beers. The stopping officer then called for a DUI unit. That other officer made similar observations and requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, the defendant exhibited several signs of impairment on the tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .20 and .183 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the arresting officer misstated the law on video tape to get the defendant to agree to take a breath test. Thus, the firm argued he was coerced into taking the breath test based upon misinformation of the law. We also filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to believe a traffic infraction had occurred and also that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was an impaired driver.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Mar-2014|Case# 6882-XEQ|Judge Denaro

Facts

The defendant was stopped for making an illegal left turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, a sway, and stuttered speech. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State about the facts of the case.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

3-Mar-2014|Case# A08AKRP|Judge Hague

Facts

The defendant allegedly hit a parked vehicle and left the scene of the crash. Officers from two different jurisdictions located him at the complex where he resided. The defendant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the security guard also saw him drive into the complex in a severely damaged car. The defendant, at one point when officers arrived, came out to check on his car, and the police noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .083 in the breath machine.

Defense

On the morning of Jury Trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash and while driving as required by Florida Law. Neither civilians or police, came into contact with the defendant until after he came out of his residence. Aside from Dropping the DUI, the State also Dismissed the Leaving the Scene of an Accident charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

21-Feb-2014|Case# 12-019882MM10A|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was involved in a crash. Upon arrival, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After exiting the car, the defendant was extremely unsteady on his feet. On video, the defendant was asked to perform several field sobriety tests. On the walk and turn test he failed to walk heel to toe, used his arms for balance and stumbled off of the line several times. On the one leg stand test the defendant dropped his foot and stated "I can't do it". The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's 5th DUI. This was the first time the firm represented the defendant.

Defense

Despite the impairment on video, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a violation of 316.645. Specifically, the arresting officer did not follow proper procedure when investigating an individual for DUI who was also involved in an accident. On the morning of the motion to suppress the DUI was dropped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

20-Feb-2014|Case# 48-2013-CT-009963-A-0|Judge Bell

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red/glassy eyes. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test on another video tape at the breath alcohol testing facility. The State then charged the defendant with a Second Refusal. This was also the defendant's second arrest for DUI and also had a prior refusal to take a breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State prior to setting a trial date that the video tape of the defendant's field sobriety tests showed a better performance than that described in the police reports. Also, the firm pointed out to the State, that on the other video, the defendant was repeatedly blowing in the machine and never said he was refusing even though the officers stated he refused because they never got two valid results. The video also showed the officers also appearing to be very hostile toward the defendant for no reason as he was trying to blow into the machine. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the Second Refusal charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

13-Feb-2014|Case# 6713-XEQ|Judge Hague

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. There were un-opened beer bottles found in the car and the defendant admitted to drinking beer and wine. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .151 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State prior to a trial. We pointed out that the first breath card obtained from the defendant minutes prior to gathering the two results on the second card as stated above had a "fail" indication. It was unknown as to why that "fail" had printed out on the first breath test attempt.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Feb-2014|Case# 1109-XEV|Judge Wolfson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood-shot eyes. The defendant stated he drank a half a beer. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were not video taped. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted, the firm also won a prior DUI that the defendant had been arrested for in a different county just over four years ago.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for a jury trial. On the morning of trial, we pointed out to the State that the arresting officer's reports were very vague and he did not write one specific detail about the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Feb-2014|Case# 2013-CT-012432-O|Judge Miller

Facts

The defendant came into contact with the police after they received a call that he allegedly hit a cement pole at a drive thru fast food restaurant. When the officer arrived, the defendant was in the driver's seat and the officer observed some bumper scrapes and paint transfer on his car. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and he admitted to having some whiskey and two beers. According to the officer, he failed all the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .186 and .207 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State prior to any trial being set. There was some contradictory evidence as to whether in fact a crash had actually taken place per the written reports and citations.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Feb-2014|Case# CT-6712-XEP|Judge Myers

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. According to the officer, he failed the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape at the scene contradicted the officer's written allegations about the defendant's level of impairment.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

31-Jan-2014|Case# 6222-XEQ|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving down the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and slurred speech. Beer was also found in the car. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .180 and .172 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had numerous pre-trial discussions with the State prior to a trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jan-2014|Case# 2013-CT-026639AXXX|Judge Shepherd

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and almost hitting parked cars. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and swaying. The defendant admitted to having four vodka drinks. She failed all the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .162 and .169 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State prior to a trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Jan-2014|Case# 13-CT-503730|Judge Hayward

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost colliding with another car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant failed all the field sobriety tests according to the officer's reports although none of them were video taped. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol in the breath machine. However, the officer concluded he was also impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance so a Drug Recognition Exam was conducted on the defendant. That officer then concluded the defendant was impaired by alcohol and a CNS Depressant. The defendant then provided a urine sample to the police for testing at the lab.

Defense

Parks & Braxton requested that full discovery be provided by the State as required by Florida Law. The urine test results were not provided in a timely manner by the State to the defense.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Jan-2014|Case# 12-014569MM10A|Judge Robinson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for swerving on the roadway as well as speeding. As the officer approached the vehicle he noticed a strong odor of alcohol. After face to face contact the officer also noticed slurred speech and bloodshot watery eyes. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, finger to nose as well as the walk and turn. Subsequently, the defendant admitted to drinking and was arrested for DUI. In addition, the defendant was charged with felony carrying a concealed firearm. This was the defendant's second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to dismiss the firearm charge which was granted. After preparing the DUI for jury trial the State dropped the charge.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Jan-2014|Case# A0FQ9DE|Judge Mcneil

Facts

The defendant was stopped for crossing over the fog line, almost hitting a curb, making an alleged wide turn, and driving over a curb while turning into a parking spot. The officer, after initiating a traffic stop, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking three beers. According to the officer, he failed all the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The entire incident, including the driving pattern, was captured on video tape. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest within five years.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State during pre-trial discussions that the driving pattern as alleged by the officer in the police reports was contradictory to what was captured on the in-car video tape. Thus, we pointed out to the State that the initial traffic stop may have been unlawful.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Jan-2014|Case# 2013-CT-02035AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and appeared disoriented. She partially completed the roadside tasks on video tape. The defendant admitted to having two glasses of wine. According to the officer, she failed all portions of the roadside tasks that were attempted by the defendant. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State prior to any trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

23-Jan-2014|Case# 2012-CT-001785-A-O|Judge Adams

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost causing a crash. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and she appeared off balance. According to the officer, she failed all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .187 and a .188 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton had lengthy pre-trial discussions with the State about the case.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jan-2014|Case# CTC12-3974XEZANC|Judge Levine

Facts

The defendant was stopped by the police when he was observed by the police doing "donuts" in his car in a parking lot. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to splitting some pitchers of beer with friends and the officers observed him swaying. According to the officers, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. The incident was captured on video tape. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .089 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the police officer misinformed the defendant of the law and coerced him into taking a breath test. The entire conversation between the defendant and the officer was captured on the video tape. Just prior to the hearing date, the State agreed with the firm's motion after reviewing the tape.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Jan-2014|Case# 6684-XEQ|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, the defendant's speech was not understandable, and he appeared disoriented. The defendant was unsteady and unable to perform any field sobriety tests due to his high level of intoxication. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Jan-2014|Case# 6693-XEQ|Judge Altfield

Facts

The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant failed all the field sobriety tests according to the officer and she was then arrested for DUI. None of the tests were video taped. After her arrest, she blew a .106 in the breath machine and then refused to provide a second breath sample as required by Florida law.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant never stepped off the line on the walk turn, never put her foot down on the one leg stand test, and estimated 27 out of 30 seconds on the Rhomberg balance test. Thus, the firm showed the State numerous weaknesses in their case and the firm was ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Jan-2014|Case# 5920-WMB|Judge Krieger-Martin

Facts

The defendant was stopped for continuously weaving and nearly side-wiping another car. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. He also admitted to having a few drinks and taking a prescribed anti-depressant medicine. The defendant failed all the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol, however, the officers never asked for urine. This was the defendant's Second DUI within a five year period.

Defense

Despite the fact that the report listed an alleged statement by the defendant concerning medication, the fact that the officer never asked for a urine sample demonstrated a lack of credibility. On the morning of trial Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State the weaknesses in their case.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

3-Jan-2014|Case# 12-022256MM10A|Judge Brown

Facts

The defendant was seen passed out at the airport in front of the terminal with the engine on, the car in gear, and his foot on the brake. The initial officer approached the vehicle in an attempt to wake him up. The defendant woke up, hit the gas peddle and drove up onto the curb. The initial officer observed signs of impairment and subsequently requested a DUI task force officer to conduct a DUI investigation. The DUI officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech as well as unsteadiness. The defendant then performed field sobriety tests. On video the defendant performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, HGN (eye test), as well as the finger to nose test. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and refused a breath test.

Defense

Based on several conflicts between the video and the police reports Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

17-Dec-2013|Case# 13-CT-502275|Judge Hayes

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving 101 miles per hour in a 70 mile per hour zone at about 7:30 a.m.. She was also changing lanes improperly, following too closely, and failing to use her signal. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, quickly placed her in hand cuffs, and arrested her for reckless driving. The officer then requested that the defendant perform field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she failed them and was also arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she tested positive for for alcohol on the breath machine, however, the officer actually believed she was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law. The State Dismissed the DUI and the defendant received no conviction or points on the other reckless driving charge.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

17-Dec-2013|Case# 49-2013-CT-003741|Judge Epperson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having an expired registration. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and very slurred speech. The defendant stated that he had drank two long island iced teas and a lemon drop shot. According to the officer, the defendant swayed and weaved as he walked while outside the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the arresting officer, he failed them all and was arrested for DUI . After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The entire incident was captured on video tape.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI since none of his "normal faculties" were impaired. We pointed out to the State that the entire video contradicted what was written in the police reports.

The Result

Prior to the motion ever being argued, the State watched the video tape and then Dropped the DUI to a Simple Civil Traffic Infraction.

13-Dec-2013|Case# 2012-CT-005439|Judge Obrien

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving on a flat tire and a rim. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and he swayed while standing. He was also staggering. According to the officer, he failed all the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .203 and .203 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the lead officer was being investigated for very serious disciplinary allegations. Based on the findings and what was known to the State about the officer, they could not proceed in good faith.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

11-Dec-2013|Case# 7102-XEP|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was stopped for allegedly weaving inside her lane and bumping into a curb one time. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. She then performed the roadside tests. According to the officer, she failed them all. The defendant also admitted to consuming 4 to 5 beers and also feeling the effects of the alcohol. She was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .131 and .140 in the breath machine. The entire incident, including the driving pattern, was captured on video tape.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause that any traffic infraction was committed. Furthermore, we alleged that there was also no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was an impaired driver based on the video tape. The Judge watched the video tape of the driving pattern, heard testimony, and listened to some case law being cited. The Judge then determined that the stop was unlawful and Granted the motion.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

6-Dec-2013|Case# 13-7894-XBPWS-15|Judge Wansboro

Facts

The defendant was stopped for illegally driving through a construction area. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests and and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .08 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton first pointed out to the State that the solutions used during the control tests on the defendant's breath card read higher than her actual breath test results. Thus, we argued it could have easily made her test results appear falsely higher than the legal limit of .08. We also pointed out that on video tape, although the defendant totally messed up the alphabet test, she kept telling the officer that English was not her first language. However, he still had the hand cuffs out in his hand even before she finished.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

6-Dec-2013|Case# 6972-XEX|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton was ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Dec-2013|Case# 2013-CT-006492AXXX|Judge Drake

Facts

The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby she ended up on a median. The officer observed her to have an odor of alcohol, unsteadiness, stagger at times, and slurred speech. She refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. The whole incident was captured on video tape.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed pre-trial a motion to suppress all of the defendant's statements to police on video tape which were obtained in violation of her Miranda rights. We also filed a motion to exclude her refusal to perform the field sobriety exercises as she was never advised of any adverse consequences by the officer as required by Florida law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Dec-2013|Case# 2013-CM-007527|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped for having no tag light and making an improper turn. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slurred speech. Fresh vomit was also seen running down the driver's side door. The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although there was a working police video camera at the scene , the entire DUI investigation was not taped. There was never any reason provided by the police as to why the investigation was not taped.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

3-Dec-2013|Case# 48-2013-CT-008205--A-O|Judge Ansbro

Facts

The defendant was stopped for not having an operable tag light, failing to stop at a flashing red signal, and making a wide right turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.

The Result

On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

20-Nov-2013|Case# CT-2481-XBP|Judge Dominguez

Facts

The defendant was the at fault driver in a high speed crash. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. The officers also noticed that the defendant was lethargic in his movements and was swaying. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The entire investigation was captured on video tape.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officers' observations alleged in their reports were contradicted by the video tape. For example, the defendant was not swaying on tape and his speech was clear.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

14-Nov-2013|Case# 12-019107MM10A|Judge Murphy

Facts

A civilian witness observed the defendant driving recklessly. At one point she stated that the defendant almost crashed into another vehicle. She called 911 and provided a description of the car, the driving pattern as well as all of her personal information. Two officers located the defendant and observed her fail to maintain a single lane one time. The officers subsequently pulled the defendant over. The two officers noticed several signs of impairment and called for a DUI task force officer to conduct the investigation. The DUI officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, a flushed face as well as slurred speech. In addition, the defendant was unsteady on her feet. She kept ranting on video about how she knew the sheriff. She conducted the HGN (eye test), walk and turn and the one leg stand. She performed poorly on all tests and was arrested for DUI. All testing was performed on video. At the breath alcohol testing facility she blew a .218 and .204 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful seizure. At the motion to suppress, the civilian witness testified in detail concerning the severity of the driving pattern. The witness talked about the near collision as well as the weaving all over the road. Next, one of the stopping officers testified. He stated that while dispatch told him to look out for a reckless driver, they did not describe the driving pattern to the officer with any specificity. In addition, he admitted that since he was not the lead officer, he did not see the defendant fail to maintain a single lane. The motion was granted and all of the evidence was thrown out.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

12-Nov-2013|Case# CT-7153-XEP|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped after officers saw her back over a curb into a tree in a parking lot. They then observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the video taped roadside tests. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .142 and a .148 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

12-Nov-2013|Case# 13-CT-505089|Judge Hayes

Facts

The defendant was seen by the police making numerous traffic turns. The defendant then stopped his car in a driveway and sat there. The officer then activated his his overhead lights for some reason and the defendant exited his car and walked towards the officer. The officer then noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was staggering. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew .198 and .192 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out the State that the defendant did not commit any traffic infractions and there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime. By the officer turning on his overhead lights, the officer turned the initial encounter into an unlawful seizure.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

7-Nov-2013|Case# 2013-CT-021052AXXX|Judge Sheperd

Facts

He also swayed wile outside the car. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

5-Nov-2013|Case# 3873-XEX (JURY TRIAL)|Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car by police in a parking lot at around 3 a.m.. The keys were in the ignition, the engine was on, and so were the lights to the car. After about thirty seconds to a minute, the officer finally opened the door to awake the defendant after banging on the window numerous times and shaking the car. The officer then noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. EMS was also called to check on the defendant's well being. After being cleared by EMS, a DUI officer was called to the scene to conduct roadside tests. The defendant performed the eye test (HGN) and the walk and turn. For example, on the walk and turn, the officer stated he stepped off the line five times, raised his arms for balance, and lost his balance during the instructions. Officers also stated that the defendant was unsteady on his feet and staggered while walking around. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within a five year period.

Defense

At Jury Trial, Parks and Braxton argued that the State could not prove the defendant had the "capability" of operating a motor vehicle while sleeping. Thus, we argued he could not have been in actual physical control of the car. Also, we were able to impeach every officer as each one of them did not write several important details or specifics pertaining to the DUI investigation in their reports.

The Result

The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

4-Nov-2013|Case# CT-1956-XBO|Judge Lefler

Facts

The defendant was on the side of the road with a road ranger. It was unknown if the defendant's vehicle was broken down or even why the road ranger was on scene. No statement was taken from the road ranger by the police at anytime. When the officer arrived, he came in contact with the defendant who had an odor of alcohol on his breath, watery eyes, and mumbled speech. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the circumstances surrounding the initial encounter with road ranger and police were unknown due a very vague police report. Thus, there may have been an initial unlawful seizure of the defendant by police.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Nov-2013|Case# 2013-CT-020370AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant came into contact with the police after a call went out that he was an alleged intoxicated driver. Officers located the defendant's defendant's car in a parking lot. The defendant was inside the car with the keys on the floor board. Once he was asked to step out of the car, they observed him to have an odor alcohol and he admitted to drinking beers. According to the officers, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .117 and .110 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the initial encounter may have been illegal as the tip was anonymous. Also, we discussed with the State that the defendant could not have been in actual physical control of the car as the keys were on the floor board.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

4-Nov-2013|Case# 2012-CT-010567-A000-LD|Judge Kirkland

Facts

The defendant was stopped for making an improper turn in a construction area. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having five beers. No physical field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn or one leg stand were conducted due to the defendant's severe knee injuries. However, he did perform the finger to nose and balance exercise. According the the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the the State prior to trial that the defendant's legs were so mangled and badly injured that he could not even stand properly. Thus, he could even perform any roadside tests.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Oct-2013|Case# CTC-13-7144XFE-ANC|Judge Bedinghaus

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, and he fumbled with his items. He also appeared slow and lethargic. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The officer later found a beer can which was cold to the touch in the defendant's car. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Oct-2013|Case# 11-018737MM10A|Judge Robinson

Facts

The defendant was stopped while inadvertently driving through a federal security checkpoint. After observing an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face and sluggish movements, the checkpoint officer called for a DUI task force deputy to conduct an investigation. On video, the defendant was moving and talking slowly. He subsequently performed several field sobriety tests including the walk and turn, one leg stand, and the HGN (eye test). The defendant was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI offense.

Defense

Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton met with the Supervising Prosecutor in an effort to discuss the weaknesses of the State's case. For example, despite the defendant's slow movements, he was able to perform a portion of the field sobriety tests correctly. In addition, it was explained to the State that the deputy was unable to testify whether this was how the defendant spoke and moved on a normal every day basis.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

29-Oct-2013|Case# 10-15280MM10A|Judge Gottlieb

Facts

The defendant was stopped by Florida Highway Patrol for weaving all over the roadway. The Trooper observed a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. Upon exiting the car the Trooper stated that the defendant was unsteady on her feet. Four field sobriety tests were performed and the defendant was arrested for DUI. At the police station, the defendant re-performed sobriety tests on video and blew a .120 in the breathalyzer.

Defense

The video was inconsistent with the report that was generated by the Trooper. In addition, there was no evidence that the defendant was over the legal limit at the time she was driving. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

21-Oct-2013|Case# 2013-CT-018058AXXX|Judge Weiss

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving east bound in the west bound lane of traffic. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, he could not even say the alphabet correctly. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .184 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

21-Oct-2013|Case# 10-7492MM10A|Judge Murphy

Facts

The officer responded to a McDonalds parking lot in reference to an altercation involving a gun. Upon arrival, a civilian witness pointed out the defendant, while yelling "Those are the guys. Stop them". The officer directed the defendant into a parking spot and walked up to the drivers side door. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. Once outside of the vehicle, the defendant appeared to be extremely unsteady on his feet. On video, the defendant admitted to drinking multiple pitchers. A conversation took place whereby the defendant explained that he stopped at the McDonalds because he had too much to drink. He performed a series of field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. At the police station the defendant blew a .097 in the breathalyzer.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful detention. Specifically, the firm argued that the officer had no right to direct our client into a parking spot and detain him. At the motion to suppress, the officers mentioned the civilian and the gun several times. In fact, they testified that they observed the firearm. However, at the very moment when they directed him into the parking spot they lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for the detention. The motion was granted and all of the evidence including the video and breath test were excluded from evidence.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

17-Oct-2013|Case# CTC-137753XELASP|Judge Dittmer

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way ramp. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to having two beers at a baseball game. Upon standing outside the car, the officer observed the defendant to be unsteady and staggering. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape recorded at the scene contradicted the officer's reports as to his alleged observations of the defendant.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

16-Oct-2013|Case# 2013-CT-006115-AXXX-MA|Judge Mitchell

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving without his lights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, and he appeared sleepy. The defendant admitted to having three glasses of wine. The defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .117 and .111 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

10-Oct-2013|Case# 13-CT-502737|Judge Hayward

Facts

The defendant was stopped for driving off the road four times. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He also found two beer cans in the car and one was cold to the touch. The defendant was also unsteady and leaned on the vehicle for support. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress to the defendant's refusal to submit to field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing the roadside tests pursuant to Florida Law.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

7-Oct-2013|Case# 8672-XEX (JURY TRIAL)|Judge Wolfson

Facts

The defendant was stopped for not stopping at a red light while making a right turn. The officer who made the traffic stop observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. He also saw the defendant stumble outside the car. He then called for another officer to conduct the DUI investigation. That officer made similar observations and also saw the defendant lean on the truck for balance. The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted that the firm has won two prior DUI cases with the same defendant and also attained a not guilty verdict in one of the cases.

Defense

Parks & Braxton took pre-trial depositions of the two officers and pinned them down on many answers to which they could not give any specific information. Also, we got sworn testimony from them that although one cop saw the defendant leaning on a truck for balance the entire time, the other officer never did. The firm picked a jury, the jury was sworn, and then double jeopardy attached. The defense then pointed out to the State that based on the deposition testimony and pre-trial motion testimony from one of the officers, they could never prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Result

The DUI was dismissed.

7-Oct-2013|Case# CT-6436-XEP|Judge Jeske

Facts

The defendant was first scene by a police officer as her car was stuck on the rail road tracks. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and watery eyes. He told her to stand off to the side and he would call a wrecker to tow the car. The defendant then ran over to her car and started to try to drive it off the tracks. For safety reasons, the officer ordered her to stop and get out. A DUI unit was then called and he made similar observations along with slurred speech and she appeared confused. She refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

3-Oct-2013|Case# 3050-WCN|Judge Newman

Facts

The defendant was stopped for running a flashing red light. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three cans of beer. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, the defendant tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, however, the officer actually believed she was impaired by either a chemical and/or controlled substance.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly caused the defendant to be impaired as required by the Florida Statutes.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

2-Oct-2013|Case# 2012-CT-020575AXXX (JURY TRIAL)|Judge Castor

Facts

The defendant was in a 70 mile per hour crash on the Florida Turnpike where it was determined by the police that she sideswiped another car causing both cars to hit the center concrete barrier. The defendant's hood ended up in her windshield and her air bag deployed. The person in the other car was taken to the hospital and his car was destroyed. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and blood-shot eyes. The officer observed her to be very off balance, staggering and leaning against cars for balance. She also exhibited various mood swings. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, she took the wrong number of steps, used her arms for balance, and had to stop to steady herself. During the one leg stand test, after only two seconds, the defendant stopped and stated "she could not do it." She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test on video tape and was very argumentative with the police. The defendant was also taken to the hospital at fire rescue's request before being taken to jail. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. On her first DUI, the firm also represented her and gained a not guilty verdict at a jury trial less than five years ago.

Defense

At Jury Trial, Parks & Braxton got the arresting officer to admit that any signs of impairment he observed could have been equally related to a very bad crash and an airbag hitting the defendant versus alcohol impairment. Thus, we argued there was reasonable doubt as to whether the State proved she was impaired by alcohol under the law versus impairment by being injured. We also argued among other things that the investigating officer had a working video camera in his patrol car but chose not to video tape the defendant. Instead, he had the defendant perform physical roadside tests in a chaotic crash scene after she had just been hit with an air bag. The firm also pointed out that the officer took no pictures, did not get any witness statements from all the EMS people at the scene, and did not talk to anyone at the hospital where the defendant was treated. The defendant also stated to the police that she was the one cut off and not the cause of the crash. That was not written in any reports. In sum, the firm argued there was a lack of evidence, conflicts in the evidence, a very poor investigation by the police, and the alleged impairment was caused by the crash.

The Result

The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

1-Oct-2013|Case# CT-6699-XEP|Judge Conrad

Facts

The defendant was stopped for weaving. He had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer and also swayed while outside the car. According to the arresting officer, he did not perform up to standards on the field sobriety exercises which were video taped. He was subsequently arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton were ready for trial.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

30-Sep-2013|Case# 4548-XEV|Judge Ortiz

Facts

The defendant was stopped for failing to stop at a steady red light. The defendant did not stop promptly upon the officer flashing the overhead police lights and air horn several times. Upon coming into contact with the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that both officers on the scene had working video cameras in their patrol cars. However, they both failed to video tape everything at the scene other than the driving pattern. The officers had no reasonable explanation for failing to video tape the whole DUI investigation.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

27-Sep-2013|Case# 2013-CT-056671AXXX|Judge Clarke

Facts

The defendant was found by the police passed out in his car in a parking lot. When officers awoke the defendant, he had an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and vomit in the car and on himself. The defendant also admitted to having three beers. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .121 and .125 in the breath machine.

Defense

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State before a trial that the defendant could not have been in "actual physical control" of the car as the car was not even running. Also, the firm pointed out to the prosecutor that the keys to the car were in the defendant's front pants pocket when he was found passed out by the police.

The Result

The State dropped the DUI.

TIME IS OF THE

ESSENCE

The prosecution is building a case against you now. It is
vital that you start planning an aggressive defense now.

Receive An Immediate Response From One Of Our Partners Now.

captcha Please leave this field empty.






Awards & Accolades