DUI Wins

Jul 25, 2002	Case: 01-17563MM10A	Judge Diaz
Facts:	The defendant nearly collided with a barricade and was weaving all over the road. The defendant staggered out of the vehicle and failed all sobriety tests. The defendant provided a urine sample which tested positive for tranquilizers.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

Jul 23, 2002	Case: 02-004971MMA99	Judge Ciklin
Facts:	The defendant stopped for drifting into the northbound lane on several occasions. Odor, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech. The defendant failed all sobriety tests and refused a breath test. The defendant also had a pipe with him and was charged with paraphernalia.
Result:	Judge Ciklin granted the motion and all of the charges were dropped.

Jul 19, 2002	Case: 01-026696MM10A	Judge Lazarus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Odor, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech. The officer wrote in his report that the defendant failed the sobriety tests.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

Jul 8, 2002	Case: 136436-J	Judge Bloom
Facts:	The defendant was parked on the shoulder of the road. The trooper pulled up behind her vehicle with her overhead police lights on. The defendant performed poorly on roadsides and was arrested for DUI. The defendant did not take a breath test.
Result:	State conceded the motion and the defendant received no conviction on her record.

Jun 26, 2002	Case: 01-028334TCA99	Judge Damico
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

Jun 26, 2002	Case: 01-026263TCA08	Judge Moyle
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

Jun 17, 2002	Case: 260450-W	Judge Krieger-Martin
Result:	The case was dismissed.

May 28, 2002	Case: 061432-BDY	Judge Mills-Francis
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

May 22, 2002	Case: 01-026265TCA99	Judge Ciklin
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

Apr 10, 2002	Case: 02-013051TCA99	Judge Moyle
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. Police observed odor, bloodshot eyes, and a statement "Yea I'm drunk again". The defendant refused all testing. (3rd offense for DUI).
Result:	Motion to dismiss granted for destruction of evidence. All charges dismissed.

Jan 11, 2002	Case: 01-022818MM10A	Judge Cowart
Facts:	The Defendant was observed weaving on Oakland Park Blvd. Defendant stumbled out of car. Defendant admits to drinking "shots".
Result:	The State dropped the DUI. The defendant has no conviction on her record.

	Case: 22-CT-011805	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he made unusual statements. After performing roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the defendant provided a urine sample which came back from FDLE positive for marijuana.
Defense:	The State could not prove he was impaired by the marijuana because it could have been in his system for up to 30 days.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

	Case: 21-CT-000592	Judge Nicola
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant had a stamp on his hand form a bar. He was asked to perform roadside tests, but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer never even asked the defendant to step out of the car for the DUI investigation until he was being arrested. Thus, no-one could even see if he had any balance issues. Also, his speech was not slurred on tape. Furthermore, we provided case law to the State that the defendant's silence in not answering questions would be a violation of his Miranda rights.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

	Case: 21-CT-036776	Judge
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy/bloodshot eyes, and he stated he had consumed 3 crown and cokes. He also swayed while he stood, had mumbled speech, and appeared unsteady. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .146 and a .143 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to inconsistencies between the police reports and the video tape that were pointed out by the firm to the State, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

	Case: 21-CT-006470	Judge Damico
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving in and out of traffic and almost hitting a house, after a 911 caller relayed what they had seen. Upon contact, the officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slow dexterity. She was unstable, her speech was mumbled, and she had slow comprehension. She performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew .166, .134, and .145 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The officer did not see any driving pattern upon stopping the defendant. Thus, he had no corroboration to legally justify the traffic stop Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

	Case: 19-CT-001773	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain s single lane. He was alleged to have traveled over the fog lines. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, and red/glassy eyes. He had to steady himself while getting out of the car. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn, finger to nose and HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The officers who stopped the defendant were outside their jurisdiction. The State did not provide what is called a mutual aid agreement between the two cities authorizing one jurisdiction to conduct traffic stops in the other's jurisdiction. In addition, the officers had body worn cameras but did not video any roadside tests for whatever unknown reason. The State Dropped the DUI, and the defendant, who is a CDL license holder, received No criminal conviction on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

	Case: STATE V. K.S.	Judge
Facts:	The police conducted a traffic stop on the defendant's car for a seat belt violation. When the officer approached the car, he smelled an odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. The officer had the defendant step out of the car and then noticed marijuana in plain view on the rear left rear floor board in a zip locked bag. The defendant admitted the marijuana was his for personal use. The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana.
Result:	The defendant received No criminal conviction for a drug charge and the firm also saved the defendant from losing his driver's license for two years by not being convicted of said drug charge.

	Case: STATE V. R.F.	Judge
Facts:	Grand Theft, Burglary of a Structure
Result:	The defendant was charged with grand theft and burglary of a structure. The defendant was facing ten years in prison. The State could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on inconsistencies the defense was able to point out to the jury and the jury found the defendant not guilty on both counts.

	Case: STATE V. J.T.	Judge
Facts:	Lewd and Lascivious Act on a Child Under 16 Years Old
Result:	The defendant was charged with lewd and lascivious act on a child under 16 years old. The defendant was facing up to 15 years in the State Prison. At trial, the defense was able to impeach the alleged victim with inconsistencies in her statements on cross examination. The jury found the defendant guilty of a lesser charge, misdemeanor battery, and he received probation and not one day in jail.

	Case: STATE V. M.A.	Judge
Facts:	Attempted First Degree Murder, Aggravated Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Resisting an Officer with Violence
Result:	The defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and resisting an officer with violence. The defendant was facing life in prison. At jury trial, the defense argued the defendant acted in self defense. The defense put the defendant on the witness stand to tell his side of the story that he was just protecting himself and the jury found him not guilty on all charges.