DUI Wins

Aug 10, 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.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Aug 4, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 30, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 29, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 23, 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.
Result:	THE STATE DROPPED THE DUI.

Jul 17, 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.
Result:	THE STATE DROPPED THE DUI.

Jul 13, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 6, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 1, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 30, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 26, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 22, 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.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Jun 16, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 12, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 11, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 11, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 11, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 10, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.