DUI Wins

Nov 5, 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.
Result:	The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oct 21, 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.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 21, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 17, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

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

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

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

Oct 7, 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.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 3, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 2, 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.
Result:	The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

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

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

Sep 27, 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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Sep 25, 2013	Case: CT-7078-XEP	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, bloodshot -eyes, and she admitted to having a couple of drinks. On video tape, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a . 125 and .131 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant's video taped performance on the roadside tests contradicted her breath test results. That would have indicated that her breath alcohol level may have been lower than the legal limit at the "time of driving."
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.