Results

May 21, 2025	Case: 24-CT-021052	Judge Taylor
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car while parked on a sidewalk with the engine running. Upon awakening the defendant, the officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. His balance was unsteady and he had trouble communicating. The defendant admitted to consuming multiple drinks. He performed very poorly on field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test) and walk and turn. The one leg stand was not done for the safety of the defendant. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .124 and .120 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and providing mitigation to the State, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 20, 2025	Case: 24-CT-011598	Judge Legler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a lethargic demeanor. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 20, 2025	Case: 24-CT-021326	Judge Rich
Facts:	A staff member at a bar called police stating that the defendant drove off very intoxicated and then came back. They were concerned because he was going to drive off again in a very intoxicated state. Officers arrived and found the defendant sitting in his car. They noticed an odor of alcohol, a dazed look, slurred/slow speech, and his pupils were dilated. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .162 and .154 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 20, 2025	Case: 25-CT-002447	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding (86 mph in a 55 mph zone). Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, thick slurred speech, and droopy eyelids. He was also unsteady. After performing poorly on the roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .181 and .178 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 20, 2025	Case: 25-CT-002094	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant failed to stop at a stop sign. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was unable to multitask. The defendant denied drinking alcohol and also appeared unsteady. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The video contradicted the police reports. On tape, he performed much better on the field sobriety tests versus what was written in the reports. In addition, on tape, his speech was not slurred and he was not unsteady.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 19, 2025	Case: 24-CT-503795	Judge Gonzalez
Facts:	The defendant crashed his car into a ditch. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. His face was flushed and his coordination was poor. The defendant was then taken to the hospital. No roadside tests could be conducted due to him being in a hospital bed. Officers told him that he was going to be arrested for DUI once released. The defendant refused to provide a breath sample.
Defense:	On body worn camera, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior to arresting him for DUI. Under Florida law, a breath test can only be requested after one is arrested for DUI (Florida Statute 316.1932). In Florida, we don't have prearrest breath tests or handheld devices. Thus, the refusal to provide a breath sample would have been excluded from evidence due to the officer not knowing the law.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 15, 2025	Case: 24-CT-020164	Judge Scott
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights, weaving, and running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and she admitted to having drank alcohol. The defendant agreed to perform the HGN (eye test), but refused to perform any further field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations with State regarding the evidence and the defendant, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 15, 2025	Case: 24-MM-003788	Judge Tew
Facts:	The defendant was stopped on his boat for speeding in a slow speed minimum wake manatee protection zone. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and he stumbled and swayed. The defendant denied having anything to drink. He performed various field sobriety tests used in Boating Under the Influence cases, such as the palm pat, finger to nose, and hand coordination. He was arrested for BUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	On tape, the defendant only appeared unsteady because the boat was rocking back and forth. Most importantly, the officer had a body worn camera on. However, it was getting dark out and he did not use any additional lighting while conducting the field sobriety tests. He actually did them in the pitch black and no-one could see anything on tape. The firm announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the Boating under the influence charge.
Result:	The State Dropped the BUI.

May 14, 2025	Case: 24-CT-049641	Judge Skinner
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a sideswipe crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, heavily slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed while outside the car. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The arresting officer never put the defendant in front of the camera so no one could see him at all during any DUI investigation. Also, when a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. Finally, all of the defendant's statements about drinking and driving were obtained in violation of his Miranda Rights. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the Second DUI down to a Civil Careless Driving Infraction.
Result:	The DUI was Dropped to a Civil Careless Driving Infraction.

May 14, 2025	Case: 24-CT-045318	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving too closely to another car. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He was slow to exit the car and also slow when he walked. After performing the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .119 and .109 in the breath machine. This was his Second DUI and also enhanced for a child in the car.
Defense:	The officer misinformed the defendant of the law when she asked him to do field sobriety tests. She told him on tape that if he refused field sobriety tests, she would be asking for a urine test. A urine test can only be requested after one is arrested for DUI, not before. Thus, all the field sobriety tests would have been excluded from evidence. Also, she told him on video that he actually did fairly good on the roadside tests and that she has only seen one person do better. After negotiations, the State Dropped the Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 13, 2025	Case: A776O2E	Judge Alvarez-Zane
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault in a rear end crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he fumbled with his documents. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, the State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control. The DUI crash was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

May 9, 2025	Case: 24-CT-000130	Judge Burns
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for making a wide turn at a high rate of speed to which he ended up on the wrong side of the road. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and watery eyes. The defendant also admitted to having smoked marijuana. He refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 9, 2025	Case: 24-CT-202243	Judge Duckworth
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver when he crashed his car into an unoccupied police car. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and slurred speech. He also had trouble standing and maintaining his balance. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 6, 2025	Case: 24-CT-018465	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was found unresponsive in his car in the curved eastbound lane. His wheels were up on the curb. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. His pants appeared to be wet from urine. After performing poorly on roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .184 and .171 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defendant's car was off and the key fob was in the cup holder of the driver's seat. He was also in a residential neighborhood. Issues were raised by the firm as to whether the defendant was in actual physical control as he had no capability to operate the car while sleeping. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 6, 2025	Case: 24-CT-013185	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, and unstable balance. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The arresting officer had no body worn camera and had no idea how to work his dash camera. On the walk and turn and one leg stand, his car was too close to the defendant and no one could see him from the waist down. Also, during the finger to nose, the defendant was not facing the dash camera so no one could see where he was touching on his nose. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 24, 2025	Case: 24-CT-407313	Judge Bova
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, an orbital say, and poor balance. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests other than HGN (eye test) and was arrested for DUI. He later refused to provide blood and breath tests.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 24, 2025	Case: 24-CT-002858	Judge Justice
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and running a stop sign. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, he appeared incoherent, had slow reflexes, and had droopy eyelids. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and walk and turn exercises. The one leg stand was not performed due to safety concerns about his intoxication level. The defendant was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2025	Case: 24-CT-038433	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash and then she left the scene of the accident. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, an orbital sway, and she stumbled. Her speech was incoherent, she had watery eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2025	Case: 24-CT-014143	Judge Taylor
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out on the side of the highway lying in the back seat of his car with the door open and the engine on. The defendant admitted to having drove the car there. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, glassy eyes, and an unsteady balance. He was also moving around very slowly and lethargically. The defendant started to do the field sobriety tests but did not continue. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Even though he admitted to having drove there, the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in actual physical control as he had no capability to operate the car from the back seat while asleep.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2025	Case: 24-162134MU10A	Judge Gottlieb
Facts:	The defendant was identified as the "at fault" driver in a rear-end collision. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes. Upon exiting the car, the officer stated that the defendant had a difficult time maintaining her balance. Based on the observations, the officer asked the defendant to participate in standard field sobriety exercises. The defendant refused to participate. Next, the officer asked the defendant to provide a breath test. Again, the defendant refused. She was subsequently arrested for DUI with Property Damage/Injury, DUI, and Following Too Closely.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude any evidence of a refusal to submit to a breath test on the grounds that the officer violated Florida Statute 316.1932(1)(a) by requesting a breath test prior to a lawful arrest. In addition, the firm filed a motion to exclude any mention of a refusal to perform field sobriety exercises based on a lack of adverse consequences. Parks & Braxton successfully argued the lead appellate case on this issue. Finally, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude all statements made by the defendant as a violation of "accident report privilege."
Result:	All Charges Dismissed.

←21 / 193→

Obtain Immediate Legal Help

To save your license, you must take action within 10 days. Contact a partner about your case today by calling (645) 400-6504 or fill out the form here.

Contact Us Today