Results

Aug 11, 2023	Case: 23-CT-025252	Judge Silverman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting over the center dotted lines, driving on the fog line, and drifting side to side continuously. The officer conducted a traffic stop and noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and she was repeating herself. She then performed various roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, she put her foot down 3 times and raised her arms for balance. On the walk and turn, she stepped off the line, raised her arms for balance, and took an incorrect number of steps. She was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 10, 2023	Case: 23-CT-002556	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and he was unsteady. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. It should be noted that he attempted to blow but only provided one invalid sample of a .237. It was called a refusal because he was not blowing properly in the breath machine.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 9, 2023	Case: 23-CT-024474	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, he admitted to having consumed three vodka drinks, and had bloodshot eyes. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .089 and .085 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Issues were raised by the firm as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop. We pointed out a lack of specifics regarding the alleged weaving such as the number of times, time frame, and distance. The State, after several conversations, Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 9, 2023	Case: 23-CT-024399	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and lethargic movements. The defendant fumbled and dropped his belongings. He also got out of the car slowly and appeared unsteady. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He 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.

Aug 9, 2023	Case: 23-CT-016275	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he stated he had consumed three beers. He also swayed while he stood. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	After negotiations, the firm pointed out that on tape none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired and there was no probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. He received no conviction in his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 9, 2023	Case: 23-CT-018688	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after making an improper turn and almost causing a collision. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. He swayed while he stood, swayed while walking , and admitted to having drank alcohol earlier. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Under Florida Statute 316.1932, a defendant cannot be asked for a breath test, nor read implied consent, until after being placed under arrest for DUI. Here, the officer requested a breath test and read implied consent on tape prior to arresting the defendant. In addition, on tape, his speech was normal and he was not swaying. The State Dropped the DUI down to a Civil Careless Driving infraction.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 9, 2023	Case: 23-CT-013443	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving and having an expired tag. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, an odor of marijuana, and red/glossy eyes. He also had slurred speech, swayed while he stood, and had a hard time following simple instructions. The officer also noticed a pink tube with a smoked blunt in the car. He then performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .123 and .118 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm pointed out that on tape no one can see how the defendant actually performed on the roadside tests. The officer's camera only showed the defendant from the waste up on the walk and turn and one leg stand.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 8, 2023	Case: 23-CT-002550	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for traveling the wrong way on a one-way street. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he admitted to having drank two beers. After performing various roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations regarding the evidence just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 8, 2023	Case: 23-CT-000581	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and causing another car to take evasive actions in order to avoid a crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .144 and .140 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After several conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 8, 2023	Case: 23-CT-001561	Judge Woodard
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated that he had consumed two mixed drinks. The defendant performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose. The officer also performed the HGN (eye tests) and estimation of 30 seconds. The defendant was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Many of the details of the field sobriety tests were exaggerated in the reports as compared to the video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 8, 2023	Case: 23-CT-001231	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and drifting. The officer an noticed an odor of alcohol, a blank/dazed stare, and droopy eye lids. He also had slurred speech, watery/bloodshot eyes, and poor coordination. His movements were lethargic, he appeared tired, and also appeared confused. 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 arrest.
Defense:	Many of the observations listed above were contradicted by the video tape. The defendant did not exhibit poor coordination, his speech was not slurred, and he did not appear confused. The State Dropped the DUI. It should be noted that the firm also got the defendant's first DUI dropped a couple of years ago.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 27, 2023	Case: 22-MM-016196	Judge Mckyton
Facts:	The defendant was observed docking his boat. Officers approached the boat to do a safety inspection. Once approaching the defendant, they noticed an odor of alcohol and he admitted to having drank earlier. They also noticed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He was then asked to perform various field sobriety tests such as the finger to nose, palm pat, and another coordination exercises due to him just getting off a boat. He was then arrested for Boating Under the Influence (BUI). He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI (BUI) and he was also charged with a Second refusal to submit to a breath test.
Defense:	Under Florida law, a defendant cannot be asked to take a breath test prior to being arrested for either Boating or Driving under the influence. Here, on video tape, the officer requested a breath test prior to the defendant being arrested. In addition, they told him his prior refusal would not count against him because it was over three years old. That is a misstatement of the law. Thus, the refusal to take a breath test would have been excluded from evidence. The State then Dismissed the refusal charge. In addition, on tape his speech was not slurred and his roadside tests were better than as described in the reports. The State agreed and Dropped the Boating Under the Influence charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 27, 2023	Case: AFLPTCE	Judge Croff
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting over the lane markers and speeding. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. He also had a blank expression. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the State regarding the defendant the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 18, 2023	Case: 22-CT-502572	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash while on his motorcycle. He was hit so hard he went airborne. The people who hit him left the scene and were never caught. Officers came in contact with the defendant in the ambulance. They noticed an odor of alcohol and slow/slurred speech. The defendant was injured and had gashes to his head. He was taken to a hospital. There, after being treated, he refused to provide a blood sample. The State later requested his medical records which revealed a blood alcohol content at a level of .295 (over three times the legal limit).
Defense:	Prior to trial, discussions were held with prosecutor. We pointed out that he was not at fault and the people who hit him left. In fact, the police were so concerned with the defendant's DUI, they made no effort to go after the people who fled the scene. Also, officers wrote that the witness to the crash saw the defendant on the bike (i.e. the wheel witness). That was not true as she stated on video that she did not know if he was driving the bike at all and only saw it as it went airborne. Furthermore, the officer was actually asking the defendant to perform roadside tests at the hospital with giant gashes on his head. The State analyzed the case after our discussions about the above issues and many others. They then Dismissed the Case.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jul 13, 2023	Case: 22-002551MU10A	Judge Francois
Facts:	The defendant was first observed seated in his car outside of his residence. The officers initially made contact with him in an effort to serve a restraining order. After making contact with the defendant the officers observed a bottle of Jack Daniels that was almost empty. In addition, they observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and extremely slurred speech. The two officers on scene then called for a DUI task force officer. During the DUI investigation the defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, as well as the one leg stand exercises. The defendant performed poorly on all of the exercises. The entire investigation was captured on video. He was arrested and refused to submit to a breath test. This was his second DUI.
Defense:	Parks and Braxton took depositions of the officers involved in the investigation. The officers were unable to explain why the defendant was sitting in his parked car outside of his residence. Given the fact that they were there to serve a restraining order each witness agreed that it was reasonable to assume he was trying to avoid conflict with his wife who was inside. As a result, Parks & Braxton was able to demonstrate a necessity defense. The necessity defense means that despite the fact that the defendant was impaired inside the vehicle, he was doing so to in order to avoid a more dangerous situation inside the residence with his wife. The state agreed and dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AGOUW4E	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and he admitted to having drank beer. He 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, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance at all. There was also a lack of probable cause to arrest based on a lack of impairment.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AFWDCWE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	Officers were dispatched to a person down call. Call notes showed people were knocking on the windows to wake up the driver (i.e. the defendant). When the officer arrived, he saw two individuals standing outside the driver's window and were flagging him down. The defendant then pulled away almost striking the officer's vehicle. The officer then observed the defendant driving over the white dash marks. A traffic stop was conducted. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, a flushed face, and his pupils were constricted. He also had a blank stare. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. In addition, none of the alleged driving pattern was captured on tape. In addition, on tape, he stepped out of the car normally, walked normally, talked normally, and appeared totally responsive and coherent. The prosecutor reviewed the tape after our discussions and they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AGOUWEE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his running vehicle at an intersection. Paramedics were on scene as well to assist. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, he admitted to having drank hard seltzers, and he had difficulty answering questions. He had bloodshot eyes, appeared drowsy, and his face was flushed. He performed poorly on roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, incorrectly turned, and stopped walking to regain balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and failed to count as instructed. He was then arrested for DUI later blew a .122 and .117 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 23-CT-500938	Judge Gill
Facts:	Officers were called out due to an alleged traffic crash. The defendant's car was found resting over a parking curb stuck in place. Officers noticed the defendant to have thick tongue/slurred speech, he appeared sleepy, and he also looked clumsy. He was also observed to stumble, almost fall, sway, and stagger. The defendant told police he was on his way to drive to Kentucky. A bottle of vodka was found in the car next to the driver's seat. He refused to do any roadside tests and also refused to take a breath test. This was Not the defendant's first DUI arrest.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences for refusing. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not follow the law and there were no consequences given. Thus, the refusal to do roadside tests would have been excluded. In addition, under Florida Statute 316.1932(1), a breath test can only be requested after one is arrested for DUI, not before. Here, the officer requested a breath test prior to arrest. Thus, the refusal to provide a breath test would have been excluded as well. In addition, in order for the State to prove a DUI under Florida Statute 316.193, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol and/or a specific controlled or chemical substance. One cannot just be impaired by "something" like a bad banana. Here, there was no odor of alcohol detected and the defendant made no statements about taking any drugs. Based on the totality of problems the firm presented to the State about the weaknesses in their case, with everything above being captured on video, they agreed and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

←47 / 196→

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