Results

Dec 17, 2019	Case: 18-034710MU10A	Judge Evans
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he failed to yield the right of way. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had drank alcohol, but would not state how much. The defendant was very off balance. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	There was no video at the scene. There was a video at the BAT facility. The officer made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk at the scene. However, on tape later at the BAT, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and there was no slurred speech on tape. The State Dropped the defendant's Third DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 11, 2019	Case: 19-CF-001453	Judge Espinosa
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and an odor of marijuana coming from inside the car. The defendant had slurred speech and red eyes. The officer observed two green beer bottles in the driver's door. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .179 and a .166 in the breath machine. He was also charged with having a felony controlled substance without a prescription.
Defense:	The facts surrounding the traffic stop were only vaguely described. Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and the firm is now working on getting the felony dropped too.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 11, 2019	Case: 19-CT-005966	Judge Mcneil
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officers didn't notice an odor of alcohol, however, they did observe bloodshot eyes, slow/slurred speech, and his responses were slow. The defendant was very unsteady and almost fell over. The officer even had to catch him. There was also an odor of urine on the defendant. Believing he was impaired by drugs, and not alcohol, he then performed the field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later submitted to a urine test which showed positive results for Xanax.
Defense:	There was no video at the scene. The officer's reports made no sense, in that the defendant was practically almost falling down, yet the officer still had him perform the walk the line and one leg stand.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 10, 2019	Case: 19-CT-502148	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for crossing over the lane markers several times. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. When asked for his driver's license, the defendant provided a Costco card. The defendant was unable to follow basic commands and also stumbled. He performed poorly on the videotaped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Per the NHTSA manual on roadside tests, field sobriety tests are supposed to be conducted in a well lit area. In this case, the officer had the defendant perform them in pitch black darkness. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 6, 2019	Case: 4534-XFD	Judge Martinez
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. His face was flushed and he was also very unsteady. The defendant admitted to having consumed 5 cocktails. Due to safety concerns, he was unable to perform roadside tasks. He was arrested for DUI and later blew .132 and .123 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The officer never called for an in car camera to the scene even though one was available. The defendant's story contradicted the officers alleged observations it the reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 4, 2019	Case: 2019-MM-003023	Judge Eissey
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for straddling the center white line and driving under the speed limit. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. Her statements were inconsistent and incoherent. She stumbled and appeared confused. She refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. At the station, she became aggressive and allegedly kicked the officer and was also charged with Felony resisting an officer with violence.
Defense:	On the video, the officer misstated the law when requesting the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. Also, on tape, she never stumbled or appeared incoherent. The defense was also able to show that it was the officers who were aggressive with her initially back at the station and she was simply defending herself. The State Dropped the DUI and the Felony was also Dropped to a misdemeanor battery whereby she received no conviction.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 26, 2019	Case: 19-CT-501958	Judge Gagliardi
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The 911 caller which led to the stop, stated that the defendant was driving on sidewalks and almost striking cars. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant agreed to perform the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he took an incorrect number of steps, almost fell, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand, the defendant only made it two seconds before he put his foot down, swayed, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Through pre-trial discovery, Parks & Braxton discovered that the civilian 911 caller had stayed on scene and was filming the field sobriety tests. It should be noted that the officer did not have an in-car camera or a body worn camera. The firm requested that video because we alleged that it would show that the officer was exaggerating the defendant's level of impairment. The officer made no effort to get a copy from the witness and no effort was made by the State to get a copy. Due to the lack of videotape evidence in the case, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 22, 2019	Case: 18-036116MU10A	Judge Pole
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, failing to stop at a red light, and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted to drinking alcohol. She stated to the officer that she had been through this before. After performing the roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .090 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton was able to get the defendant's statements excluded. In addition, since the defendant's breath was over an hour later, the State could not prove that the defendant was over the legal limit at the time of driving. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction on her record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 21, 2019	Case: 19-CT-034868	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for jerking the steering wheel and erratically braking. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes, and she was unsteady. The defendant stated she had one drink earlier in the day. After performing roadsides tests, she was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	There was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred, nor any reasonable suspicion of a crime that the defendant was an impaired driver justifying the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 19, 2019	Case: 2019-CT-009305	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding (85 mph in a 55 mph zone). The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and fumbling fingers. He also had bloodshot eyes and unstable balance. The defendant admitted to having consumed three Crown Royal whiskey drinks. After performing the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .135 and a .133 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests on video tape clearly showed that he was still absorbing alcohol and his breath alcohol content may have been lower than .08 at the time of driving. It should be noted that the breath test as taken almost 90 minutes after the traffic stop.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 19, 2019	Case: 19-CT-041668	Judge Koenig
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding (80 mph in a 50 mph zone) and weaving in and out of traffic. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant was also slow exiting the car. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Due to the defendant not performing the roadside tests, it was apparent on tape there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 18, 2019	Case: 19-CT-019013	Judge Damico
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after failing to stop at a red light. The red light camera flashed numerous times. The officer then proceeded through traffic to stop the defendant. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had drank a couple of glasses of wine. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton showed that the defendant never ran the red light and that the officer never obtained the red light camera. From his vantage point, and traffic, there was no way he could have seen the defendant run a red light. Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question and so was the officer's credibility.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Nov 18, 2019	Case: 19-CT-015564	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to be lethargic, have bloodshot eyes, and he swayed. The defendant admitted to having smoked pot with some friends prior to driving. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine sample which tested positive for marijuana at the FDLE lab.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton provided evidence to the State regarding the defendant's car, showing the alignment and tires were messed up which would have caused it to swerve. Also we pointed out to the State that on tape there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. The State agreed and Dismissed the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Nov 15, 2019	Case: 2019-MM-034754	Judge Atkin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and was unsteady. He admitted to having drank 3 beers and was also swaying. He performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, lost his balance while turning, and took an incorrect number of steps. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, hopped and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. He was also charged with possession of marijuana.
Defense:	The firm raised issues of the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to other traffic not being affected by his driving. The State Dropped the DUI and the possession charge was dismissed.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 13, 2019	Case: 2019-CT-001887	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant struck a median and a FDOT sign causing damage. A police officer observed the crash and stopped the defendant. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. She was unsteady exiting her car, swayed as she stood, and stated she had drank two cocktails. Due to safety concerns, no roadside tests were conducted and she was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The video contradicted the majority of the officer's observations as written in the reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 31, 2019	Case: 2019-CT-011030	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was found by police passed out in his car in a parking lot. The officers made contact with him to assess his well being. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having drank 4 beers. After performing poorly on the roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .185 and a .183 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control. He had no "capability" to operate the vehicle while sleeping.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 30, 2019	Case: 2019-CT-007931	Judge
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with her high beam lights on at night. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and fumbling fingers. She also had slurred speech and admitted to having drank vodka/cranberry. After performing the field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .149 and a .160 in the breath machine.
Defense:	On video, it appeared as if one officer was training the other. The trainee mixed up several parts of the instructions on the field sobriety tests in contradiction to the NHTSA manual on roadsides The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 30, 2019	Case: 2019-CT-009273	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol upon awakening the defendant. They also noticed that he was unsteady, had glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and was not walking heel to toe. On the finger to nose, he missed the tip of his nose several times. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	For the police to order someone out of their car, the officers must have reasonable suspicion of crime. In other words, there must be some specific facts to point too that the defendant was impaired, and not just innocently sleeping. Here, there was none. Thus, the initial ordering of the defendant out of his car was unlawful and all the evidence could have been thrown out. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 29, 2019	Case: 19-001027MU10A	Judge M. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he hit a pole. He was found in his car, a little bit down the road. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. He appeared to be in a daze, unsteady, lethargic, and stumbling. He was asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The arresting officer's own body worn camera contradicted his written reports. The defendant was not off balance, stumbling or unsteady. In addition, the officer misstated the law when asking for roadside tests by telling him that his license will be suspended. A license suspension only applies to a refusal to provide breath, blood, or urine. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction in his record. They also Dismissed the leaving the scene of the accident because the defendant simply pulled down the road to get away from the wires.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2019	Case: 2019-CT-000772	Judge Tinlin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank wine, swayed, staggered, and was disoriented. She performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .191 and a .189 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The officer misstated the law and coerced the defendant into taking a breath test. Thus, the breath test may have been excluded from evidence.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

←83 / 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