DUI Wins

Mar 4, 2024	Case: 23-MM-044109	Judge Atkin
Facts:	An officer observed the defendant drive through a bar parking light at night with no lights on, he appeared to be struggling to stay wake, and he was bobbing his head with his eyes closed at times. The officer made contact with the defendant and observed an overwhelming odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and watery eyes. He was asked to step out of the car. When the defendant was questioning why he had to step out, he was physically extracted from the vehicle. The defendant was then taken to the ground and handcuffed. He later stated he had drank four beers. The defendant was arrested for DUI and resisting an officer without violence. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	On tape, it was obvious the officer overreacted and acted prematurely violently toward the defendant. The defendant received an unnecessary beating which was done off camera. Due to him having been pulled out and taken to the ground, there was no actual DUI investigation conducted. After conversations with the State and having them having them review the tape, they Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the resisting without violence charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 4, 2024	Case: 23-CT-052361	Judge Atkin
Facts:	Calls were given over radio via 911 about a reckless driver (i.e., the defendant). Officers spotted the defendant and observed him weaving and riding on the bike lane markers. Once stopped they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a clumsy appearance, and his eyes were glassy. He moved slowly, stumbled, swayed, and also admitted to having drank four to five beers. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 4, 2024	Case: 23-CT-052410	Judge Atkin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one-way street. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant denied having drank alcohol, exited the car slowly, and also walked slowly. According to the officer, he performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .233 and .223 in the breath machine.
Defense:	On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not moving slowly. His field sobriety tests on tape were near perfect. It was obvious that he was much lower than a .233 or .223 at the time of driving, and clearly absorbing alcohol. After conversations with the State, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 4, 2024	Case: 23-CT-052401	Judge Atkin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no taillights on after dark. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had drank three beers, appeared clumsy, and was unsteady. After performing various roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .138 and .121 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.

Feb 28, 2024	Case: 23-CT-503231	Judge Swett
Facts:	Police were called to the defendant's residence in response to a "domestic disturbance." As the officer was pulling up with his police lights activated, he saw the defendant in his vehicle almost strike a mailbox, a street sign, and a fire hydrant. The defendant pulled into his driveway and walked into his house. The officer exited his car and proceeded to walk up the defendant's front door. The officer then just simply walked in the house without knocking or asking permission. He walked through the kitchen and found the defendant in the backyard by the pool. Another officer arrived and they noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and heavily slurred speech. The defendant was asked if they can pat him down and he put his hands up: asking what for, I didn't do anything wrong ? The next thing he knew he was being taken to the ground. He was taken outside to the front of the house and asked to do roadside tests. The defendant was being evasive and refused to comply with the tests. He was arrested for DUI and resisting an officer without violence. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Under the law of the USA and Florida, an officer cannot just walk into someone's house without permission unless there are exigent circumstances, he or she is in fresh pursuit of a fleeing defendant, or a felony. Also, an officer also cannot just enter someone's house without permission for an alleged "domestic disturbance" without knowing anymore facts. In addition, an officer cannot simply walk into someone's house after seeing an alleged traffic violation or for a misdemeanor. Here, the officer on body worn camera, walked up the front door and just walked into the defendant's house like it was his own. The firm provided case law to the prosecutor and the State Dismissed the DUI and the resisting without violence charge.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 28, 2024	Case: 23-CT-013266	Judge Weis
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving on a rim and driving all over the road. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.Her face was red in color and she admitted to having consumed three alcoholic drinks earlier in the day. She then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She was then placed under arrested and later blew a .137 and .151 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.

Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-011809	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. He swayed while he stood and had a wristband on from a club. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .137 and .137 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.

Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-012481	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having consumed two beers and two mixed drinks. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He 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.

Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-0002251	Judge Gould
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash. She tried to avoid an animal, struck a fence, and ended up in a cow pasture. No police came at that point, but the defendant was treated by EMS. She then left to go to the hospital. After the hospital, she and her family came back the crash site to get the car. A police officer was there inspecting the crash scene. He came into contact with her and asked her questions. The defendant admitted to being the driver at the time of the crash and that she had drank margaritas earlier before the crash. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. She then was asked to perform various field sobriety tests to which she complied. She was arrested for DUI over three and half hours after the crash. A little over five hours later after the crash, she blew a .065 and .068 in the breath machine. In his report, the officer tried to do a retrograde extrapolation placing the defendant's breath alcohol results at a .143 at the time of the crash.
Defense:	The firm filed a pretrial motion to exclude the breath test results. In our motion, we provided case law that held a breath test taken over five hours later was not reasonable. In addition, the officer's retrograde extrapolation of a .143 was not accurate or reliable because he did not know when she had her first drink, her last drink, what she ate, and how much alcohol was in the drinks amongst other information. We also filed a motion to exclude her statement about being the driver under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti. This doctrine basically holds that the State must produce some independent evidence other than the defendant's statemen that they committed the crime (i.e., that she drove). Here, they could not, because when EMS arrived, she was standing with other people.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-502266	Judge Gagliardi
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving and driving too slow. He also almost hit another car and his tires crossed over the lane markers almost striking a curb. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was very sweaty. His speech was slurred and he had difficulty formulating sentences. In addition, his eye lids were droopy, his coordination was slow, and he had an uneven walk. He refused to perform field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and later refused breath test.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. Discussions were held regarding contradictions between the video and the police reports. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial call.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-011154	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and pulling into an intersection, backing up onto a crosswalk right next to a cop. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank one beer. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Many observations made by the officer of the alleged impairment and performance on roadside tests were over exaggerated by the officer in his reports as compared to the officer's body worn camera. After discussions with the State about how the video contradicted the police reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-012425	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having no lights on and running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, difficulty concentrating, and slurred speech. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused breath test.
Defense:	It was apparent from the video that the defendant was being investigated because he and his friends were stopped in a high crime area. There were multiple cops on scene. Also, the defendant was driving a black truck but the DUI ticket stated that the defendant was driving a white truck. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he showed no signs of not being able to concentrate. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no probation or any penalties.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 26, 2024	Case: AD4ACOE	Judge Bach-Armas
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to yield and almost hitting a police car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant performed various field sobriety tests such as HGN (eye test), the walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .099 and .091 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. The arresting officer had a body worn camera. However, he did not have it positioned correctly and no one could see the defendant from the waist down on the walk and turn or one leg stand. In other words, we could not see how he actually performed. In addition, due to a .02 margin of error, we were able to place the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit. On the day of trial, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 22, 2024	Case: AI9MG6E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was fumbling over his words. He also staggered as he exited the vehicle. He then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test) and the walk and turn. While being instructed on the one leg stand, the defendant began to express his displeasure with the tests and would not stop interrupting the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 22, 2024	Case: A77AR9E	Judge Croff
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a sideswipe traffic crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant also had mood swings, provided inconsistent statements, and was unsteady. She refused to perform field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The firm was able to provide evidence to the State that the defendant was not the at fault driver and that the other driver was as equally as culpable for the crash. In addition, the officer made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk in his reports which was not the case on the video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 22, 2024	Case: AHC454E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an overwhelming odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and thick/slurred/mumbled speech. She also had a blank expression and a drunk appearance. After performing numerous field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .132 and .130 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.

Feb 20, 2024	Case: 23-CT-013781	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving recklessly around a parking lot. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his movements were slow/sluggish. He also had slurred speech and appeared unsteady. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .193 and .188 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.

Feb 20, 2024	Case: 23-CF-00185AP	Judge Garcia
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road, driving below the speed limit, and driving westbound in the eastbound lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and thick tongued speech. Her eyes were glassy. She was also slow to respond, unsteady, and she exhibited mood swings. She performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI. She was also charged with Felony possession of cocaine.
Defense:	During negotiations with the State, we pointed out that although the defendant performed various field sobriety tests and the trooper had a dash camera, but for reasons unknown, not one was conducted in front of the camera. In addition, for some unknown reason the drugs were never tested by the lab. The State Dismissed the DUI and also Dismissed the Possession of Cocaine.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 19, 2024	Case: 23-CT-002030CTAXEX	Judge Wansboro
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle on the side of the road by a road ranger. The car had run out of gas. When police arrived, the defendant was standing outside of his car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and incoherent/mumbling speech. He swayed while standing, was slow to respond, and appeared confused. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	Under Florida Statute 901.15, all element of a misdemeanor DUI must occur in the presence of the officer unless there is a crash (i.e., they must observe the defendant driving or in actual physical control) or the arrest is unlawful. Here, the defendant was outside the car when the officer arrived so we pointed out to the State that the arrest was unlawful and they agreed. 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. The State Dropped the defendant's Third DUI and received no probation.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.