DUI Wins

May 9, 2016	Case: 14-2679MU10A	Judge Robinson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving on three flat tires. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After a long discussion, the defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. On video, the defendant stepped out of the instructional stance and failed to touch heel to toe on the walk and turn test. On the one leg stand, the defendant dropped his foot several times. The defendant was arrested for DUI and refused to submit to a breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed several motions to suppress based on an unlawful stop as well no reasonable suspicion to request roadside tests. At the motion to suppress, the officer who stopped the defendant completely contradicted the testimony of the arresting officer. In addition, despite the presence of a Spanish speaking officer, the investigating officer refused to allow him to interpret. Many of the problems that the defendant had during the roadside tests were equally attributable to the language barrier.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 9, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-000503AX	Judge Singer
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had bloodshot eyes, mumbled speech, and dilated pupils. He was off balance, unsteady, sluggish in his movements, and he also had body tremors. No odor of alcohol was detected. The defendant denied smoking marijuana, however, the officer stated he smelled it coming from his mouth. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose exercises. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that what the officer had written about his observations of the defendant's eyes on the HGN (eye test), was not consistent as set forth in the DRE (drug recognition manual) for someone who is alleged to have been impaired by marijuana.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

May 2, 2016	Case: 8622-GYZ	Judge Seraphin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and driving on a rim. The officer observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes, fumbling around with his paperwork, and difficulty following instructions. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. No odor of alcohol was detected. The officer, believing the defendant may be impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, requested the defendant to perform roadside tasks. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and rhomberg balance exercises. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant provided an urine sample and subsequently tested positive for marijuana at the toxicology lab.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that marijuana can be in one's system for at least 30 days. Unable to prove that the defendant was impaired by the marijuana at the time of the driving as required by Florida law, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 29, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-022803AXXX	Judge Cohen
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking vodka and she also swayed while she stood. According the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We showed them that on the video tape, the defendants speech was not slurred and she was not off balance. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to the setting any trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 29, 2016	Case: 15-CT-505083	Judge Adams
Facts:	The defendant was stopped at a roadblock check point. Upon making contact with the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slow responses to the officer's questions, and he had to use the door to steady himself upon exiting. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn exercise, the defendant stepped off the line, did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The officer also observed nystagmus in the defendant's eyes while conducting the HGN (eyes test). The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton requested the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point from the State. Under Florida law, every individual roadblock must have a written set of guidelines. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, there must be specific criteria (factors) met by the police in each written set of guidelines or the entire roadblock becomes unlawful. In this particular case, the road block guidelines were defective in many areas pursuant to Florida case law. Prior to filing any motion to suppress the evidence based on the above, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 28, 2016	Case: 7342-XEM	Judge Wolfson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. After she did them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .096 and .089 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the margin of error of .02 in the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit. Also, the officer did not obtain and angle of onset on the HGN test before 45 degrees which indicated that the defendant may have also been under the legal limit at the time of driving pursuant to Tharpes formula. Also, the officer did not write one specific detail regarding the defendant's performance on the roadsides in his reports. The defendant received no criminal conviction at all on her record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 27, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-023072	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car in a parking lot by police. Upon awakening the defendant, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking beers. The defendant refused to do the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" as he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle while he was passed out.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 27, 2016	Case: 15-032125MU10A	Judge Robinson
Facts:	The defendant almost caused a head on collision by driving on the wrong side of the road. As the other car veered away, the defendant's car hit the rear bumper panel of the other driver's car. When officers arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and red eyes. The defendant's speech was not understandable. He was very unsteady, and could not focus on simple questions. He performed very poorly on the roadside tasks and showed several indicators of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .209 and .207 in the breath machine (almost three times the legal limit).
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took sworn pretrial depositions of the officers involved in the case. Based on the answers given in their depositions, the firm developed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the arrest based on improper police procedure. The firm then met with State and they agreed with the issue based on case law provided to them.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 27, 2016	Case: 15-CT-504769, 70	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant crashed her car into a area full of trees. When the police arrived, the defendant was unresponsive and passed out. EMS was also on scene to see if the defendant required medical attention. Upon awakening the defendant who was very unresponsive, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unsteady on her feet once outside the vehicle. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks even after being made aware of the adverse consequences. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had made several requests, along with the prosecutor, to obtain a video tape of the DUI investigation. Since the police were ignoring all requests, there was a potential discovery violation. Prior to any evidentiary hearings on the issue, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 25, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-011030	Judge Bell
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and red blood shot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. Prior to roadside tests being administered, the defendant almost fell and stumbled onto the grass. According to the officer, she failed all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .113 and .115 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that the defendant was from another country, had a foreign driver's license, and her English was not good. No interpreter was ever called to the scene or the station. Thus, the defendant did not understand any instructions on the roadside tests, nor did she understand "implied consent" being read to her prior taking the breath test on tape. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 15, 2016	Case: 15-004032MU10A	Judge Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag and revving his engine. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer and was off balance on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant. The videotape of the DUI investigation at the scene contradicted what was written in the police reports regarding the defendant's level of impairment. Prior to the motion being heard, the State watched the videotape and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 15, 2016	Case: 2013-MM-013483	Judge Hanser
Facts:	An anonymous person called the police stating they noticed the defendant to be passed out in his car in their neighborhood. When police arrived, they found the defendant's car parked against the curb, the defendant was slumped over, and drooling from the mouth. The vehicle was in park with the keys in the ignition. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a red/flushed face. On video, the defendant could hardly stand and his speech was not even understandable. The defendant attempted the roadside exercises but did not complete them. He was then arrested for DUI. The police also found marijuana in the car in a search incident to arrest. After his arrest, he blew a .201 and .198 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton were involved in pretrial litigation to try to exclude the breath test results based on improper maintenance procedures conducted by FDLE on this particular machine. Prior to the motion being heard, the State agreed with the issue and Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received no criminal conviction for he marijuana charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 13, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-023325	Judge Gabbard
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car crash. When the officer arrived on scene, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant appeared off balance and unsteady while talking to the officer. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests which included the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He exhibited several signs of impairment. There was no video tape of the DUI investigation. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .091 and .091 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that the air bags had deployed and hit the defendant in the face. Thus, any impairment could have been as easily attributed to the injuries from the airbag versus alcohol. Also, there is margin of error on the breath machine in which we were able to place the defendant under the legal limit.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 12, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-024375	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no head lights. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/watery eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, she failed and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that on tape, the officer followed her as she was driving without head lights for over a mile without stopping her on a residential street. The officer let the defendant drive onto the highway with no head lights. Furthermore, although the officer could have stopped her and done roadsides on a residential street, he chose to have her do them ten feet from cars and trucks on an interstate highway. We pointed out that this, her fear of being killed by a car or truck, could have contributed to her alleged poor performance. The State agreed after watching the whole video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 12, 2016	Case: 13-017965MM10A	Judge Evans
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for making a left turn on a red light. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face and slurred speech. Additionally, the officer located an open container in the center console. A DUI officer subsequently arrived on scene. In addition to the above observations, the DUI officer stated that the defendant was extremely lethargic. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand and HGN (eye test), the defendant was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Because of the inconsistency between the reports and the video, the State was unable to proceed.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 11, 2016	Case: 0506-XFE	Judge Altfield
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer who stopped the defendant, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He then called for a DUI unit, who arrived and made similar observations. That officer then requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. 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:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the DUI officer did not write one detail about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. All he did was check off the boxes on the DUI test report. Upon questioning the officer prior to trial, he could not remember one specific. The State then Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 5, 2016	Case: 15-009347MU10A	Judge Pole
Facts:	The defendant was observed at a light screeching his tires as he proceeded forward. As he approached a second light, again the defendant proceeded forward while screeching and spinning his tires. Next, the officer observed the defendant failing to maintain a single lane. The defendant was subsequently stopped. As the officer spoke with the defendant, he detected a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, as well as slurred speech. He subsequently acknowledged coming from a bar and consuming a few beers. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose tests. He was arrested for DUI and blew a .136 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an improper stop. Specifically, screeching tires is not a violation of law. In addition, failure to maintain a single lane is only a violation if other traffic is affected. The officer testified that traffic could have been affected but could not recall if it was. In addition, he could not articulate how far the defendant veered or how many tires actually crossed over the line. The motion was granted and all of the evidence including the breath test was excluded.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Mar 31, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-010642	Judge Bell
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a "drunk stare." The defendant was fumbling with his documents and almost dropped his phone. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests which were video taped and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .163 and .160 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on tape, the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better than as described in the police reports. Also, the defendant's breath test level was contradicted by his performance on the field sobriety tests, thus, it was clear his breath alcohol level may have been lower at the time of driving.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 29, 2016	Case: 12-003426MM10A	Judge Lerner-Wren
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed a strong odor of marijuana. The defendant consented to a search which revealed burnt marijuana as well as a pipe. Upon exiting the vehicle the defendant allegedly had a "drunk-like" walk. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant acknowledged that she had three beers and was driving home. She subsequently performed several field sobriety tests on video and was arrested for DUI as well as possession of cannabis and paraphernalia. At the breath alcohol testing facility she blew a .115.
Defense:	Upon a review of the video, the defendant's performance contradicted the investing officer's police report. Specifically, on the one leg stand the defendant was able to maintain her balance for 52 seconds. On the walk and turn test despite a stumble on the turn, she was able to walk in a straight line. As such, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The DUI was dropped and the defendant was not convicted of any charges.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 15, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-009578-A-O	Judge Freeman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. When officers approached the defendant after he pulled into a gas station, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and and glassy eyes. The defendant was then asked to step out of the car as the officers wanted to conduct a DUI investigation. The defendant refused several commands to get out of the car and after a couple of minutes was forcibly removed from the vehicle. Once removed, the defendant was immediately cuffed and arrested. He was then taken to the breath testing facility where he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had gotten a cell phone video from the client of the incident at the car. This cell phone video showed the cops at the defendant's car trying to get him out of the car. It also showed they never mentioned any DUI investigation, versus what was in the reports. Also, once they got him out of the car he was immediately cuffed. No roadside tests were ever even offered to the defendant on scene or at the station. The officers were aware the defendant was filming them. The firm turned the cell phone video over the prosecutor to prove there was no DUI investigation ever even attempted. Thus, there was a lack of evidence of impairment and contradictions between the officer's written version and cell phone video. The State watched the cell phone video and Dismissed the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.