DUI Wins

Jan 13, 2016	Case: A3P1LNE	Judge BEDINGHAUS
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by the police as they observed him throw trash outside his moving vehicle. Upon being stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant's movements were lethargic and clumsy. Once outside the car, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, the defendant failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .115 and .113 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton spoke to the State. We pointed out that the defendant's breath test results could have been reading falsely high. The reason is that the control test solutions were reading higher on the day he blew and also on the maintenance on the machine. Furthermore, the video contradicted the written reports of the officer as it related to the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2016	Case: 13-020659MM10A	Judge Lerner-Wren
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a traffic crash and stopped for allegedly trying to flee the scene. While speaking with the defendant the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, a flushed face as well as slurred speech. A civilian witness provided a detailed statement indicating his belief that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant refused to participate in any tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Because the defendant was not provided with any adverse consequences, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the refusal to submit to testing. In addition, after taking testimony from the officers, they all agreed that the defendant was not trying to flee the scene. Because of the lack of evidence, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2016	Case: 15-CT-504402	Judge GONZALEZ
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a head on crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have slow reactions, bloodshot eyes, and had trouble answering any questions. She had a blank stare and could not find her driver's license. The officers on scene believed the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, a chemical, and/or controlled substance. There was no odor of alcohol. The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused to provided a breath and urine sample.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton called the prosecutor early on in the case. We pointed out that under Florida law, if alcohol is not involved, then the State must prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant. Here, there was no specific evidence of either. A person cannot just be alleged to have been impaired by "anything." The State agreed and Dismissed the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jan 7, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-008211-A-O	Judge McGINNIS
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a two car crash. She was not the at fault driver. When officers arrived on scene, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was then requested to perform roadside tests. During the walk and turn test, the defendant became argumentative and took the wrong number of steps and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, the defendant started the test but never completed it. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the defense pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant kept telling the officer she had back and equilibrium issues. Yet, the officer insisted that she perform the physical tests like the one leg stand and walk and turn even though she kept telling him she could not do them. Also, the defendant was the one who was hit and not the cause of the crash. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 7, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-006635	Judge GRECO
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have and odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slurred speech, and had slow movements. The defendant had difficulty exiting the car and the officer had trouble understanding him speak. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests and showed numerous signs of impairment. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .147 and .138 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton convinced the prosecution that based on the defendant's medical conditions, the DUI should be Dropped.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 6, 2016	Case: 15-CT-501703	Judge HAYES
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Upon being pulled over, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and watery eyes. The defendant was swaying side to side once out of the car. The defendant then performed the roadside tests, which were captured on a body camera. For example, on the walk and turn, the defendant missed heel to toe, made an improper turn, and swung his right leg up during the turn. On the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down three times and swayed. The officers noticed several empty beer cans in the bed of the defendant's pick up truck. Also, the officers noticed beer cans in the truck which were cold to the touch. He was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The officer's observations of the defendant, as written in his report, were contradicted by the body camera. We pointed out that the defendant never swayed and his speech was normal. Also, the defendant had two passengers in the truck. Thus, there was no way to prove that the beers were the defendant's. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 6, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-002292	Judge CARR
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road, which was captured on video tape. Upon being stopped, the defendant stated he was lost and looking for the place he was heading to. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks, and as he exited his truck, he stumbled. The officer performed only the HGN (eye test). The defendant refused all further testing and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that since there was no sound on video tape, one could not hear whether the defendant's speech was actually slurred, nor could anyone hear any conversation between the officer and the defendant. Furthermore, upon a close viewing of the tape, there was a span of 6 minutes missing. The allegation that the defendant stumbled and that the HGN was performed was missing from the tape. The State reviewed the tape and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 6, 2016	Case: 2015-MM-01322-A-K	Judge FOWLER
Facts:	The defendant crashed his car into a refuge boat and a trailer at a high rate of speed. The impact caused the defendant's air bags to deploy. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant, post Miranda, admitted to consuming five beers and that he had stopped drinking an hour before the crash. He was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests which were captured on video tape. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. He had displayed numerous signs of being off balance and unsteady on the tests.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the airbags had hit the defendant in the face, chest, and arms after a severe crash. Thus, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired by alcohol or injuries sustained in the crash.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 6, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-015963	Judge GABBARD
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. He was observed weaving all over the roadway. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, fumbling fingers, slurred speech, and difficulty opening his car door. The defendant admitted to having consumed a couple of beers. He was asked to perform roadside tasks and he refused. He was then 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 on the roadside video, the officer was using language during the DUI investigation, that made it clear he was going to arrest the defendant no matter whether he did the roadside or not. This clearly showed the officer had no intent on letting the defendant try to show him, via the roadsides, that he was not impaired. The defendant even stated at one point, "whether I do them or not, your taking me to jail anyway" and the officer arrested him within seconds. Just prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 4, 2016	Case: 8091-XBP	Judge Newman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by the police after a BOLO went out about the defendant driving recklessly. When the officer spotted the defendant, he observed her to be weaving all over the road. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slow speech. Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers observed the defendant to be so intoxicated, that for safety reasons, no roadside tests were performed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, the defendant blew a .332 and .315 in the breath machine (nearly 4 times the legal limit).
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, we pointed out to the State that upon looking at the breath results paper that prints out from the machine, it displayed an initial "purge fail" prior to the defendant providing the two breath results. No officers could explain why that happened on the machine or most importantly if that "purge fail" affected the defendant's breath readings in any way.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 11, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-013464AXXX	Judge BRYSON
Facts:	The defendant crashed her car into a street sign causing her to veer off the roadway. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no indication that the defendant was driving recklessly which caused the crash. We also told the State than any slurred speech could have been caused by hitting her head during the crash. There was also no video at the scene of the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 11, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-033147-AXXX-XX	Judge Murphy
Facts:	The police responded to a call about an unconscious driver who may have been involved in a crash. The caller advised that the defendant may have been sleeping, but was breathing. When fire rescue arrived, there was no crash and the defendant was seen walking down the road. The police then found the defendant walking down the road. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. He was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. It should be noted, one could hardly see the defendant's performance on tape and there was no sound. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The defendant was also charged with second or subsequent refusal to provide a breath sample as this was his Third DUI arrest with one prior DUI conviction.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest of the defendant was unlawful because no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel. Under Florida law, unless there is a crash and/or crash investigation, the officer must see all elements of the crime. (ie. for DUI, the first element of the crime, that the defendant was driving or in actual physical control). The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge. The defendant received no criminal convictions.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 10, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-010690	Judge GRECO
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after a 911 caller stated the defendant was driving recklessly. The officer located the defendant's car and observed her to be weaving, almost sideswiping another car, and making jerky motions with the vehicle. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was off balance exiting the car and she admitted to drinking vodka. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton was ready for trial. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 9, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-020279AXXX	Judge Johnson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and "fumbling" fingers. He also observed her to be very slow and deliberate in her movements. While speaking to the defendant, the officer saw a half filled bottle of wine on the passenger side floorboard. After refusing to perform the roadside tasks, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .196 and .189 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton researched the past history of the breath machine the defendant had blown into on the night of her arrest. We then pointed out to the State there had been previous maintenance problems with the specific breath machine in question.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 7, 2015	Case: 1189-XCF	Judge HAGUE
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by the police for "attaching a tag not assigned." Once stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant could not perform any field sobriety tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .211 and .211 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The basis of our motion was that the defendant was driving a car with a "dealer tag" and it was a car off the lot where he works at. There was no probable cause justifying the initial stop of the defendant's car. The defense provided the actual plate to the State along with the registration to the car. Prior to the motion being heard, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 4, 2015	Case: 14-023641MU10A	Judge LEVY-COHEN
Facts:	The defendant was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes resulting in a head on crash. Upon arrival, the officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes and a pale face. In addition, her speech was extremely slurred. After meeting with medical personnel, the defendant was taken to the hospital. At the hospital the officer requested a blood draw which resulted in a reading of .200.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that a breath test was not impractical or impossible. Based on the above circumstances, Florida law only permits a blood draw when a breath test is either impractical or impossible. At the motion, the officer was unable to testify that the defendant had injuries that would prevent her from providing a breath test. In addition, the officer failed to speak with any medical personnel to determine when the defendant was going to be released from the hospital. The motion to exclude the blood test was granted.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 25, 2015	Case: 15-CT-501854	Judge GONZALEZ
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and a broken tag light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and extremely slurred speech. On video, the defendant performed the roadside tests. He performed the walk turn, one leg stand, and alphabet tests. Prior to the roadsides being administered, the defendant told the officer about a concussion he had recently suffered. He exhibited several signs of intoxication on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton acquired the medical records from the defendant relating to his concussion. We pointed out to the State that any impairment seen an tape could have been as easily attributed to his head injury versus intoxication by alcohol. This information was provided to the State Attorney's Office who in turn to agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 23, 2015	Case: 13-017291MM10A	Judge BROWN
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed, failing to maintain a single lane, and improper passing. The officer had to use his horn and lights to get the defendant to pull over. The defendant exhibited an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for support as he almost fell over. He failed every roadside test and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the all the officers involved in the case. Each officer contradicted the other's description of events from that night. After reading the sworn transcripts, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 19, 2015	Case: A0Z4UIP (Jury Trial)	Judge MCKYTON
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also alleged that the defendant was swaying. He then had the defendant step out the car and the officer performed the HGN (eyes test). The officer then had the defendant walk across the parking lot to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises. After performing them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After being arrested, the officer then asked the defendant if his passenger had been drinking. The defendant responded by stating "yes he has, but not as much as me." He was then transported to the police station to provide a breath sample. The defendant complied and blew a .137 and a .142 (almost twice the legal limit). The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took the case to a jury trial. At trial, the firm first pointed out to the jury that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape and he was not swaying as the officer testified. We also pointed out though cross examination that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better on tape than the officer testified to. On cross examination, the firm went through every specific thing that the defendant performed correctly on the roadside tests. The officer testified that the defendant stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. It was clear on tape that he never did. The officer testified he swayed during the one leg stand, It was clear on video he was not swaying. Thus the officer's credibility was called into question. In addition, the officer followed the defendant for about two miles plus over 3 minutes on tape and the defendant never failed to maintain a single lane. The defense's argument that was made to the jury was that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. As to the breath test, the firm argued that the State presented no evidence or testimony as to what the defendant's breath alcohol level was at "the time of driving" as required by Florida law. We also argued that the solutions that were used on the maintenance of this machine to stimulate a breath test were reading higher than the labeled bottle. Thus, the firm argued that the defendant's breath test results could have been skewed higher. Also, we argued that the machine was portable and had a handle. No one called to have the machine brought to the scene so that the breath test could have been administered closer in time to when the defendant was stopped. Finally, the firm pointed out that the video tape contradicted the breath test results which clearly showed that the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty.
Result:	The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.