DUI Wins

May 6, 2025	Case: 24-CT-018465	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was found unresponsive in his car in the curved eastbound lane. His wheels were up on the curb. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. His pants appeared to be wet from urine. After performing poorly on roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .184 and .171 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defendant's car was off and the key fob was in the cup holder of the driver's seat. He was also in a residential neighborhood. Issues were raised by the firm as to whether the defendant was in actual physical control as he had no capability to operate the car while sleeping. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 6, 2025	Case: 24-CT-013185	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, and unstable balance. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The arresting officer had no body worn camera and had no idea how to work his dash camera. On the walk and turn and one leg stand, his car was too close to the defendant and no one could see him from the waist down. Also, during the finger to nose, the defendant was not facing the dash camera so no one could see where he was touching on his nose. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 24, 2025	Case: 24-CT-407313	Judge Bova
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, an orbital say, and poor balance. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests other than HGN (eye test) and was arrested for DUI. He later refused to provide blood and breath tests.
Defense:	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. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 24, 2025	Case: 24-CT-002858	Judge Justice
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and running a stop sign. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, he appeared incoherent, had slow reflexes, and had droopy eyelids. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and walk and turn exercises. The one leg stand was not performed due to safety concerns about his intoxication level. The defendant was arrested for DUI and 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.

Apr 23, 2025	Case: 24-CT-038433	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash and then she left the scene of the accident. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, an orbital sway, and she stumbled. Her speech was incoherent, she had watery eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Defense:	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. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2025	Case: 24-CT-014143	Judge Taylor
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out on the side of the highway lying in the back seat of his car with the door open and the engine on. The defendant admitted to having drove the car there. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, glassy eyes, and an unsteady balance. He was also moving around very slowly and lethargically. The defendant started to do the field sobriety tests but did not continue. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Even though he admitted to having drove there, the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in actual physical control as he had no capability to operate the car from the back seat while asleep.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2025	Case: 24-162134MU10A	Judge Gottlieb
Facts:	The defendant was identified as the "at fault" driver in a rear-end collision. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes. Upon exiting the car, the officer stated that the defendant had a difficult time maintaining her balance. Based on the observations, the officer asked the defendant to participate in standard field sobriety exercises. The defendant refused to participate. Next, the officer asked the defendant to provide a breath test. Again, the defendant refused. She was subsequently arrested for DUI with Property Damage/Injury, DUI, and Following Too Closely.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude any evidence of a refusal to submit to a breath test on the grounds that the officer violated Florida Statute 316.1932(1)(a) by requesting a breath test prior to a lawful arrest. In addition, the firm filed a motion to exclude any mention of a refusal to perform field sobriety exercises based on a lack of adverse consequences. Parks & Braxton successfully argued the lead appellate case on this issue. Finally, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude all statements made by the defendant as a violation of "accident report privilege."
Result:	All Charges Dismissed.

Apr 22, 2025	Case: 24-CT-012580	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a single car crash. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, she appeared drowsy and fatigued, had watery eyes, and had slurred speech. She also stumbled, staggered, and swayed. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the HGN (eye test), estimation of 30 second, and finger to nose exercises. She was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The defendant's Second DUI was Dismissed.

Apr 22, 2025	Case: 24-CT-059870	Judge Musselman
Facts:	The defendant was found by police passed out at a gas pump. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol and watery eyes. He also had a flushed face, slurred speech, and appeared unsteady. He almost fell out of the car. He performed very poorly on the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 in the breath machine. Only one result was obtained because the defendant started to vomit so the second breath sample had to be aborted.
Defense:	After providing mitigating evidence about the defendant to the State, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 21, 2025	Case: 24-CT-002783	Judge Wansboro
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow movements, and slurred speech. He also had poor motor skills and bloodshot/watery eyes. He performed poorly on the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .121 and .140 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.

Apr 21, 2025	Case: 24-CT-023695	Judge Damico
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving left and right on the road. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slow responses, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) and began the walk and turn, but refused to finish it. He was arrested for DUI and 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.

Apr 14, 2025	Case: 24-CT-054196	Judge Jacobus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. His movements were slow and sluggish. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test), he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .244 and .234 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 14, 2025	Case: 24-CT-054225	Judge Jacobus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving westbound in the east bound lane. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. She exited the car slowly and had a sway to her stance. After performing the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises, she was arrested for DUI. She 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.

Apr 14, 2025	Case: 24-CT-405863	Judge Bova
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and almost fishtailing. Officers noticed an odor of marijuana, a green leafy substance on the defendant's lap, bloodshot eyes, body tremors and droopy eye lids. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and estimation of 30 seconds roadside exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a urine test. The defendant had a CDL as well.
Defense:	The police reports overly exaggerated the defendant's alleged impairment. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred, he was not off balance, and he appeared coherent and responsive. In fact, on the walk and turn, he walked backwards back down the line heel to toe and never even stepped off the line. He also kept his foot off the ground on the one leg stand for 30 seconds. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 8, 2025	Case: 24-CT-016806	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. He also drifted into the oncoming lane of travel and drove on the grass. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and glassy eyes. He also had fumbling fingers, and difficulty following instructions. The defendant was unsteady and almost fell. For safety reasons, the defendant only performed the Finger to nose. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .174 and .170 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.

Apr 8, 2025	Case: 24-CT-017449	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights and running a stop sign. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness. 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.
Defense:	On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred, he was not unsteady, and he appeared responsive and coherent. After discussions with the State prior to trial, the State Dropped his Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 8, 2025	Case: 24-CT-016885	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running two stop signs. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he had difficulty dividing his attention. The defendant had a wristband on from a bar and denied drinking alcohol. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and refused to perform any other roadside tests. He was arrested for DUI and 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.

Apr 7, 2025	Case: AJF4KDE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his running car at a stop sign. Officers knocked several times to try to awaken the defendant, but he was practically unconscious. Officers later noticed an odor of alcohol, very slurred speech (almost non-understandable), stumbling, staggering, and needing assistance to stand. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The defendant later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After discussions with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 7, 2025	Case: AJB3ZEE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving eastbound in the westbound lane. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and raspy/slow speech. He had a sway to his stance, was unable to balance, and had poor hand eye coordination. The defendant stated that he had drank five beers. He performed poorly on all the field sobriety exercises, such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .110 and .108.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 7, 2025	Case: AI96ENE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and fumbling fingers. The defendant agreed to do the HGN (eye test) and then refused to perform any further field sobriety tests. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and providing mitigation evidence on behalf of the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.