| May 8, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-053876 | Judge Atkin |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/glossy eyes, and he stated he had drank a couple of beers. His movements were clumsy and lethargic. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) and the count backwards from 79 to 61. He refused to perform any other field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | There were many conflicts in the evidence. For example, on tape the defendant's speech seemed normal. He was responsive and coherent, and did not appear off balance or unsteady. After negotiations with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| May 4, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-016837 | Judge Rich |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving slower than other cars, swerving, and almost striking another car. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/watery eyes. The defendant stated she was coming from a Christmas party. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused to take a breath test. | |
| Defense: | On tape, her speech was not slurred and she was not off balance or unsteady. It was simply the officer asking if she would perform roadside tests and her saying no. There was a lack of probable cause to arrest her based on the video. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 1, 2023 | Case: 22-CF-09338 | Judge Siracusa |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he made a turn and struck another car head on. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, the defendant admitted to having smoked pot in the morning, the defendant was unsteady on his feet, and he had bloodshot/glassy eyes. He then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and the one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI. Believing he was impaired by the marijuana, a urine test was requested. The defendant compiled and it came back from the lab positive for marijuana. The defendant was charged with Felony DUI due this being his Fourth offense. | |
| Defense: | There were numerous inconsistencies between the police reports and the video tape. The officer's reports exaggerated the defendant's level of impairment on the observations, as well as the field sobriety tests. In addition, there was no odor of marijuana or marijuana found. The officer, while doing HGN (eye test), noticed nystagmus in the defendant's eyes and other cues on HGN. However, if one is under the influence of marijuana, there should be no cues detected on HGN per the DRE manual (drug recognition expert). Thus, the officer was wrong. The State Dropped the defendant's Fourth Felony DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 27, 2023 | Case: AGOTJ7E | Judge Lawhorne |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to having consumed beer. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | On tape, the defendant's speech was normal, he stood ok, walked ok, and his roadside tests were much better than the exaggerated reports. The firm pointed out to the State that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 26, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-010056 | Judge Scott |
| Facts: | Police received a call about a reckless driver (i.e. the defendant). Officers spotted the car and approached him in a Wendy's parking lot. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had drank 4 beers. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .154 and .154 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm raised issues about the initial encounter and seizure of the defendant as there was no corroboration of the driving pattern. After conversations with the State, they dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 25, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-012099 | Judge Taylor |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for erratic braking and swerving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .129 and .120 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm raised issues as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to a vagueness of specifics. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 21, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-004197 | Judge Sanders-Morency |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed her car into a fence and then ended up hitting a parked car. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, unsteadiness, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. She then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .083 and .081 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Due to the .02 margin of error the breath machine, the firm was able to place the defendant's breath alcohol level below the legal limit. Also, due to various contradictions between the reports and the video tape, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 19, 2023 | Case: A85U2TE | Judge Garcia-Priovolos |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car into a tree. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and confused/low speech. His pupils were dilated, had bloodshot eyes, and he appeared sleepy. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a chemical test. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm pointed out that almost every observation written in the police reports were contradicted by the body worn cameras. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 19, 2023 | Case: 23-CT-012183 | Judge Atkin |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and crossing outside the lanes multiple times. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. He was slow to exit the car, his movements were lethargic, and he walked slowly. After performing poorly on roadside tasks, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .155 and .155 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After negotiations with prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 19, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-056199 | Judge Atkin |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and his movements were lethargic. He swayed while he stood and told the officer he had consumed thirteen (13) beers. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | After several conversations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 19, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-026918 | Judge Atkin |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash after running a red light and striking another car. When officers arrived, the defendant tried to leave the scene of the accident, but was stopped by the police. There was no odor of alcohol, however, the defendant appeared confused, disoriented, and her speech was incoherent on tape. She also needed help to walk, almost fell over, and staggered. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she was asked to perform field sobriety tests and later was arrested for DUI. She later refused a urine test. | |
| Defense: | In order to prove DUI under Florida Statute 316.193, the State must prove that a defendant was impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance and/or alcohol. Here, there was no alcohol involved. The State could not prove the DUI as there were no statements made by the defendant about specific drugs taken, no urine test, and no drugs found. One cannot simply be impaired by "something" to be convicted of DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Apr 18, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-015359 | Judge Gutman |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol and he appeared confused. The defendant then performed various field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI. Believing he was also under the influence of drugs along with alcohol, the officer requested a urine test. The urine later revealed results from FDLE for amphetamines and marijuana. | |
| Defense: | The officer had the defendant do the roadsides on the side of the highway with cars and trucks flying by. Also, he had him do the walk and turn on a huge slant (not a level surface as required by NHTSA). In addition, it was so loud that the officer can be heard yelling instructions. Also, on tape the defendant's speech appeared normal and he was not off balance. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no criminal conviction. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-020977 | Judge Bristow |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car into a gate at a housing community. He then left the scene and was located at a different location. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and he looked visibly confused. His speech was slurred speech and swayed while walking. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. The defendant subsequently refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | There were numerous contradictions in the two officer's reports. For example, the first officer noticed slurred speech and no sway. On the other hand, the arresting officer noticed a sway and normal speech (not slurred). After conversations with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI and dismiss the leaving the scene of an accident charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 13, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-016569 | Judge Gutman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights after sunset and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, unstable balance, and he admitted to having drank beer. After performing several roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | After several negotiations with the prosecutor about the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 13, 2023 | Case: 23-CT-000497 | Judge Christine |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred/thick tongued speech. He also was slow to respond to questions from the officer. After performing several roadside tasks such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and estimation of time, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test and this was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | After speaking to the prosecutor and pointing out numerous inconsistencies between the reports and the video, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 13, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-017166 | Judge Gutman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving eastbound in the westbound lane of travel. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was also unsteady and admitted to drinking alcohol. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .106 and .105 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Many observations written were contradicted by the video tape. It was clear based on the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, he was lower than .08 at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-011795 | Judge Taylor |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving. Officers observed an odor of marijuana, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Her movements were slow and lethargic. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later provided a urine test. Results from FDLE were positive for marijuana. | |
| Defense: | On tape, the officer told the defendant that he smelled pot coming from the car. The defendant stated it was her passenger. The defendant denied smoking and pot can be in your system for 30 days. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 4, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-015471 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a red light. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed and had difficulty focusing on basic questions. The defendant refused to participate in field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | The video contradicted the police reports. On tape, his speech was not slurred and he was not off-balance (never swayed). | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 29, 2023 | Case: 22-CT-057295 | Judge Jacobus |
| Facts: | The defendant was observed traveling in both lanes of travel with no lights. She was also crossing the over the solid yellow lines multiple times. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and a flushed face. She also had slurred speech and her movements were clumsy. After performing various roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .200 and .192 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The defendant did not speak any English. There were numerous miscommunications throughout the DUI investigation. After pointing out all of the miscommunications to the State, they Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
OBTAIN IMMEDIATE LEGAL HELP
To save your license, you must act within 10 days. Contact a partner about your case at (954) 519-2290 or fill out the form here.