| Oct 31, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-8530 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | A caller dialed 911 stating the defendant was swerving. When the police stopped her, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she admitted to having drank wine. She also appeared unsteady. She then performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew .158 and .153 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | In order to stop someone based on an anonymous caller, the police must have some corroboration of the driving pattern. Here, there was none, so the lawfulness of the stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction on her record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| Oct 30, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-028277AXXXXX | Judge Naberhaus |
| Facts: | A civilian called 911 stating that they believed the defendant was an impaired driver. They told 911 that the defendant was driving erratically and hitting curbs. The defendant was eventually stopped by police. Upon contact, they observed him to have difficulty walking and he used his door for support. His eyes were glassy and constricted. He rambled on and on as he spoke and was fumbling with his documents. The officer did not smell any alcohol. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the officer requested that he perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of a chemical and/or controlled substance. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, to prove a DUI, the State must prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the individual. Here, since the defendant did not make any statements about taking any drugs that day, the State could not prove the DUI. The DUI was Dismissed and the State filed a new charging document for reckless driving. The defendant received No conviction or points on his record. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Oct 29, 2018 | Case: A6MM4AE | Judge Kominos |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end traffic crash. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant have slurred speech, red/watery eyes, and she was having mood swings. She was transported to the hospital where the officer followed up with her. Believing she was impaired by alcohol or drugs, he requested a blood sample to which she refused. However, medical personnel had taken her blood for medical purposes already. The State then got her medical records after a motion hearing. She was charged with DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State that the officer never smelled an odor of alcohol, even though he was right next to her. Also, although the medical records stated that she was intoxicated, they never tested her blood for alcohol or drugs. Thus, the State could not prove whether she was allegedly impaired by alcohol or drugs. In fact, in the medical records, one person treating the defendant wrote that she was clinically sober. That contradicted the findings of the other treating physician who believed she was intoxicated. The State Dropped the DUI to a Civil Traffic Infraction. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 26, 2018 | Case: 18-CT-7140 | Judge Shepherd |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and he admitted to having drank beers. He was lethargic in his movements and had poor coordination. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .207 and a .201 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | There was misinformation and coercion by the officer in obtaining breath samples from the defendant. Thus, there was a strong probability that the breath tests would have been excluded from evidence. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 23, 2018 | Case: 16-015352MU10A | Judge Kal Evans |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way towards oncoming traffic. The defendant subsequently made a u-turn and again was driving the wrong way. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech as well as unsteadiness. A DUI officer was subsequently called to the scene to conduct an investigation. The defendant performed a series of field sobriety tests including the one leg stand, walk and turn, finger to nose, as well as the HGN (eye test). Believing that the she performed poorly on the tests, the defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI. | |
| Defense: | It was clear from the evidence that a portion of the body camera was not properly preserved. Specifically, while the officer's instructions were captured, the defendant's performance was inexplicably erased. Parks and Braxton filed a motion to exclude the field sobriety tests based on destruction of evidence. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 23, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-7273 | Judge Conrad |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving without her headlights on. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a red face, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the HGN (eyes test) , one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. She was arrested for DUI and later blew a .171 and a .157 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The defendant's video at the roadside contradicted her breath alcohol level which showed her breath alcohol level may have been under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 23, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-006360 | Judge Conrad |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in her car. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and she was unsteady on her feet. She then performed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | To be in actual physical control, one has to have the "capability" of operating the motor vehicle. Here, the defendant was sleeping and thus had no capability to operate the car. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 22, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-502085 | Judge Paluck |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy eyes. He struggled to maintain his balance and a bottle of vodka was found in the car. He then performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand, he placed his foot on the ground and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | On video, the defendant can be heard telling the officer about leg and head injuries. Yet the officer still administered the physical exercises. In addition, on tape, it was clear that the officer was administering the exercises in violation of the NHTSA rules. The ground was not flat/level and was clearly sloped in the area where he had the defendant do the walk and turn and one leg stand. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 19, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-002612-WH | Judge Grode |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights and swerving. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he admitted to having a few drinks. He was unsteady, staggered, and had slurred speech. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | There was no video, so the case came down to the officer's word. During a pretrial investigation by the firm of the arresting officer, it was uncovered he had been arrested and charged with a felony. This was discussed with the State, even though it had not been disclosed by the stste, and the defense set the case for trial. The defendant was advised and agreed not to plead to anything and take the case to trial. Once the case was set for trial, the DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Oct 18, 2018 | Case: A96EC3E | Judge Riba |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed her to have slurred/mumbled speech, a dazed/confused look, and watery eyes. The defendant's pupils were contracted and she went through mood swings. The defendant had no odor of alcohol, but admitted to being prescribed Ritalin. She was unsteady, almost fell over, and she performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DUI and later provided a urine sample which tested positive for Ritalin. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, the firm provided proof to the State that she was prescribed that medication and that she had not taken it that day. The effects of not taking the medication that day as required, caused the impairment, not the drug itself. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 16, 2018 | Case: 18-CT-501546 | Judge George |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after being observed driving all over the road. He crossed over lane markers and drove on the grass. The officer observed the defendant to have a "fruity odor" and his eyes were droopy and bloodshot. He was unbalanced and had a confused/delayed demeanor. The defendant then performed poorly on roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, to be convicted of DUl, one must be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the officer could only smell a "fruity odor" which he believed to be some type of alcohol. However, based on odor alone, he could not state what specifically the defendant had to drink, when he had his last drink, or even how much. Thus, the State could not prove he was impaired by an "alcoholic beverage" as the DUI Statute requires. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 12, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-9566 | Judge Harper |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his car by police. They observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and he was very unsteady. The defendant was unable to formulate a sentence and he could not remember where he had come from. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control because he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 10, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-010668 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant appeared sleepy and had a flushed face. He then performed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .126 and a .130 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | There were numerous inconsistencies in the trooper's reports which were brought to the attention of the State. Since there was no video tape, and he never even called for one, his credibility was now in question. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-006859 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking beer. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and was off balance on the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and stumbled. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Here, the driving pattern was very vaguely described. It was unclear how many times he weaved, over how long of a distance, and the amount of time. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-006084 | Judge Shoemaker |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane and speeding. Once stopped, officers observed him to have an odor of alcohol, he admitted to consuming 4 beers, and had glassy eyes. The defendant had trouble answering simple questions and appeared dazed. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and a .185 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with the State. We pointed out various inconsistencies in the officer’s reports. Since there was no video, his credibility was now called into question. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-MM-001277APK | Judge Hamilton |
| Facts: | A BOLO (be on the lookout) for the defendant and his vehicle was issued after a person reported him stumbling around his truck and appearing intoxicated prior to driving. After the defendant drove off, another person observed him driving all over the road. A deputy spotted the defendant and his vehicle as he was parked on the side of the road. The officer activated his emergency lights and made contact with the defendant. He observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. His face was flushed and his eyelids were droopy. The defendant stumbled and almost fell while outside his truck. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | In order to conduct a traffic stop based on the above tip, there must be corroboration of that tip. Here, the officer never observed any driving and activated his lights, thus detaining him illegally. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 4, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-008549 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he lost his balance during the instructions, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, used his arms for balance, and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on the videotape, the officer misstated the law as to the defendant's obligation to perform the voluntary exercises. Prior to arguing the motion, the State was provided the case law and agreed the officer coerced the defendant into performing them. Thus, all the roadside evidence would have been excluded. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 1, 2018 | Case: 18-CT-502148 | Judge Paluck |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Once contact was made, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to consuming beer. He also admitted to having taken numerous controlled substances prescribed to him. He then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He was then arrested for DUI. He took a breath test and blew a. 134 and a .126 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The defendant's performance on the videotaped roadside tests clearly showed that the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 27, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-019665 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving under the speed limit. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, a flushed face, and his eyes were bloodshot. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He performed poorly on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .107 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted on a well lit and level surface according the NHTSA manual. Here, the defendant was given the exercises on a dark and very visibly sloped road. It was evident that a mishaps on the exercise were from the conditions, and not alcohol. The defendant can even be seen pointing to the road and its slope while conversing with the officer. This was discussed with the prosecutor. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Sep 27, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-019686 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The defendant admitted to having drank a couple of beers. The officer had the defendant perform the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, and finger count exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | There must be reasonable suspicion of a crime to request roadside tasks. In other words, there must be some evidence of impairment. Here, there was none and the roadsides would have potentially been excluded from evidence. Also, it was unclear why the officer did not give the two nationally standardized exercises (ie. the walk and turn and one leg stand). Yet, he chose to give the finger count test which is typically given in boating under the influence cases. | |
| 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.