| May 14, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-504418 | Judge Hayward |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. His face was flushed and he appeared to speak incoherently. There was also damage to both his side passenger tires as if he had just hit something. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | A breath test can only be offered after one is arrested for DUI. In this case, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior to placing him under arrest. Thus, his refusal to take a breath test was inadmissible under law. This was brought to the State's attention. They agreed and Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| May 10, 2018 | Case: A6MLM4E | Judge Riba |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for stopping past the stop bar, fishtailing and driving at a high rate of speed. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. He swayed while he stood and his dexterity was unsure. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .099 and a .101 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton provided documentation to the prosecutor showing that the defendant's both breath test results were under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving as required by Florida law. This is called retrograde extrapolation. We also pointed out that due to the .02 margin of error in the machine, the .099 could have also been as low as a .079 (under the legal limit). | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 8, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-041683 | Judge T. Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after being observed driving on a sidewalk area. Upon contact, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech, she stated she had drank 3 glasses of wine, and that she was lost. She exited the vehicle slowly and used the door for assistance. She walked slow and swayed while she stood. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was then arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, the defense attempted to obtain the in-car video camera of the incident. It was learned that there was an alleged problem with the upload of the video and it could not be retrieved. The defendant had stated that if that video had been retrieved, it would contradict all of the officer's observations and allegations in the police reports. Due to that evidence being exculpatory (meaning favorable to the defendant), the firm contacted the State about the destruction of that critical piece of evidence. Prior to filing any motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-050521 | Judge Ingram |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by a security guard sleeping in her car in a 7-11 parking lot. The security guard woke her up and told her she could not sleep there. She then started her car and drove off. The security guard had noticed an odor of alcohol and called police. When police arrived, they conducted a traffic stop. Police observed an odor of alcohol, confused/mumbled speech, and she stumbled. She also swayed and used her car for balance. She performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. She was then arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and Second for subsequent refusal to provide a breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime for the police to conduct the traffic stop. At the motion, the firm argued that a "mere odor of alcohol" was not enough to evidence to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. After reviewing the case law, hearing testimony, and hearing argument of counsel, the Judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The State then Dismissed all charges. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| May 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-020744 | Judge Bryson |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after a unknown civilian called the police saying that the defendant was driving on a rim with sparks flying in the air. Police spotted the defendant and conducted a traffic stop. Once stopped, officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and lethargic movements. He swayed, appeared unsteady, and had a flushed face. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and .184 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | When an anonymous person provides information, the tip must be corroborated by the stopping officer. In this case, while the defendant was driving on a rim, the evidence was clear that there were no sparks. Absent the sparks, the state could not prove that the defendant was stopped lawfully. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 2, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-2268 | Judge Crown |
| Facts: | Police were called after the defendant was kicked out of a hotel for being drunk and staying past check out. When police found him, he was found passed out in his car with the engine on in the hotel parking lot. He had an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, vomit on his shirt, and he was unsteady. A bottle of Vodka was found in the defendant's car. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | When the defendant was kicked out the hotel, he had nowhere else to go. If he stayed on the property, he would have been arrested for trespassing. If he walked down the road and left his car, he could have been arrested for public intoxication and had his car towed. He did the smartest and safest thing to do, not drive and sleep in his car. Legally, the State couldn't prove he ever drove, nor that he was he in "actual physical control" as he had "no capability" of operating the car since he was sleeping. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusal to perform the field sobriety tests. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 27, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-022073 | Judge Harper |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and almost hitting a median. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant exhibited balance issues and admitted to drinking that night. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew .177 and .158 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. We pointed out that there are no specifics of how the defendant failed to maintain a single lane. For example, lack of specificity about the distance of swerving, how many times, and time frame. Due to the stop being potentially unlawful and the State losing all the evidence, the State dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 27, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-022970 | Judge Harper |
| Facts: | The defendant was rear ended by another vehicle. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he appeared confused, and had slurred speech. His eyes were glossy and he admitted to drinking beers. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .194 and .189 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Here, the defendant was the one who got rear ended. He called the police to do the right thing yet he got arrested. After discussions with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 25, 2018 | Case: A6MLCWE | Judge Bedinghaus |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a stop sign. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers and he staggered as he walked. He then performed the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | During pretrial negotiations, the firm pointed out to the State that DUI video tape contradicted the officer's reports. For example, on tape his speech was not slurred and he never staggered. Also, when the defendant disputed the reason for the traffic stop, the arresting officer told him that the stopping officer had a camera. That was not true. Thus, his credibility was now called into question. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 25, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-001008 | Judge S. Jewett |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his truck in a gas station parking lot. A 911 caller called the police stating the defendant was driving all over the road and gave the defendant's location of his truck at the parking lot. Upon contact, after awakening the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood shot eyes, and he looked like a deer in headlights. The defendant stated he was at a party and had drank vodka. He performed very poorly on the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .164 and .160 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the defendant provided documents to the firm that he had called for roadside maintenance to fix his tire at the gas station where he was found. A service tech was sent out to fix his tire. The defendant did not tip him which made him angry. Through the documents provided by the defendant, the firm was able to establish a timeline which positively showed that when the 911 call was made, the defendant was actually at the gas station sleeping, and was not driving. We were also able to establish, after some phone calls to the tire service company, that it was actually the service tech who called 911 on the defendant after not getting tipped. Thus, the 911 call tip was deemed unreliable and a lie. Without that call, the defendant would never have been found, nonetheless arrested. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and he received No criminal conviction at all on his record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 24, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-008550NC | Judge Galen |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his car at a red light. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. He appeared very unsteady and was stumbling. The defendant stated that he had drank beer at a bar. After performing poorly on the roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | After numerous pretrial talks over an extended period of time, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | After numerous pretrial talks over an extended period of time, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 24, 2018 | Case: 16-031116MU10A | Judge Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a T-Bone crash at an intersection. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and a sway to his stance. The defendant stated he had drank beer and beers were also found in his car. He refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, the firm took pretrial sworn depositions of the three officers involved in the case. Upon questioning by the firm, each officer contradicted each other's testimony and their respective reports. The depositions were shown to the State and each officer's credibility was severely damaged. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 24, 2018 | Case: 17-013341MU10A | Judge Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding, swerving, and almost sideswiping another car. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a blank stare, bloodshot eyes. He also admitted to having drank 2 to 3 beers. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | A review of the video tape by the firm revealed that it contradicted many observations that were written in the police reports regarding the field sobriety tests. The firm announced ready for trial and on the day of trial the State dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 13, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-001057 | Judge Bryant |
| Facts: | An officer who was on routine patrol saw a white pickup truck stopped on the west side of the road. The officer pulled up behind the truck to check on the welfare of the driver. The driver then pulled off with his tires half on the grass and half on the road. The officer initiated a traffic stop. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he stumbled upon exiting the truck. The defendant could not stand up without leaning on the truck for balance. He was asked to perform roadside tasks, however, he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | In order to conduct a traffic stop for welfare check, also known as the community caretaker exception, there must a reason to ensure the safety and welfare of the citizens at large. Here, none existed, so the defense provided case law to the State to show that the traffic stop was unlawful. The State agreed and Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 11, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-000626AXXXMA | Judge Drake |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a crash whereby she hit a mail box. The defendant appeared unsteady, lethargic, disoriented, and confused. Believing she was impaired by a chemical or controlled substance, the defendant was asked to perform field sobriety exercises. According to the officer, she failed and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | The defense prevented the State from filing a DUI charge as they could not prove specifically by what chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law. After the DUI was dismissed, the State then took it one step further and filed it as a reckless driving. After pointing out all the facts that it was no reckless driving (ie. driving in a willful and wanton manner), the State dismissed that charge too. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Apr 11, 2018 | Case: 2018-CT-002878 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant ran a red light and ended up stuck in a ditch. Upon arrival, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed poorly the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The defendant told the officer prior to roadside tests that he had a traumatic brain injury. Yet the officer still administered the physical field sobriety tests. We pointed out to the State than any impairment could have easily been attributed to a prior head and brain injury versus alcohol. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 | Case: 14-040150MU10A | Judge Lerner-Wren |
| Facts: | An officer received a call regarding a crash. The officer located the alleged victim who subsequently pointed at the defendant's car. The officer proceeded to pull over the defendant. He observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and a flushed face. The defendant told the officer that she had been drinking lite beer and was on her way home. The defendant performed poorly on the walk and turn, one leg stand and finger to nose tests, and was arrested for DUI. This was her second offense for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. Specifically, the firm argued that there was no damage to either vehicle and therefore the officer was not legally entitled to pull the defendant over. The officer testified that he later observed no damage but was unaware at the time of the stop. The Judge granted the motion based on the fact that the officer failed to observe any damage prior to activating his lights and pulling over the defendant. All of the evidence was excluded. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 | Case: 2017-CM-002296 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving down a one way street. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol, a strong odor of marijuana, noticed watery/bloodshot eyes, and also observed slurred speech. She also exhibited a sleepy appearance and admitted to having drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. After performing field sobriety exercises, the defendant was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused the breath and urine tests. In a search incident to arrest, marijuana as found in the car and she was also charged with possession. | |
| Defense: | The officer's police reports were contradicted by the video tape as it related to the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction on the possession charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-002237 | Judge Vandercar |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after swerving in and out of his lanes of travel. The officer observed slightly slurred speech, poor coordination, and a noticeable odor of alcohol. The defendant was unsteady on his feet and swayed while walking. He was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. He performed poorly and was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Upon cross examination under oath at the civil administrative hearing, the officer testified that he did not smell an odor of alcohol and concluded that the defendant was impaired by something, but could not state by what chemical or controlled substance as required by Florida law. The officer's credibility was now called into serious question because of his conflicting statements under oath about an odor of alcohol in his police report versus his administrative hearing testimony. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction at all on his record. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 4, 2018 | Case: 2017-CT-019663 | Judge Myers |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving at slow speeds and stopping inappropriately. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant leaned on the car for balance and gave inconsistent answers. He then refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations, the defense pointed out that on tape the defendant's speech was not slurred, he answered the officer's questions, and he was not leaning against the car for balance. The State 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.