| Apr 10, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-002204 | Judge Caraballo |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash on the Turnpike. The defendant was estimated to have been driving 90 mph prior to the crash. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath and noticed bloodshot/glassy eyes. The officer then conducted the HGN (eye test). The defendant then refused all subsequent field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's eyes were bloodshot due to the air bag being deployed in his face, and not from the alcohol. Also, HGN was conducted two times, but only one was documented in the police reports. Furthermore, the defendant was not advised of any adverse consequences regarding his refusal to perform any further roadsides as required by law. The firm announced ready for trial. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| Apr 7, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-017882 | Judge Eissey |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a crash whereby she struck a mailbox while driving at a high rate of speed. The police observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking and smoking marijuana prior to the crash. She was taken to the hospital due to injuries sustained from the crash. At the hospital, a blood draw was conducted and the toxicology results revealed the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .097 along with marijuana being detected. She was subsequently arrested and charged with DUI. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, a breath test must be impracticable or impossible in order to request a blood test. Here, there was no showing by the police that a breath test was impracticable or impossible. Thus, the defendant's blood draw was unlawful. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-019362 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and fumbling fingers. The defendant admitted to drinking at a friend's house. The defendant then performed the field sobriety exercises which consisted of the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The defendant's roadsides were not video taped. After pretrial negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the lack of specificity in the officer's reports regarding the field sobriety tests, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 3, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-015683 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding, following too closely, and running a stop sign. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to having consumed two drinks. The defendant performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI in the last seven years. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations about the facts of the case with the prosecutor, the State agreed to drop the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-000060 | Judge Starr |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the police arrived, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant, at one point, had bent over to tie his shoes and almost fell over. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) due to his level of intoxication. After his arrest, he blew a .141 and .145 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Under Florida law, the State and police are required to turn over all discovery. Due to various discovery violations prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 29, 2017 | Case: A59B3SE | Judge Bedinghaus |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the defendant was swaying and off balance. The defendant stated she had drank a few beers. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | On video, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's speech was not slurred and she was not off balance as was written in the officer's report. Also, the officer administering the roadside tests was a new officer and kept confusing the defendant as she was giving the instructions. The defendant kept trying to clarify what she was being asked to do over and over. The defendant even stated at one point prior the walk and turn, "this is not a normal thing to do." After numerous pretrial talks with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 29, 2017 | Case: 7798-XEQ | Judge Ortiz |
| Facts: | A civilian went over to a police officer and told him that someone was sleeping behind the wheel of their car. That person was the defendant. The officer then went over, awoke the defendant, and told him to get out of the car. Once outside of the car, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant staggered upon exiting the car and was very off balance. Due to the defendant's high level of impairment, he was not asked to perform the walk and turn or one leg stand tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime and/or have a legitimate concern that a person is sick or injured before ordering them out of their car, which constitutes a seizure. In this case, the only evidence presented was that the defendant was simply sleeping in his car. Thus, when the officer ordered him out of the car, he was unlawfully seized. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 24, 2017 | Case: 16-CF-001069 | Judge Greider |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash, allegedly driving at least 30 mph in a 45 mph zone. EMS personnel were already on scene checking out the defendant prior to the police arriving. When the officer made contact with the defendant, he smelled a strong odor of alcohol, but the defendant denied drinking. She did admit to haven taken "Alprazolam." The defendant was shaking, had slurred speech and an open container of beer was found in the car. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, palm pat, and finger count exercises because she stated she could not perform any physical exercises due to her Multiple Sclerosis. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused a breath and urine test. This was the defendant's Third DUI within ten years and she was charged with a Felony DUI. | |
| Defense: | Through cross extermination, Parks & Braxton were able to establish that the State's witnesses all contradicted each other. For example, one EMS person testified the defendant appeared impaired while the other stated he didn't notice any signs of impairment. Furthermore, although the officer stated that he smelled an odor of alcohol, an EMS person who was with the defendant stated she never smelled anything. Also, though cross examination, the defense established that any shaking, slurred speech, and balance issues on the part of the defendant were just as reasonably due to the defendant's MS diagnosis versus alcohol or any drugs. After cross examination, and all of the State's witnesses were impeached. The State Dismissed the Felony DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 | Case: 15-025118MU10A | Judge Gottlieb |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, very glassy eyes, and she fumbled retrieving her documents. The defendant stated that she had drank two glasses of white wine. The defendant appeared to be off balance upon exiting the car. She then performed the roadside tests which were not video taped. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton met with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that none of the roadside tests were specifically detailed. In fact, the reports were very vaguely written. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 | Case: 16-CT-503610 | Judge Swett |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped by the police for driving on the rims of her blown out tires. A caller had called 911 alerting the police to her car prior to the traffic stop as she had been driving recklessly. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, mumble/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests. For example, on both the finger to nose and one leg stand tests, she almost fell over so the exercises were stopped. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .102 and .100 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, the State is required to provide all discovery in their possession as well as in the possession of the police department. If all the evidence is not turned over to the defense in a timely fashion, the State would be prevented from using it against he defendant. Due to various discovery issues, the State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 | Case: 2016-CM-009424 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking beer at "The World of Beer." The defendant then performed the walk and turn, HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. After doing them, he was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. In a search incident to arrest, the officer found marijuana and a glass pipe. The defendant was also charged with possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, a defendant who is agreeing to perform roadside tests cannot be coerced into doing them by a misstatement of the law. Here, the defendant relied upon misinformation from the officer about the potential consequences of performing them vs. not performing them. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. The two possession charges were also Dismissed. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Feb 17, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-011561AXXX | Judge Hanser |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also had difficulty completing sentences at times. The defendant stated that he had consumed one beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and took an incorrect number of steps. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations, we pointed out various conflicts in the officer's reports versus what was on the video tape. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Feb 16, 2017 | Case: 7367-XFF | Judge Newman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. He also swayed while he stood and had bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According to the officer, he did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention documentation that the defendant suffered from serious mental health issues. This caused speech issues for the defendant as well as a lack of comprehension when he was being instructed on the field sobriety tests. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Feb 14, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-503301 | Judge Gonzalez |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for swerving. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, as well as an odor of marijuana coming from the defendant. The officer noticed slurred speech, glossy eyes, and the defendant fumbled with his items. The defendant had crumbs on his shorts which appeared to be marijuana to the officer. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks. For example, on the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. After his arrest for DUI, he refused a breath and urine sample. The officer also found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in a search incident to arrest. The defendant was also charged with possession of marijuana and paraphernalia. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State on the day of the trial. We pointed out various contradictions within the officer's reports. Furthermore, there were contradictions in his reports versus what was captured on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the two possession charges. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Feb 1, 2017 | Case: 2015-CT-048387 | Judge Koons |
| Facts: | An anonymous caller called 911 stating they observed a "reckless driver unable to maintain a lane of travel." The officer spotted the vehicle in question, which was the defendant, and observed him touch a lane marker one time. The officer then initiated a traffic stop. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he stated he had consumed 3 to 4 beers. He then performed the field sobriety exercises and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The defendant stated after his rights were read that he felt the effects of the alcohol and should not have been driving. He also blew a .123 and .120 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped by the police. Pursuant to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts, in order to stop a defendant based on an anonymous tip, the officer must corroborate the tip. Here, the officer did not observe any reckless driving, nor any failure to maintain a lane of travel. In fact, the officer wrote in her report the defendant "crossed" over the white line of travel. However, on video, the defendant merely touched the lane marker. Prior to the motion hearing date, the state agreed to drop the DUI based on the case law. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-017199 | Judge Bryson |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and swerving. The officer observed the defendant to have blood shot eyes and she was confused in providing the appropriate documents to the officer. The officer noticed what he believed to be and alcoholic beverage in her car. Believing she was impaired, he requested her to perform roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, she almost fell over and asked if she had to count to 600, not 30 as instructed. On the walk and turn, the defendant crisscrossed her feet, did not touch heel to toe, and and instead of counting out loud, she raised her fingers to her nose. She was then arrested for DUI. Subsequently, she refused both breath and urine tests. | |
| Defense: | In Florida, to be convicted of DUI, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol, a chemical and/or chemical controlled substance. Here the State could not prove by what substance the defendant was allegedly impaired by as there was no odor of alcohol noted. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 23, 2017 | Case: 8505-XEZ | Judge Riba |
| Facts: | The defendant was first observed by an undercover Detective as the defendant appeared to be following behind him for a lengthy period of time and distance. The detective radioed out that he believed he was being followed. Another Deputy then got behind the defendant and observed him slow down, brake heavily, and almost come to a stop in the roadway. The officer turned on his lights and sirens and pulled the defendant over. He then called for a DUI unit. Upon the DUI officer making contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy/droopy eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant stated that he did not want to take a breath test because he did not want to take the risk that he was over the legal limit. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. At the motion hearing, we argued the officer's belief that the defendant was following him did not rise to a "reasonable suspicion of a crime." Also, upon cross examination, the officers could not articulate any specific traffic infractions that were committed. Thus, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause to believe there were any any traffic infractions committed justifying the stop. Based on the testimony, case law provided, and legal argument, the Judge granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed | |
| Jan 23, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-022192 | Judge Eissey |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant crossing over the white lane markers numerous times. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. A DUI officer was then called to the scene. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. According to the officer, she exhibited several clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The defense brought to the State's attention that although the first cop smelled an odor of alcohol, the DUI cop did not. Also, the first officer stated he did not observe balance issues, yet the DUI officer wrote she was off balance. Also, the DUI officer did not observe the angle of onset in the defendant's eyes prior to 45 degrees on the HGN test, which would be present if one was impaired by alcohol. Due to the numerous conflicts between the two officer's testimony, the DUI was dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Jan 19, 2017 | Case: 2015-CT-072385 | Judge Irizarry |
| Facts: | The defendant was found in his car by the police as it had went off the road into a ditch. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He noticed the defendant to stagger, be unsteady, and sway. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had a jury trial over a year ago with the same officer. In that case, the defendant was found Not Guilty. In the current case, as was with our older case that went to trial, the officer did the same thing by exaggerating each defendant's impairment in his reports versus what was captured on tape. The firm then brought this to the attention of the State as this officer continually did not tell the truth in his reports even though he had a camera. The firm did an investigation and found out that just prior to our court date, the officer had been caught lying in his reports in another unrelated case by his department and punished. | |
| Result: | The State Dismissed 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.