| Jan 18, 2017 | Case: 2016-CF-011479 | Judge Craner |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed two beers. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and alphabet tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .112 and .110 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI and he was charged with a felony DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State that there was misinformation of the law provided by the officer to the defendant prior to him submitting to the breath test. Thus, the only reason the defendant provided the breath samples was because of the misstatement of the law. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no DUI conviction. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| Jan 17, 2017 | Case: 8083-XEV | Judge Wolfson |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a T-bone crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/stuttered speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was trying to eat chicken while seated in his car to mask the smell of the alcohol. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted that this was the defendant's fourth DUI arrest. The firm represented him on the the last two DUI cases and both DUI's were Dropped. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida Law, a defendant has to be brought to trial on a county court DUI within 90 days. Here, due to discovery violations by the State, the defense did not waive speedy trial. On the day of jury trial, the DUI was dismissed. This was now the third DUI in a row the firm won for this client. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-011954 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed two or three drinks and the officer observed him swaying. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down, raised his arms for balance, and counted improperly. On the finger to nose, he missed touching the tip of his nose and also swayed. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer's observations in all of the police reports were contradicted by the video tape. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-016892 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was pulled over for making a wide left turn. Once stopped, the police officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy/blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank one beer. He then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .116 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Florida law states that in order for a person to be convicted of DUI, the defendant must have an unlawful breath alcohol level "at the time of driving." Here, the defense was able to show that the defendant was absorbing alcohol and that his breath alcohol level was actually under the legal limit at the time of driving. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-010238 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot watery eyes. The defendant denied drinking any alcohol and admitted to having taken Xanax. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests at the request of the officer. According the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's third DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's speech was not slurred on video tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report. Also, the officer stated that the defendant showed several cues of impairment on the one leg stand test. However, it was clear on tape that the officer was causing the defendant to mess up by repeatedly interrupting him throughout the test. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 14, 2016 | Case: 15-02945MU10A | Judge Evans |
| Facts: | The defendant was the driver of a motorcycle with a female passenger on the back. A car next to the motorcycle noticed that the two were arguing. When the light turned green the motorcycle accelerated. The car lost sight of the motorcycle for a few seconds. At the next intersection, the driver of the car noticed the female passenger injured on the ground. The male driver was standing away from the bike. Officers responded to the scene and observed the defendant to have a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant performed a series of field sobriety tests and was ultimately arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's 4th DUI offense. At the police station, he blew a .163 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks and Braxton filed a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was arrested unlawfully. Specifically, all elements of a DUI must be witnessed by a law enforcement officer in order to make a valid arrest. The exception to the rule is when an accident occurred. However, the civilian witness lost sight of the motorcycle. She could not testify whether there was an accident or whether the female passenger simply fell of the bike. The motion to suppress was granted and the breath test was excluded from evidence. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 12, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-005862 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag and weaving within his lane of travel. The officer noticed the defendant to have a strong odor of alcohol on this breath, extremely bloodshot eyes, and a relaxed appearance. The defendant had delayed reflexes and admitted to consuming 2 vodka drinks and 2 beers. The officer, who was a DRE (drug recognition expert), also suspected marijuana use and kept questioning the defendant if he had smoked pot. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. After doing the tests, he was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the defense pointed out that there were no specific indicators displayed by the defendant pointing to the fact that he was under the influence of marijuana per the actual DRE manual. Also, the officer's description of the defendant's roadside tests were contradicted by the video tape. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-005963 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank whiskey. The officer did not smell an odor of marijuana, but kept asking the defendant if he had smoked that night. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or a controlled substance along with alcohol, asked the defendant to provide a urine sample. The sample came back from the FDLE lab positive for marijuana and MDMA. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, an officer has to have "reasonable cause" that a defendant is under the influence of a chemical and/or a controlled substance to ask for a urine sample. Here, since the defendant made no statements about taking any drugs, the officer did not smell any pot, nor did he attempt to conduct a DRE (drug recognition exam), there was no reasonable cause to request a urine sample. Thus, it would have been thrown out of evidence. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-002582 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by an officer at a gas station passed out behind the wheel. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking and gave inconsistent statements to the officer. That officer then called for a DUI unit who made similar observations. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests and he refused. After being told of the adverse consequences of refusing, he was arrested for DUI. The defendant refused to take the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | In order to request a defendant to roll down their window, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, the officer merely believed that the defendant was sleeping and was not sick or injured. Thus, his order for the defendant to roll his window down was unlawful. Since that initial contact with the defendant was unlawful, all evidence thereafter would have been excluded due to an unlawful seizure pursuant to the 4th amendment. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-014361 | Judge Weis |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant told the officer she had drank "five" beers that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took and incorrect number of steps, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down, swayed , and used her arms for balance. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The officer had the defendant perform the field sobriety tests on the side of the interstate highway. As she was performing the tasks, cars and trucks were driving by at high rates of speed very close to the testing area. It was very dark, loud, and the road appeared to be very slanted on the video tape. Thus, it was unclear if her performance on the roadside tests was due to alcohol versus the conditions under which the defendant performed the tests. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 | Case: A0Z1CGP | Judge Wolfson |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officers arrived at the scene, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. He then performed the field sobriety tests and exhibited several clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .187 and .181 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | There were issues with the defendant's breath test as one of the control tests was reading high. Thus, his breath readings could have been skewed higher than what was actually in his system. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-011070 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and stopping past the stop bar. The defendant stated he had a couple of drinks. He had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked for perform field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .088 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what the officer had wrote in her report. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath test results could have been under the legal limit. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 17, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-007096 | Judge Bell |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a red light and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to having consumed beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .098 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Since there is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two test results could have been under the legal limit. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 16, 2016 | Case: 2015-CT-001899 | Judge Blechman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have a pale face and appeared to be confused. No odor of alcohol was observed. The defendant's speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot. Believing the defendant may be impaired, he was detained at the scene. While he was being detained, the officer had called for K-9 units. As the dogs sniffed the car, they alerted the officers. A small amount of marijuana was found. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition exam) was conducted to determine if the defendant was under the influence of drugs. He then submitted to a urine sample which later tested positive at the toxicology lab for marijuana. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida case law, a defendant cannot be detained longer than necessary for the officer to write a traffic citation when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, on video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he didn't appear to be confused. There was no odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's person, nor any odor of alcohol. After doing the research, the case law was clear that the defendant was detained on video tape longer than necessary for the officer to have written the citation for an obscured tag. Also, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI) to justify detaining him as the video contradicted the officer's report. The officers never charged the defendant with possession of marijuana. Due to the unlawful detention, the DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Nov 10, 2016 | Case: 2016-CM-004139 | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped as she entered the middle of an intersection at a steady red light. The officer, who was at the intersection and observed her infraction, then stopped the defendant. Upon approaching the car, he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's car and her person. He also observed a green leafy substance in the defendant's mouth and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was off balance, unsteady, and swayed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, she performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she provided a urine sample. That sample came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana. | |
| Defense: | The officer's reports were contradicted by the video. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. However, on tape it appeared she never stepped off the line. The officer also wrote that she was unsteady. However, on tape, she appeared to be standing normally. In addition, the officer wrote that the defendant had an odor of alcohol, but he never even asked her for a breath test. These examples, plus many other contradictions, were brought to the State's attention a week before trial. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 9, 2016 | Case: 16-001582CT | Judge Martin |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving in the wrong lane of travel. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red eyes. While talking to the defendant at the car, the defendant stated to the officer that he "had a little bit to much drink." He was then asked to performed field sobriety tests. He then responded "that he would fail. " After unsuccessful attempts to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, he was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The defendant denied making those statements. In addition, he told the officer he had recent head trauma issues which would cause him to be off balance and fail any physical tests. This created doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his head trauma. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 7, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-010873AXXX-XX | Judge Koons |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after a caller on 911 stated that the defendant was driving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated he had drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | The defendant stated on videotape that his legs were almost totally disabled from the military. Yet, the officer still had him perform the physical tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. The defendant did not perform well on tape , however, it was unclear from the video whether any impairment was due to alcohol vs. his disability. Due to the conflict in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 7, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-006984 | Judge Miller |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick/rambling speech, and his gait was jerky and very unsteady. The defendant told the officer that he had drank a bucket of beer. He then performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .127 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The officer gave the defendant misinformation about the penalties of refusing a breath test. Thus, by misstating the law, he coerced the defendant into taking the breath test. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-041815 | Judge Garagozlo |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving up on a curb. When stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred/mumbled speech and he fumbled with his license. No odor of alcohol was observed. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by something, asked him to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant performed poorly. For example, on the one leg stand, he used his arms for balance and put his foot down. On the walk and turn, he did not count out loud, did not touch heel to toe, and had difficulty maintaining his balance. He was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, a person has to be impaired by a alcohol, a specific chemical, and/or controlled substance to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove by what specific substance the defendant was impaired. After reviewing the discovery, the firm then pointed this out to the State and the DUI was dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was Dismissed. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 | Case: 2016-CT-009442 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. Once stopped by the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, droopy eyelids, and a sleepy appearance. The defendant stated she had drank a margarita and was swaying outside the car. She then agreed to perform HGN (eye test). After that test, she refused to perform any other field sobriety tasks and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | On video, the defendant was not swaying and did not appear to be sleepy on video. She was responsive, coherent and answering all the officer's questions. Thus, the officer's reports were contradicted by the in car camera. The defense announced ready for trial and just prior to trial, 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.