| May 1, 2014 | Case: 2014-CT-000299AXMX | Judge Skidmore |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped by the police after someone called 911. The caller, who later gave a written statement, told police that the defendant was driving all over the road and crossing lane markers multiple times for several miles. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, dilated pupils, and mush mouthed speech. According to the officer, she was unsteady, acting clumsy, had slow reflexes, and exhibited mood changes. After performing the HGN (eye test), the defendant then failed the walk and turn and one leg stand tests according to the officer. There was no video tape of the incident. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest for DUI, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor just prior to trial and the firm was able to convince the State to Drop the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| Apr 29, 2014 | Case: 12-005608MM10A | Judge Robinson |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a head on crash. The accident was observed by an independent witness. A deputy arrived on scene and observed the defendant attempting to exit the vehicle. The deputy observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, as well as bloodshot eyes. A DUI task force deputy arrived and continued with the investigation. After observing the same indicia of impairment, the defendant admitted to drinking three glasses of wine. The defendant was also observed to be unsteady on her feet. She was arrested for DUI and refused a blood test in the ambulance. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude all statements based on the accident report privilege. The Judge subsequently granted the motion and threw out the statements. Without the statements, the State would have difficulty proving that the defendant's impairment was from alcohol as opposed to the accident. The State then listed the fire rescue officers as witnesses. The goal was to prove that she was not injured and therefore the impairment was a result of the alcohol. However, Parks & Braxton took independent statements from each of the witnesses. Each statement revealed that the two deputies were not telling the truth with regards to how the defendant looked that evening. Specifically, the witnesses denied observing slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or any lack of balance. Based on the lack of credibility of the police the State dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 29, 2014 | Case: 45-2013-CT-000582AXYX | Judge Williams |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and a flushed face. He was also unsteady outside his vehicle. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The offcer alleged in his reports that the defendant stated he had drank "15" drinks. After his arrest, he blew a .105 and .105 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State Attorney's Office. We pointed out that there was no sound on the video. Thus, everything the defendant did and said could not be put into context. For example, the officer stated the defendant messed up the alphabet test, however, one could not hear it being recited. Furthermore, the officer did not have the camera in focus on the defendant the majority of the time so one could not truly see the defendant's full performance of the roadside tests. Also, we pointed out that if the defendant truly said he had fifteen (15) drinks, his breath alcohol level would have been much higher. That then called into question the officer's credibility. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 | Case: 2014-CT-003307AXXX | Judge Damico |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving. That driving pattern was captured on video tape. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, dilated pupils, slurred speech, and the defendant stated he had two vodka drinks. According to the officer, he faiiled the video taped field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .099 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor's office in order to discuss the facts of the case and dropping the DUI prior to setting a trial date. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 21, 2014 | Case: 11-CT-503758 | Judge Mann |
| Facts: | The police came in contact with the defendant after he allegedly backed into another car. According to the officer's report, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, blood-shot eyes, and slow slightly slurred speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .133 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, the firm alleged that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant. At the motion hearing, the officer's testimony was contradicted (impeached) many times. Also, the officer stated that the defendant was not at fault in the crash. Finally, he could recall many important facts of the case during his testimony. The Judge Granted the motion determining a lack of credibility. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 | Case: 59193-JA | Judge Denaro |
| Facts: | A police officer noticed the defendant drinking in a bar while the the officer was having a meal. The officer noticed that the defendant appeared very intoxicated. He then saw the defendant leave, get in his car, and start the engine. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .237 and .237 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pre-trial discussions with the State in order to get the DUI Dropped prior to a trial date. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 | Case: CTC-98-399986VANC | Judge Horrox |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a single car crash as he hit a utility pole. When the officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and blood-shot eyes. When asked for his phone number, the defendant gave a "1-800 number" and stated that he forgot. The defendant was transported to the hospital due to his injuries. At the hospital, the police ordered that blood be drawn from the defendant. The results of the blood test showed the defendant had a blood alcohol content of a .292 and .290. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton conducted a pre-trial investigation after taking over the case from another law firm. Our firm found numerous problems with the toxicology lab, the VHS tape, and the witnesses. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 | Case: 13-CT-505875 | Judge Paluck |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with an inoperable tag light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. Once outside the car, the officer observed him swaying. On video tape, the defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the defendant's refusal to perform the roadside tests. In our motion, we alleged that the officer never advised the defendant of any "adverse consequences" for his refusal to perform the tests. Prior to the motion hearing date, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 | Case: 7996-HBI | Judge Greco |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by police passed out in his vehicle at an intersection. Once the police finally awoke the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. He also appeared unsteady outside the vehicle. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine. However, the officer felt he was impaired by a chemical and / or controlled substance. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton were ready for trial. The State would have been unable to prove by what "specific" chemical and / or controlled substance the officer thought was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by Florida Law. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 28, 2014 | Case: 6153-XDX | Judge Ortiz |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash which was witnessed by a police officer. When the officer came into contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slow speech, and a noticeable sway. The defendant admitted to consuming three whiskeys with sprite. He then failed the roadside tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .114 and .115 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had numerous discussions with the State prior to setting a trial date. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 25, 2014 | Case: 13-CT-504589 | Judge Gagliardi |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights.. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, watery eyes, and she admitted to consuming three beers. According the officer, she did not perform well on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. There was no video tape at the scene. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor about the case prior to trial. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 25, 2014 | Case: 2013-CT-006384 | Judge Fegers |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped on his motorcycle because the officer could not read his tag. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face, and also found a "mostly" empty bottle of vodka between the cables by the headlight and handle bar. The defendant stated he had drank a "few". The defendant refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. This, however, was the first time the firm represented this client. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State in pre-trial discussions that there was a lack of evidence indicating that the defendant's "normal faculties were impaired." | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 21, 2014 | Case: 05-2013-CT-063862-AXXX-XX | Judge Babb |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. He was traveling 90 mph in a 45 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, and he admitted to drinking beer. The defendant also used the driver's door for balance while stepping out of the car. He then performed the field sobriety tests on videotape. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .152 and .165 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged, that on videotape at the breath alcohol testing facility, the officer misinformed the defendant as to the law in an attempt to get him to take a breath test. Thus, we argued that he was coerced into taking the test based on the misstatements by the officer. Prior to the motion being argued, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 20, 2014 | Case: 6721-XEM | Judge Newman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after an anonymous person told the officers that the defendant was driving all over the road. The defendant, for some unknown reason, then pulled behind the officers and they made contact. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant showed signs of impairment on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he only blew one breath sample of a .241 and then refused the second breath breath test. The police then called it a refusal to submit to breath testing because they only obtained one breath sample and not two as required. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State about the case. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 20, 2014 | Case: 9855-XEQ | Judge Hague |
| Facts: | The police were called after the defendant was observed getting into his car by a security guard who believed the defendant was intoxicated. The officer then observed the defendant swerving and conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, red eyes, and balance issues. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer did not write one specific pertaining to the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Thus, the complete performance was unknown. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 20, 2014 | Case: CTC-13-2636SSLTWS | Judge Salton |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving off the roadway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, lethargic and sleepy movements, and slow hand / eye coordination. The defendant admitted to drinking wine. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were video taped and he was arrested for DUI. During an inventory search of the defendant's car, the officer found a few prescription bottles for anti-depressants. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol in the breath machine. The officer, however, concluded on his DUI ticket that the defendant was impaired by those controlled substances. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although the officer found the controlled substances (ie. the anti-depressants in the car), he never even asked the defendant if he took them that day. Furthermore, the officer never even asked for a urine test. Thus, the State could not prove though any testimony what specific controlled substance was "allegedly impairing" the defendant as required by Florida Law. Also, the video tape of the defendant's roadside tests contradicted the reports about the level of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction for any crime at all. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 | Case: 2012-CT-018600AXXXMA | Judge Higbee |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow movements, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, she missed heel to toe every time, stepped off the line, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .144 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton had several discussions about the contents of the video tape with the State. On video, the defendant was distressed and kept stating to the police officer that a male individual she had been with had attempted to assault her and that is why she drove in order to get out of the house. Her friend, who she had picked up from around the corner after she left the male's house, stated the same thing to police over and over on video. They both kept telling the officer that they were just trying to get home in order to figure out how to handle the attempted assault situation. The officer showed hardly any interest on tape about hearing their story and appeared to be only concerned with conducting the DUI investigation. The defendant and her friend even indicated to the officer that they believed the male in question was following them just before they were pulled over. Thus, the firm pointed out to the State, that the defendant only drove her car out of "Necessity" which is a defense under the law solely in order to get away from a potentially violent situation. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 | Case: 6715-XCM | Judge Ortiz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was driving 90 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Prior to a trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote a very vague report and did not write any details about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Mar 11, 2014 | Case: CT-A150GIE | Judge Lefler |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for straddling the center white line a couple of times and "drifting". The officer who made the traffic stop, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant stated he drank a couple of beers. The stopping officer then called for a DUI unit. That other officer made similar observations and requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, the defendant exhibited several signs of impairment on the tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .20 and .183 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the arresting officer misstated the law on video tape to get the defendant to agree to take a breath test. Thus, the firm argued he was coerced into taking the breath test based upon misinformation of the law. We also filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to believe a traffic infraction had occurred and also that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was an impaired driver. | |
| 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.