| Jan 26, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-006796 | Judge Allen |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Her car then exploded into flames. Officers observed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and she admitted to having dank two tequila drinks. She was then asked to perform roadside tests to which she refused. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, the officer must give adverse consequences. Here, they did not so the refusal to perform roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence. Also, on tape, the defendant’s speech was not mumbled or slurred. The firm pointed all this out to the prosecutor and the State Dismissed the DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
DUI CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT DUI VICTORIES
| Jan 25, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-002328 | Judge Conrad |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in her car in the middle of the roadway. Paramedics were on scene, as well as the police. Officers observed the defendant to have noticeable amount of mucus coming from her nose and her speech was unintelligible. She lost consciousness numerous times, had a blank stare, appeared confused, and was also crying at times. The defendant was transported to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer tried to do HGN (eye test), but the defendant couldn't follow the stimulus. Unable to interview her or gain consent for a blood draw due to the defendant losing consciousness, the officer had a nurse take the defendant's blood. That blood was sent to the FDLE lab and yielded blood alcohol concentration results of .432 and .429 (over 5 times the legal limit). | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the blood test results. In our motion, we alleged the officer had no "reasonable cause" under Florida Statute 316.1932 (c) to believe that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, a chemical and/or controlled substance. No odor of alcohol was ever detected and no drugs were found. In addition, the officers on scene were constantly mentioning medical issues, and not DUI (or in police terms signal one). Prior to any motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI in which the defendant's blood alcohol level was over 5 times the legal limit. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 24, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-001924 | Judge Poblick |
| Facts: | Police received a call about the defendant driving southbound in the northbound lane of travel. When police found the defendant, he was parked in a 7-11 parking lot. Officers observed him to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. He stumbled outside the car and also had an orbital sway. The defendant agreed to perform various roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test) and walk and turn. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm called into question the lawfulness of the initial contact. Other than the traffic infraction, there was no reasonable suspicion justifying ordering the defendant out of his car. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 24, 2022 | Case: AEUO4AE | Judge Vaccaro |
| Facts: | An ambulance observed the defendant swerving all over the roadway. They used their air horn to try to get the defendant to stop. When the defendant stopped, paramedics from the ambulance went to check on her. Police were called and when they arrived, they observed the defendant to have slurred/mumbled speech, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and she spontaneously stated she had taken a Xanax. The defendant appeared incoherent at times. She was taken to the hospital. Believing that she was impaired by drugs, a blood draw was done. The blood results yielded a positive result for Xanax. The defendant was charged with DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the police reports. For example, one officer stated they observed an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant, while the arresting officer stated there was no odor, Also, when one is under the influence of Xanax (a CNS depressant), officers would see HGN or VGN in the defendant eyes (i.e. nystagmus). Here, there was neither. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 20, 2022 | Case: AEBM9GE | Judge Komninos |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after callers stated the defendant was intoxicated in a city parking lot. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also appeared unsteady and gait ataxia. After refusing roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | Due to the vagueness of the call and lack of driving pattern, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 19, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-040051 | Judge Garagozlo |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and he fumbled around. While outside the car, he swayed while he stood and had bloodshot eyes. After performing various field sobriety tests, such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out various inconsistencies between the video and police reports. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 19, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-045326 | Judge Jacobus |
| Facts: | A homeowner called police that they believed the defendant was impaired has he kept driving in their yard. Police were called and they made contact with the defendant in the homeowner's front yard. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, he stated he had drank 3 beers, and his movements were slow. His eyes were glassy and he seemed confused. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .161 and a .155 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After pretrial discussions, the firm pointed out that the officer had no right to order the defendant out of the car without any corroborating evidence of impairment. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 19, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-009011SC | Judge Galen |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by police in a lane of travel with a missing front left tire and the entire hub assembly was missing. Also, the rear left tire was flat. The officer concluded, without any witnesses, that the defendant failed to maintain a single lane, drove off the road, and hopped the median causing disabling damage. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and he would trip over his words. He admitted to having drank 5 Bacardi and Cokes. The defendant had prominent "gait ataxia" and would stagger as he walked. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .197 and a .189 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State that the defendant couldn't be in "actual physical control "of a disabled (inoperable) vehicle. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 18, 2022 | Case: 21-CF-000595 | Judge Roby |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a one car accident whereby she crashed into a parked vehicle. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy eyes. She also seemed very confused. She then refused roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI and she was charged by the State with Felony DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers. In depo, they contradicted themselves numerous times and also each had a very vague recollection of the specific facts upon our questioning. After taking the depos, the State then Dismissed the Defendant's Felony Fourth DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Jan 18, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-001566 | Judge Burns |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, a lack of dexterity, and he stated he had consumed one drink. He also had bloodshot eyes and fumbled with his documents. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | arrest him. The State agreed and the State Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Jan 12, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-000801 | Judge Dubois |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and the defendant admitted to having drank. He also stumbled and appeared cocky. He was then asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, it was pointed out to the State that on tape the officer misinformed the defendant about the law relating to roadside tests. In addition, he never stumbled and actually appeared sober. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 12, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-0111727 | Judge Dominguez for Oster |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers did not smell any alcohol, but they noticed glossy eyes, and lethargic behavior. She was sweating profusely and was unsteady. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she then performed roadside tests. She performed poorly on tape and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a urine test. | |
| Defense: | For the State to prove a DUI under 316.193 (DUI Statute), the defendant must be impaired by alcohol and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, they could not prove that she was impaired by any specific substance. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 | Case: AE8M8EE | Judge Lawhorne |
| Facts: | An individual working at a bar where the defendant was drinking stated she appeard intoxicated and attempted to get her an Uber. The defendant refused and drove off. Officers spotted the defendant driving and stopped her. They noticed an odor of alcohol, and glassy/watery eyes. After going back and forth with the officers, she performed field sobriety tests. She did not perform to their satisfaction and was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The initial call leading to the traffic stop was vague and only had a conclusory statement that the defendant appeared intoxicated. Without more details, the stop was not corroborated and unlawful. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 | Case: A6MGQIE | Judge Lawhorne |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. When the defendant rolled the window down, a large plume of marijuana smoke appeared. This made it difficult for the officer to see inside. The defendant appeared drowsy, disoriented, and stated he was "hot boxing." The defendant performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He the provided a urine sample which was sent to the lab. It tested positive for THC (marijuana). | |
| Defense: | There were numerous pretrial discussions with the state. Eventually the defense was able to convince the State to Drop the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 | Case: ADW4LOE | Judge Croff |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for cutting in between cars and driving too closely. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. She also had a blank stare, stated she had consumed martinis and beer, and slightly staggered. After performing various field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .122 and a .117. | |
| Defense: | Issues were raised by the defense as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 | Case: AE8M1VE | Judge Lawhorne |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and stopping over the stop bar. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and slow reactions to answering the officer's questions. He also had bloodshot eyes. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test), he was arrested for DUI. The defendant blew numerous times into the machine all resulting in invalid samples. The invalid samples called VNM (volume not met) were .143, .108, .130, and .103. Since he could not provide two valid samples, the police wrote it up as a refusal. | |
| Defense: | According to the police reports provided in discovery by the State, all the defendant's roadside tests were videotaped. However, that tape was never turned over to the state by the police. In order to avoid the defense from filing a motion to dismiss the case for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 | Case: AEBM9OE | Judge Lawhorne |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights or taillights. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and he was sweating. The defendant appeared confused and had difficulty following directions. The defendant agreed to perform the HGN (eye test) and then refused to perform anymore exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Based on the written report and video tape evidence provided by the State in discovery, the defense raised issues as to the lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-007015 | Judge Palomino for Oster |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed her car into a concrete barrier. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. After performing roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .195 and a .181 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion we alleged that the officer misled the defendant into taking the breath test. Specifically, we put forth that the officer led her to believe she could get a hardship license if she blew, versus, she could not if she refused. Thus, the officer went outside Implied Consent by discussing hardships. On the day of the motion, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 6, 2022 | Case: 21-CM-7566 | Judge Conrad |
| Facts: | The defendant was driving his boat when it was boarded for a safety check. Officers observed an open container of alcohol at the helm. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant fumbled around and had problems using his fingertips. He then performed various field sobriety exercises used in boating under the influence cases such as the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, palm pat, and hand coordination test. He was then arrested for BUI. | |
| Defense: | When the firm got the video (body worn camera) from the officer, it was missing all the field sobriety tests. The State, nor the police, could ever produce that evidence. | |
| Result: | The Boating under the Influence charge was Dismissed by the State. | |
| Jan 6, 2022 | Case: 21-CM-006482 | Judge Conrad |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after driving westbound in the eastbound lane. Officers observed her to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a blank/dazed stare. She had poor coordination, cyclical mood behavior, and she admitted to having drank alcohol. She then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She resisted arrested by pulling away, stiffening her arms, and refusing to place her arms behind her back. She was also charged with resisting arrest. She later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Every observation the officer wrote was either false or overly exaggerated. The DUI video completely contradicted everything that was on paper. In fact, the defendant actually performed very well on the tests. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the resisting charge. | |
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.