| Aug 12, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-000747 | Judge Hitzemann |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and stopping in the middle of the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. She was also very unsteady and exhibited mood swings. She performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew a . 247 and .241 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The officer misinformed the defendant by telling her on tape that if she did not do the roadside tests, her license would be suspended. A license suspension only applies to a breath, blood, or urine test, not field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officer misinformed the defendant of the law by telling her on tape that no matter what she blew in the breath machine, there are no enhancements. Once again a misstatement of the law because any breath alcohol test above a .15 is an enhanced DUI. Realizing that the roadside tests and the breath test would be excluded from evidence, the State Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
DUI CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT DUI VICTORIES
| Aug 11, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-018450 | Judge Bryson |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a three car crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was sweating profusely. His eyes were red and glassy and he also stumbled. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | When a defendant refuses roadside tests, the officer must advise the defendant of the adverse consequences of his refusal or the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences as required by law. In addition, on tape the officer was the one who actually stumbled while walking. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 10, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-001299 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car into a tree and entered back on the road. His vehicle then skid into a Ford truck which then crashed through a garage door. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and stated he had drank an old fashioned cocktail. After performing various field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State that on video the officer had the defendant perform the walk and turn and one leg stand in a windstorm. The wind was so strong that one could see things blowing all over. Due to the lack of fairness shown to the defendant considering the roadside test conditions, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 10, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-000309 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by police slumped over the wheel in her car blocking the entrance to a residential complex. A child was also in the car. No odor of alcohol was detected, but the officer noticed glassy eyes, very slurred speech, a sway to her stance, and she appeared to keep closing her eyes like she was falling asleep. She also appeared disoriented and confused. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she then performed roadside tests. She performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI. She provided a urine sample which after testing by FDLE revealed numerous controlled substances. | |
| Defense: | During negotiations with the State, we pointed out that circumstances surrounding the initial contact with the defendant were an unlawful search and seizure. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 10, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-003255 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. He also had clumsy movements, swayed, and was unsteady on his feet. After performing various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .114 and .111 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Although the defendant blew just over the legal limit, his video performance of the field sobriety tests showed he may have been lower than .08 at the time of driving. In other words, he was on the rise and absorbing alcohol at the time he blew into the machine. Due to the conflict, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 9, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-016347 | Judge Babb |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and glassy eyes, He also fumbled with his wallet and admitted to having drank one beer. He then performed the HGN (eye test) , one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and .149 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After speaking with the State regarding the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 9, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-027652 | Judge Baker |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car into a utility pole. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and slurred/mumbled speech. He also had blood/shot watery eyes and was argumentative. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI. | |
| Defense: | When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, the officer must advise the defendant of adverse consequences if they do refuse. Here, the officer did not, so the refusal to do roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence. In addition, an officer cannot request a breath test until after one is arrested per Florida Statutes. Here, the officer not only requested a breath test prior to arrest, but also read implied consent telling him he would lose his license. Thus, the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample would have been excluded from evidence. The State Dropped the defendant's' Third DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 9, 2022 | Case: AEBMRGE | Judge Lawhorne |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also had a sway to his stance, admitted to consuming two glasses of wine, and also staggered. After performing various roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .129 and .127 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant himself, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 9, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-001531 | Judge Herr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for an expired tag. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .198 and .188 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After several conversations with the prosecutor about conflicts in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 | Case: 21008658MU10A | Judge Carpenter-Toye |
| Facts: | The defendant drove his car through a concrete barrier, plunging 30 feet below the highway exit ramp. Both the defendant and the passenger were transported to the hospital. While the defendant was being treated for injuries a Trooper entered the room. The Trooper observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as extremely slurred speech. A medical blood draw was conducted, and the prosecutor made efforts to acquire the blood results. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed an objection to the State's request to obtain the defendant's medical records. Specifically, all of the indicators of impairment that the Trooper observed were made in the defendant's hospital room. The firm argued that the Trooper violated the defendant's 4th Amendment right to privacy when he entered his hospital room. Specifically, the firm successfully argued that an individual in a hospital has a reasonable expectation of privacy. As a result, the Court denied the State's request to obtain the defendant's private medical records and blood results. In addition, counsel filed a separate motion to suppress to exclude all of the observations that the Trooper made. The State conceded the motion. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 3, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-001975 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having no functioning tail lights. The officer smelled marijuana coming from the car and his person. He also observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He admitted to having smoked pot 15 minutes before driving. The defendant had body tremors as well. According to officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine sample which was tested by FDLE and was positive for marijuana. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. The defendant received no conviction and no penalties other than court costs. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-002779 | Judge Bigney |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and his speech was slurred. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and he also was charged with the crime of refusing a breath test for the second time. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for trial. Due to various discovery issues pertaining to the charges, the defendant's charges were Dismissed on the day of trial. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Aug 1, 2022 | Case: 21-017995MU10A | Judge Carpenter-Toye |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a multi vehicle crash. Multiple civilian witnesses stated that the defendant was driving at a high rate of speed and collided with the vehicle in front of him. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. Upon speaking with the defendant, the officer stated that he did know which county he was in. The defendant admitted to drinking a couple of margaritas for Taco Tuesday. The defendant was asked to perform a series of field sobriety tests, including the walk and turn and one leg stand. The defendant performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently blew a .157 and .164 in the intoxilyzer. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was unlawfully arrested. Specifically, the only individuals who observed the defendant behind the wheel were civilians. As a result, Florida Statute 316.645 requires the arresting officer to conduct an independent crash investigation. In this case, the officer only completed a DUI investigation, and did not take part in the crash investigation. The State contacted Parks & Braxton to concede the motion. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jul 27, 2022 | Case: AFLIQBE | Judge Vaccaro |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash and he was also observed driving all over the road. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have glassy eyes, slurred/low speech, and he slowly exited the car. The defendant's eyes kept closing and his movements were slow. He had a dazed look and his eye lids were droopy. Believing he was impaired by drugs, he was asked to perform roadside tests. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine test which was positive for marijuana after being tested at FDLE. | |
| Defense: | Here, there was no smell of pot, no marijuana was found, and the defendant denied taking any drugs. Also, the marijuana stays in one's system for up to 30 days. The officer also noticed HGN (nystagmus) which would be inconsistent with someone under the influence of pot. The State could not prove that he was impaired by marijuana. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 | Case: AEBMTVE | Judge Dittmer |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after he was swerving and also entered the bicycle lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and slow/slurred speech. Bottles of beer and vodka were found in the car as well. After performing various field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | After several negotiations with State about the evidence and the defendant himself, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 | Case: 21-CT-051142 | Judge Garagozlo |
| Facts: | The defendant hit a mailbox and then left the scene. He also traveled westbound in the eastbound lanes and almost hit two parked cars. After a BOLO went out, the police located the defendant and conducted a traffic stop. The defendant stumbled out of the car, he was slow to answer questions, and his pupils were constricted. He also had an orbital sway, had to have questions repeated, and would lean on his vehicle for balance. No odor of alcohol was detected. Believing he was impaired by drugs, he then performed various roadside tests. He performed very poorly on tape and was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. He provided a urine test which revealed the presence of marijuana after being tested by FDLE. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out that there was no odor of pot, no pot found, no statements about taking marijuana, and no officers wrote anything about detecting that the defendant was impaired by marijuana. It was obvious from the video tape that the defendant was severely impaired by something. The defense provided the defendant's medical records to the State which showed that he was admitted to the hospital less than two days after the DUI arrest with a bacteria/viral brain infection. We were successful in pointing out to the State that it was the brain issue, and not the marijuana, that caused the defendant's impairment. That infection had been lingering for days prior to the arrest. The DUI and the Leaving the scene of the accident charges were all Dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Jun 30, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-017211 | Judge Garagozlo |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. He fumbled for his wallet, had a fixed gaze, and admitting to having drank one beer. After performing various field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The defendant was followed for a very long time on tape before the officer stopped him. So, our point to the State was how bad could his driving pattern have been if the cop waited that long to make the stop. Also, the defendant’s speech was not slurred on tape. After discussions with the State about the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-001680 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving back and forth. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, droopy eyelids, slurred speech, and an unsteady/drunk-like appearance. He then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The video tape contradicted many observations that the officer wrote about. For example, the defendant was not unsteady and his speech sounded normal. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 | Case: 22-CT-000403 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for drifting lane to lane and drifting into the bicycle lane. The officer noticed glassy/bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol and he had a glazed/dazed look. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. Believing that he was impaired by drugs and not alcohol, he was asked to provide a urine test. It later revealed positive results for a CNS stimulant and a CNS depressant. | |
| Defense: | The State could not prove that he was under the influence of the specific drugs that day because the drugs that he tested positive for can be in one's system for multiple days. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 16, 2022 | Case: AEBMRUE | Judge Mckyton |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after he was observed crossing over a solid yellow line and also passed another car in a no passing lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The officer saw a can of alcohol in the car and the defendant had a sway to his stance. The defendant then performed roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | After several negotiations with the State about the facts of the case, they 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.