| Jul 20, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-000404 | Judge Valkenburg |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and swerving. She nearly struck several mail boxes. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and she was very unsteady on her feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out to the State prior to trial that on the video tape, the officer had told the defendant she would be arrested whether she did the field sobriety tests or not. Thus, he already had his mind made up whether she did them or not. This showed the officer's clear bias toward making an arrest vs. giving her a fair opportunity to avoid arrest. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| Jul 19, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-000717-A-W | Judge Shoemaker |
| Facts: | The defendant was located by the police as he was stopped on the side of the road. A citizen, who provided their name, had called 911 stating that the defendant was driving all over the roadway and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He also had red eyes and there was an open bottle of beer in the car. He swayed while he stood and told the officer he had drank a few beers. He was asked to perform the roadside tasks but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial the defense pointed out to the State that the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences as required by case law when he refused to perform the roadside tests. Thus the defendant's refusal would have been excluded from evidence. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-011217 | Judge Harper |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was very agitated. He also had a flushed face and admitted to drinking. He then performed the field sobriety exercises. According to the officer, he exhibited many cues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The State could not prove that the defendant was the driver of the car upon arriving at the crash scene. Without being able to prove that the defendant was either driving or in actual physical control, they could not prove the first element of a DUI charge. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Jul 17, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-004559AXXMA | Judge Mitchell |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking 3 beers. The defendant was unsteady, had a flushed face, and at one point officers had to hold onto him to keep him from falling. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. He refused and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, one’s drivers license can only be suspended for refusing to submit to a breath, blood, or urine tests. Here, the officer erroneously advised the defendant on the law by telling him he would lose his driver's license for refusing field sobriety tests. Also, on tape, the defendant never appeared off balance or unsteady as the officers had written in their reports. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jul 17, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-039846AXXX-XX | Judge Koons |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for stopping over the stop bar after coming out of a bar and then weaving while on her three wheel motorcycle. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer smelled an odor of alcohol, observed slow/slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant stated she had drank 2 beers and a glass of wine earlier in the night. She was off balance, unsteady, and staggered. The officer then had the defendant perform the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and finger count tests. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Through pretrial investigation, it was learned that this particular officer and others were on a DUI saturation patrol that night simply looking to make DUI arrests. They had been watching the bar that the defendant had exited and then were pulling people over after they had left. It was also uncovered, that the defendant's neighbor had been arrested the same night by the the same officer. The firm got the testimony of the officer from that case and used it to attack his credibility in our case since many facts were similar. This was brought to the attention of the prosecutor. Also, in our case, the officer wrote a very vague report as he did not write any specific details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests and simply checked off boxes on his Alcohol Influence Report. After reviewing the case, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-007883000-A-O-X | Judge Starr |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed into a sign at a McDonald's restaurant hard enough to cause his airbags to deploy. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and an orbital sway. He had a turquoise film surrounding the top layer of his tongue, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking two long island iced teas. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and vomited on video tape. He was arrested for DUI and blew a .152 and .157 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State. Any unsteadiness exhibited by the defendant could have easily just have been attributed to getting hit with the airbags vs alcohol. Also, his vomiting a few times prior to the breath test and the police giving him water could have skewed his breath test results. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 16, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-002531 | Judge Bell |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Upon arriving, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, bloodshot eyes, and dry lips. The defendant stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he didn't perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The defendant was misinformed by the officer that if he refused the breath test, he would be charged with a misdemeanor. That was a misstatement of the law as it's only a misdemeanor to refuse the breath test and an additional crime if it is a Second or subsequent refusal. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 12, 2017 | Case: 17-CF-001453 | Judge Pomponio |
| Facts: | The defendant was found asleep in his car while stopped at an intersection. Upon waking the defendant, officers noticed the defendant to be confused and disoriented. Also, they observed him to have extremely slurred speech, bloodshot/watery eyes, and a heavy orbital sway. The defendant appeared very sleepy during the entire investigation. Believing the defendant to be impaired by either a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was requested to perform roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down, he used his arms for balance, and swayed. On the walk and turn, he lost his balance, took an incorrect number of steps, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. In a search incident to arrest, officers found cocaine in the defendant's wallet. That cocaine did test positive at the FDLE lab. He was also charged with possession of cocaine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that all the signs observed by the officers did not point to the fact that the defendant was impaired by cocaine, a stimulant. In fact, on the other hand, all the observations were consistent with impairment by a depressant. Thus, the State would have been unable to prove that he was impaired by cocaine. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received No conviction the felony possession charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-022268 | Judge Conrad |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped when an officer saw him driving around a parking lot with his door open. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stumbled as he walked and had an "orbital sway." He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks to which he complied. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the walk and turn and one leg stand tests . He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that the defendant had numerous medical issues such as a prior traumatic brain injury. This injury led to all his balance issues prior to and during the roadside tests, to which the officer totally ignored. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jun 2, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-017044 | Judge Bonavita |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for following to closely behind another vehicle. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank a few beers. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside tests on video and according to the officer he failed. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | There was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's poor performance on the roadside tests was due to alcohol or his medical issues. He is on tape telling the officer about a bad back which affects his balance. The officer then is heard telling the defendant that his bad back won’t affect his performance on the walk and turn or one leg stand, which is false as both are physical exercises. The firm brought these medical issues to the attention of the State just prior to trial. Also, the officer is heard telling the defendant on tape that it is a crime to drink and drive. That statement is false and showed the officer did not even know the law. To be guilty of DUI, one must be either driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level and/or be driving under the influence to the extent that their normal faculties are impaired. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 15, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-039857AXXXXX | Judge Naberhaus |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for not stopping at a stop bar and failing to maintain a single lane. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, constricted pupils, and slurred speech. The defendant was sluggish and also had glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming some beer and having taken his prescribed pain medication called "Percocet." That drug is considered a controlled substance. The defendant was then asked to then perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant complied, and according to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. The officer, who was a DRE (drug recognition expert), believed the defendant was impaired by a controlled substance, (i.e. the Percocet), so he has asked the defendant for a urine sample. The defendant refused to provide a urine sample. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior trial, the defense brought to the attention of the State that the officer had administered a walk and turn and one leg stand test. Normally that would be ok, but here the defendant was over 65 years old. The NHTSA manual, which sets forth the parameters for administering the field sobriety tests, states in part that an officer should use caution in administering the those tests to people over 60 years old. Here, even though the defendant kept telling them he had back and neck issues due to his age, the officer still proceeded with the exercises. In addition, we pointed out that the defendant's speech sounded slurred because he had hearing issues and even wore a hearing aid. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 12, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-042764AXXXXX | Judge Atkin |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for a broken tag light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed 3 drinks and appeared confused while answering the officer's questions. After performing the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, and the finger count exercises, the defendant was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the firm pointed out various conflicts within the arresting officer's own police reports. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 5, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-017469ASB | Judge Bonavita |
| 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, mumbled/slurred speech, and she admitted to having drank three glasses of wine. The defendant appeared very sleepy and off balance. She then performed the roadside tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose. She performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .169 and .168 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 5, 2017 | Case: 2014-CT-011284 | Judge Hanser |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. He was off balance, unsteady, and lethargic in his movements. The defendant also admitted to drinking. He was taken to the hospital due to his injuries. Due to a breath test being impracticable or impossible, the officer requested a blood sample from the defendant. The blood came back from the toxicology lab indicating a blood alcohol level of a .204 and .205. This was the defendant's Third DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton raised several pretrial issues with the State regarding legality of the blood draw. After reviewing the applicable case law and officer's testimony, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 4, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-019784 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | A caller had called 911 stating that the defendant was driving very erratically. When the officer spotted her, he observed her weaving and then initiated a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant denied having anything to drink. After asking the defendant four times to perform field sobriety exercises, and her continuing to refuse, the officer arrested her for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida Case Law, a defendant must be advised of the adverse consequences of refusing to perform the field sobriety tests or the refusal is inadmissible into evidence. Here the officer simply arrested the defendant without advising her of any adverse consequences. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 2, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-029534AXXXXX | Judge Garagozlo |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a side swipe crash. After the crash, she left the scene and went to her house. The victim gave a description of the defendant, the make and model of the car, and tag number. The officers then went to the defendant's home a short time later. They made contact with her when she opened the front door. They observed an odor of alcohol, incoherent speech, and droopy eyelids. The defendant stated she had drank and taken pain medication prior to the crash. She then performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the defendant's statements about drinking and taking pain medications. Our motion was premised under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti which states that there must be independent substantial proof of a crime other than the defendant's statements. Here, there was no such evidence that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the crash (i.e. driving). Prior to the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received NO conviction for the LSA charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| May 1, 2017 | Case: 2017-CT-000178 | Judge Bell |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was going 91 mph in a 35 mph zone. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow movements, and bloodshot eyes. His speech was slow and slurred and he was off balance. The defendant also had vomit on him. The defendant did not perform any physical roadside tests due to having a prosthetic leg. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, and after negotiations, we pointed out that the officer had several opportunities to have the defendant submit to non-physical roadside tests, but rather quickly arrested the defendant without even offering them to him. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 | Case: 2016-CT-018199AXXX | Judge Harper |
| Facts: | The defendant was found passed out in his car at an intersection. When officers awoke the defendant, they smelled an odor of alcohol and noticed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The defendant was very off balance and also had open alcoholic beverages in the car. On video, he performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .173 and .188 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | During a pretrial investigation of the case, it was uncovered by the defense that the arresting officer was under a federal investigation for theft. This information was brought to the State's attention. | |
| Result: | The State Dismissed the DUI. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 | Case: 2016-CM-013349 | Judge Myers |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving within its lane of travel and crossing over the white lane markers. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of marijuana, slurred/mumbled speech, and lethargic movements. The defendant admitted to smoking pot a few hours before he was stopped. He then performed the roadside tests. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he submitted to a urine test which came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana and also another controlled substance. In addition, the officer found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in a search incident to arrest in the car. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State numerous conflicts in the police reports versus the video tape. After pretrial discussions, the prosecutor Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received no convictions on his record for the drug charges. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 | Case: 15-017183MU10A | Judge Levy-Cohen |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed after a BOLO had gone out describing the defendant's car. The BOLO had stated that the defendant had left the scene of an accident. Officers observed the defendant's car to have a right front tire missing and it had left several scrapes in the roadway. Officers then observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and bloodshot/watery eyes. He then was asked to perform the field sobriety tests. Due to his high level of intoxication, he could not perform the walk and turn or the one leg stand tests. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of all the officers involved in the case. After cross examination of each officer, they all contradicted each other and their respective police reports. The State was then presented with all the transcripts. After reviewing them, the State realized every officer's credibility had been called into question. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
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.