| Jan 6, 2016 | Case: 2015-MM-01322-A-K | Judge FOWLER |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car into a refuge boat and a trailer at a high rate of speed. The impact caused the defendant's air bags to deploy. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant, post Miranda, admitted to consuming five beers and that he had stopped drinking an hour before the crash. He was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests which were captured on video tape. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. He had displayed numerous signs of being off balance and unsteady on the tests. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the airbags had hit the defendant in the face, chest, and arms after a severe crash. Thus, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired by alcohol or injuries sustained in the crash. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES
| Jan 6, 2016 | Case: 2015-CT-015963 | Judge GABBARD |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. He was observed weaving all over the roadway. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, fumbling fingers, slurred speech, and difficulty opening his car door. The defendant admitted to having consumed a couple of beers. He was asked to perform roadside tasks and he refused. 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 State, that on the roadside video, the officer was using language during the DUI investigation, that made it clear he was going to arrest the defendant no matter whether he did the roadside or not. This clearly showed the officer had no intent on letting the defendant try to show him, via the roadsides, that he was not impaired. The defendant even stated at one point, "whether I do them or not, your taking me to jail anyway" and the officer arrested him within seconds. Just prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 4, 2016 | Case: 8091-XBP | Judge Newman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped by the police after a BOLO went out about the defendant driving recklessly. When the officer spotted the defendant, he observed her to be weaving all over the road. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slow speech. Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers observed the defendant to be so intoxicated, that for safety reasons, no roadside tests were performed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, the defendant blew a .332 and .315 in the breath machine (nearly 4 times the legal limit). | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, we pointed out to the State that upon looking at the breath results paper that prints out from the machine, it displayed an initial "purge fail" prior to the defendant providing the two breath results. No officers could explain why that happened on the machine or most importantly if that "purge fail" affected the defendant's breath readings in any way. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 | Case: 2015-CT-013464AXXX | Judge BRYSON |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed her car into a street sign causing her to veer off the roadway. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no indication that the defendant was driving recklessly which caused the crash. We also told the State than any slurred speech could have been caused by hitting her head during the crash. There was also no video at the scene of the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 | Case: 2015-CT-033147-AXXX-XX | Judge Murphy |
| Facts: | The police responded to a call about an unconscious driver who may have been involved in a crash. The caller advised that the defendant may have been sleeping, but was breathing. When fire rescue arrived, there was no crash and the defendant was seen walking down the road. The police then found the defendant walking down the road. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. He was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. It should be noted, one could hardly see the defendant's performance on tape and there was no sound. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. The defendant was also charged with second or subsequent refusal to provide a breath sample as this was his Third DUI arrest with one prior DUI conviction. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest of the defendant was unlawful because no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel. Under Florida law, unless there is a crash and/or crash investigation, the officer must see all elements of the crime. (ie. for DUI, the first element of the crime, that the defendant was driving or in actual physical control). The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge. The defendant received no criminal convictions. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 | Case: 2015-CT-010690 | Judge GRECO |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after a 911 caller stated the defendant was driving recklessly. The officer located the defendant's car and observed her to be weaving, almost sideswiping another car, and making jerky motions with the vehicle. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was off balance exiting the car and she admitted to drinking vodka. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton was ready for trial. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 | Case: 2015-CT-020279AXXX | Judge Johnson |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and "fumbling" fingers. He also observed her to be very slow and deliberate in her movements. While speaking to the defendant, the officer saw a half filled bottle of wine on the passenger side floorboard. After refusing to perform the roadside tasks, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .196 and .189 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton researched the past history of the breath machine the defendant had blown into on the night of her arrest. We then pointed out to the State there had been previous maintenance problems with the specific breath machine in question. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 7, 2015 | Case: 1189-XCF | Judge HAGUE |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped by the police for "attaching a tag not assigned." Once stopped, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant could not perform any field sobriety tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .211 and .211 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The basis of our motion was that the defendant was driving a car with a "dealer tag" and it was a car off the lot where he works at. There was no probable cause justifying the initial stop of the defendant's car. The defense provided the actual plate to the State along with the registration to the car. Prior to the motion being heard, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 4, 2015 | Case: 14-023641MU10A | Judge LEVY-COHEN |
| Facts: | The defendant was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes resulting in a head on crash. Upon arrival, the officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes and a pale face. In addition, her speech was extremely slurred. After meeting with medical personnel, the defendant was taken to the hospital. At the hospital the officer requested a blood draw which resulted in a reading of .200. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that a breath test was not impractical or impossible. Based on the above circumstances, Florida law only permits a blood draw when a breath test is either impractical or impossible. At the motion, the officer was unable to testify that the defendant had injuries that would prevent her from providing a breath test. In addition, the officer failed to speak with any medical personnel to determine when the defendant was going to be released from the hospital. The motion to exclude the blood test was granted. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 25, 2015 | Case: 15-CT-501854 | Judge GONZALEZ |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and a broken tag light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and extremely slurred speech. On video, the defendant performed the roadside tests. He performed the walk turn, one leg stand, and alphabet tests. Prior to the roadsides being administered, the defendant told the officer about a concussion he had recently suffered. He exhibited several signs of intoxication on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton acquired the medical records from the defendant relating to his concussion. We pointed out to the State that any impairment seen an tape could have been as easily attributed to his head injury versus intoxication by alcohol. This information was provided to the State Attorney's Office who in turn to agreed to Drop the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 23, 2015 | Case: 13-017291MM10A | Judge BROWN |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed, failing to maintain a single lane, and improper passing. The officer had to use his horn and lights to get the defendant to pull over. The defendant exhibited an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for support as he almost fell over. He failed every roadside test and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the all the officers involved in the case. Each officer contradicted the other's description of events from that night. After reading the sworn transcripts, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 19, 2015 | Case: A0Z4UIP (Jury Trial) | Judge MCKYTON |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also alleged that the defendant was swaying. He then had the defendant step out the car and the officer performed the HGN (eyes test). The officer then had the defendant walk across the parking lot to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises. After performing them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After being arrested, the officer then asked the defendant if his passenger had been drinking. The defendant responded by stating "yes he has, but not as much as me." He was then transported to the police station to provide a breath sample. The defendant complied and blew a .137 and a .142 (almost twice the legal limit). The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton took the case to a jury trial. At trial, the firm first pointed out to the jury that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape and he was not swaying as the officer testified. We also pointed out though cross examination that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better on tape than the officer testified to. On cross examination, the firm went through every specific thing that the defendant performed correctly on the roadside tests. The officer testified that the defendant stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. It was clear on tape that he never did. The officer testified he swayed during the one leg stand, It was clear on video he was not swaying. Thus the officer's credibility was called into question. In addition, the officer followed the defendant for about two miles plus over 3 minutes on tape and the defendant never failed to maintain a single lane. The defense's argument that was made to the jury was that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. As to the breath test, the firm argued that the State presented no evidence or testimony as to what the defendant's breath alcohol level was at "the time of driving" as required by Florida law. We also argued that the solutions that were used on the maintenance of this machine to stimulate a breath test were reading higher than the labeled bottle. Thus, the firm argued that the defendant's breath test results could have been skewed higher. Also, we argued that the machine was portable and had a handle. No one called to have the machine brought to the scene so that the breath test could have been administered closer in time to when the defendant was stopped. Finally, the firm pointed out that the video tape contradicted the breath test results which clearly showed that the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty. | |
| Result: | The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY. | |
| Nov 19, 2015 | Case: A0Z0QKP | Judge DENARO |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for reckless driving. The officer alleged the defendant was driving over 100 mph, running a red light, and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer and showed several signs of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant admitted to consuming 5 beers. He then blew a .163 and .167 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the State prior to trial. After pointing out how vague the police reports were, the State dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 | Case: 2015-MM-002437A | Judge GALLUZZO FOR WOODARD |
| Facts: | The defendant was first observed by the officer on video tape for speeding. The defendant was clocked at 79 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer then made a U-turn to catch up to the defendant. The defendant was finally stopped about 3 to 4 miles later. The defendant could not be seen on tape at all until he was eventually stopped. The officer stated at one point he got his patrol car up to speeds of 110 mph. The officer alleged in his report he constantly maintained visual contact of the defendant the entire time except for a about fifteen seconds. The officer stated at one point the defendant slowed at a light and did a "California Roll" through a red light. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer immediately ran up to the car, ordered him to open the door and shut off the engine. He was then immediately taken out of the car, handcuffed, and arrested for reckless driving. Upon being arrested for reckless driving, the officer then noticed an odor of alcohol and marijuana from the defendant's breath, along with bloodshot eyes. A search incident to arrest led to the officer finding marijuana on the defendant. Later at the station, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. The breath tech officer also noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued and the defendant displayed a "carefree" attitude." The police then added the charge of DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was eventually charged by the State with DUI, possession of marijuana, and reckless driving. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. The primary basis of our motion was that speed alone was not enough to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. At the hearing, the Judge had the opportunity to hear the officer's testimony, watch the video, and listen to argument from the attorneys. In the hearing, the officer testified that the defendant was swerving, taking turns fast, and could be seen at a close range of 600 feet doing the California roll. Not only was none of the alleged weaving and taking turns too fast not in the officer's reports, but no California roll through a red light could be seen on tape. There was no testimony that any cars were affected by the defendant's driving. The Judge Granted the motion throwing out all the evidence. The Judge determined that although the defendant was lawfully stopped, however, the officer had no probable cause to handcuff him and arrest him for reckless driving. The State then Dismissed the DUI, the possession of marijuana charge, and the reckless driving charge. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 | Case: 14-031740MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for screeching his tires and jerking his car out of his lane of travel almost off the roadway. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant pulled out his credit cards instead of his driver's license. The defendant then used the door for balance while exiting the car. During the conversation outside the car, none of the defendant's answers to the officer's questions made any sense. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line numerous times, did not touch heel to toe, and lost his balance. During the one leg stand exercise, the defendant put his foot down 6 times and almost fell. The officer stopped the exercise for safety purposes. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Testimony was taken at the hearing from the stopping and arresting officers. The motion to suppress was Granted as the Judge found no probable cause justifying the stop. All the evidence was thrown out and the DUI was then Dismissed. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Nov 13, 2015 | Case: 2015-CT-002762AXXX | Judge CUNNINGHAM |
| Facts: | The defendant allegedly bumped another car at a McDonald's drive thru. It happened to be the defendant's neighbor who he has had problems with in the past. The defendant got scared and left. When officers caught the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, and glazed eyes. The defendant told the police he had drank a half a bottle of wine with his girlfriend. The defendant showed signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .102 and .106 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton immediately got pictures of the defendant's car after he retained the firm. There was no damage at all. We then showed the pictures to the State and pointed out to them that there was no "accident" as defined by case law and this was a neighborly quarrel. Thus, we explained to the prosecutor that officers had no right to stop our client because there was no accident. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the Leaving the Scene of the Accident charge. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 9, 2015 | Case: CTC-14A1MARLETWS (JURY TRIAL) | Judge Salton |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. When asked to produce his driver's license, the defendant fumbled while looking for it and then dropped it. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady getting out of his car and swaying while walking to the spot to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape at the request of the officer. According to the officer, the defendant failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .089 and .087 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton proceeded to jury trial. After a three day trial, the jury was undecided. Specifically, five jurors voted not guilty and one voted for guilty. As a result, of the hung jury, the case was reset to be tried a second time. Prior to the new trial date, and after listening to the testimony of the witnesses during trial, the State agreed to drop the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Nov 5, 2015 | Case: 15-029049TC10A | Judge Brown |
| Facts: | Several officers responded to a crash scene in reference to a possible traffic homicide investigation. Upon their arrival it was determined that despite the severity of the accident, none of the parties involved died. After speaking with the independent witnesses, the officers went to the hospital to speak with the defendant. At the hospital, the lead officer asked the doctor whether an odor of alcohol was observed. The doctor responded by disclosing that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .217. Subsequently, the State attempted to secure the defendant's medical records. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton objected to the State's request for medical records. At the motion, we explained to the Judge that the only thing the officer could have done with the information he received from the doctor was to request a "legal" blood draw. The Judge agreed and refused to permit the State from acquiring the medical records which contained the blood result. As a result, the State was prevented from filing the DUI charge. | |
| Result: | The DUI was dismissed. | |
| Nov 3, 2015 | Case: 13-014188MM10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for drifting across the lane markers several times. Upon making contact with the defendant the officer observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. In addition, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet. She performed the field sobriety tests at the scene which were not on video. While the report indicated that the defendant's performance was poor, he failed to state with any degree of specificity what the defendant did wrong. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. At the breath alcohol testing facility, the defendant was placed on video. Despite some minor slurred speech, there was no unsteadiness throughout the entire video. | |
| Defense: | Based on the conflict between the officer's report and the video, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to picking a jury 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.