| Jan 28, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-009793 | Judge Moses-Stephens |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. He also appeared very nervous. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .089 and a .087 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm was able to place the defendant's breath alcohol levels under the legal limit due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine. The State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
DUI CASE RESULTS
OUR RECENT DUI VICTORIES
| Jan 28, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-501557 | Judge Swett |
| Facts: | The defendant was involved in a crash whereby by she had hit numerous mailboxes and left the scene of the accidents. When officers located her, she appeared impaired. There was no odor of alcohol, however, officers noticed her to be confused, her eyes were watery and glassy, and her speech was mush mouthed and slurred. She was also very slow in her responses and gave incomplete answers to questions. She performed very poorly on roadside tests an was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. She later provided a urine sample which was sent to FDLE and was positive for marijuana. | |
| Defense: | After her arrest, another officer conducted a DRE (drug recognition exam) to determine what class of drugs may be impairing her. The officer did not conclude that she was impaired by marijuana, but CNS Depressants. The firm pointed out that he was wrong and we called his credibility into question. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction on the leaving the scene of an accident. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 28, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-502723 | Judge Swett |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and mumbled speech. He also had to brace himself for balance. He then performed various field sobriety tests, such as the walk and turn and finger to nose. He was then arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the defendant's balance issues had to do with his age and medical issues. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-010051 | Judge Jeske |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for swerving and stopping in the middle of an intersection. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. According to the officer, he performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | During pre trial discovery, Parks & Braxton uncovered that the the arresting officer had been suspended after an internal affairs investigation. His credibility was now called into question and the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 21, 2021 | Case: 19-CT-025253 | Judge T. Brown |
| Facts: | Officers responded to a call about a reckless driver who had been driving up on curbs and switching lanes erratically. Officers found the defendant in a parking lot with his eyes closed in the driver's seat. Upon awakening him, they noticed an odor of alcohol, he appeared sluggish, and he had mumbled speech. He moved slowly and also swayed. After performing poorly on roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. Officers concluded based on their observations, that he was impaired not only by alcohol, but drugs so they requested a urine test. That test later came back from FDLE positive for marijuana. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the urine results. In our motion, we alleged that under the DUI statute there was no "reasonable cause" to believe that the defendant was under the influence of a chemical and/or controlled substance. In other words, they had no right to even request a urine test. The State conceded prior to any motion hearing and Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 20, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-005804 | Judge Gutman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving on a flat tire. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. He admitted to having drank beer. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .129 and a .129 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The officer stated he had stopped the defendant to conduct a welfare check. The lawfulness of the stop was called into question as there was no danger to person or property. In addition, there was no probable cause to believe a traffic infraction had been committed by simply driving on a flat tire. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 20, 2021 | Case: 19-CT-020308 | Judge Gutman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton pointed out that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the Defendant. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 20, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-007970 | Judge Gutman |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with no illuminated lights on after dark. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant struggled in finding his documents. He then performed roadside tasks such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .137 and a .135 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out that many observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-041524 | Judge Ingram |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights after dark. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, mumbled speech, and a flushed face. According to the officer, he fumbled with his wallet and provided the wrong documents. After performing roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton was able to establish that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on his performance on the roadside tests. Also, many observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video tape. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-033349 | Judge Ingram |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and fumbled with her documents. She stated she had drank two alcoholic beverages, swayed while she stood, and had changing emotions. After performing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .205 and a .204 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | The firm pointed out that the video tape of the defendant showed that her blood alcohol level may have been lower at the time of driving via the theory of absorption and elimination of alcohol. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 12, 2021 | Case: 20-CT-002296 | Judge Healis |
| Facts: | A civilian called 911 stating that the defendant was driving all over the road and almost caused a head on collision. Deputies arrived and detained the defendant. They observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was so unsteady that she almost fell over. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests and she refused. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | When officers arrived on scene, the defendant was parking her car at her house. She was immediately placed in handcuffs prior to the DUI officer even arriving. The firm pointed out to the state that at that point there was no probable cause to cuff her. We explained to the State that it was an illegal defacto arrest as she did not have a weapon nor was she trying to flee. Also, the DUI officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences when she refused to perform field sobriety tests as required by law. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 | Case: 19-CT-016323 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving too fast and then slow. She also almost hit a curb. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. Her movements were lethargic as well. She performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI. The firm also represented her on her first DUI and got that DUI Dropped. | |
| Defense: | The video contradicted many of the written observations. The firm also beat her first DUI as well. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 | Case: 19-016484MU10A | Judge Solomon |
| Facts: | The the defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby she hit traffic control devices. When officers arrived, they observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She was crying and admitted to having drank whiskey. After performing poorly on roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions in the case. After taking sworn testimony, the firm filed a motion to suppress for an unlawful arrest. Prior to any motion hearing, the State conceded and Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 15, 2020 | Case: 19-CT-018362 | Judge Farr |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and he appeared unsteady. His pupils were dilated and he denied drinking. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The description on the defendant's roadsides were vague. Thus, the firm pointed out to the State that there was lack of probable cause to make the arrest. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 14, 2020 | Case: 20-CT-007463 | Judge Collins |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped by police after a person called 911 stating that the defendant was driving erratically. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also fumbled with his paperwork. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests. For example, he could not state the alphabet properly. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and raised his arms for balance. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | Due to the caller being vague as to the specific nature of the erratic driving pattern, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question by the firm. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 11, 2020 | Case: 20-CT-037546 | Judge Peacock |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for driving on the solid yellow line dividing the north and south bound lanes. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and a flushed/red face. He appeared unsteady and swayed. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. There was no traffic affected by the defendant's driving, it was unknown how long he drove on the line, and the distance was unknown. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 11, 2020 | Case: 20-CT-036615 | Judge Peacock |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after he drove in between various barricades on a road that was being built. His car eventually got stuck in the sand at the dead end of the road. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he also staggered. He also had glassy eyes and swayed while he stood. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm called into question the lawfulness of the detention by the officer. There was no probable cause to order him out of the car. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 11, 2020 | Case: 20-CT-500714 | Judge George |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and his movements were lethargic. He then performed the HGN (eye tests), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. | |
| Defense: | The defendant had told the officer prior to the field sobriety tests that he had both hips replaced. Yet they still had him perform the physical tests. The firm provided the State with numerous medical records supporting the defendant's claim of the hip replacements. There was doubt as to whether or not the impairment that he exhibited was due to alcohol or his injuries. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 10, 2020 | Case: 20-CT-010598 | Judge Castor |
| Facts: | The defendant was pulled over for driving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He was unable to divide his attention and could not focus on the officer’s questions. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later agreed to a blood draw due to having being taken the hospital. The blood was a .178 after being tested. | |
| Defense: | The firm brought to the State's attention numerous issues as to whether the blood draw was unlawful. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Dec 10, 2020 | Case: AD0B1JE | Judge Hessinger |
| Facts: | The defendant was found by police sitting in her car. They had responded to call about a female being passed out. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and slurred speech. She also stumbled on her words. She fell while getting out of her car and leaned on the vehicle. She only performed the HGN (eye test) and then refused further roadside tests. She was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | Under Florida law, an officer must advise a defendant of adverse consequences if they refuse roadsides tests. Here, the officer did not advise the defendant of any consequences so the refusal to perform field sobriety tests would have been excluded from evidence. Also, many of the observations the officer wrote in his reports were contradicted by he video tape. | |
| Result: | The State Dropped the Defendant's Second 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.