Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense

ALSO SERVING LEE, CHARLOTTE & ALL SOUTH WEST FLORIDA COUNTIES
Toll-Free
239.217.3723

Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays

Free Consultations
ALSO SERVING LEE, CHARLOTTE & ALL SOUTH WEST FLORIDA COUNTIES
Toll-Free
239.217.3723
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
Free Consultations
Call
Email
Map

OUR RECENT VICTORIES

Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-003375 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped by police after a call went out about a reckless driver. Upon contact, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. She performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense: When there is an anonymous call, not only must be it be specific, but officers must corroborate some type of driving pattern. Here, there was no specifics (i.e. reckless driving) and also no corroboration. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-020145 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped after a manager at a bar called police saying that the defendant was intoxicated and refused an Uber ride. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed while he stood and admitted to drinking. He was arrested for DUI after performing roadside tests. He later blew. a .129 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: There was no corroboration by the officer of any erratic driving pattern or intoxication based on the call. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-000309 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, dilated pupils, and watery eyes. He also was nonreactive to light and had unstable balance. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer's reports on numerous specifics on the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-003345 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also stated that she had drank 3 beers. After performing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew. a .097 and a .092 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm was able to take the defendant's breath results below the legal limit due to the .02 margin of error. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-003375 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped by police after a call went out about a reckless driver. Upon contact, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. She performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense: When there is an anonymous call, not only must be it be specific, but officers must corroborate some type of driving pattern. Here, there was no specifics (i.e. reckless driving) and also no corroboration. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-000303 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped after almost sideswiping an officer and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. After performing some field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: On tape, the officer kept interrupting the defendant. The firm pointed out that this is what caused the defendant's mishaps on the roadside tests, not any alcohol impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 27, 2020 Case: 20-CT-004083 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and fumbling fingers. He also had bloodshot eyes and a blank stare. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton was able to show that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI based on all the reports and video tape. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 21, 2020 Case: 19-CT-015915 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He also had bloodshot eyes and admitted to having drank whiskey and beer. After performing numerous roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .127 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) at the scene. Under Tharpe's Formula, if the officer does not get and angle of onset prior to 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes, he could have a breath alcohol level under the legal limit. Thus, the firm was able to show that the officer did not get an angle prior to 45 degrees and thus the defendant could have had a breath alcohol level under the legal limit at the time of driving. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 21, 2020 Case: 20-CT-003696 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, fumbling fingers, bloodshot eyes, and difficulty paying attention. The defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .084 and .084 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm pointed out to the State that there is .005 and .02 margin of error in the breath machine. Thus, the firm was able to place the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 21, 2020 Case: 20-CT-001077 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped after almost hitting a police car. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank two IPA beers. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .168 and a .162 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm was able to show that it was unclear who truly was at fault prior to the defendant being stopped. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 21, 2020 Case: 20-CT-003696 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped for having an expired tag. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, fumbling fingers, bloodshot eyes, and difficulty paying attention. The defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .084 and .084 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm pointed out to the State that there is .005 and .02 margin of error in the breath machine. Thus, the firm was able to place the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 21, 2020 Case: 20-CT-001077 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped after almost hitting a police car. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank two IPA beers. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .168 and a .162 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm was able to show that it was unclear who truly was at fault prior to the defendant being stopped. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 21, 2020 Case: 19-CT-015915 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He also had bloodshot eyes and admitted to having drank whiskey and beer. After performing numerous roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .127 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) at the scene. Under Tharpe's Formula, if the officer does not get and angle of onset prior to 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes, he could have a breath alcohol level under the legal limit. Thus, the firm was able to show that the officer did not get an angle prior to 45 degrees and thus the defendant could have had a breath alcohol level under the legal limit at the time of driving. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 15, 2020 Case: 20-CT-005321 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and an unsteady gait. After performing roadside tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense: The defendant never actually refused the breath test. She tried blowing into the machine numerous times. There was a problem with the machine. The control test solutions are supposed to be between .075 and .085. Here, a control test was .087. This could have led to higher breath result. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 15, 2020 Case: 20-CT-005321 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and an unsteady gait. After performing roadside tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense: The defendant never actually refused the breath test. She tried blowing into the machine numerous times. There was a problem with the machine. The control test solutions are supposed to be between .075 and .085. Here, a control test was .087. This could have led to higher breath result. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 13, 2020 Case: 20-CT-019386 Judge T. Brown
Facts: A concerned citizen called 911 stating that the defendant was unable to maintain a single lane of travel and was driving over the speed limit. Officers conducted a traffic stop and noticed the defendant to have slow/slurred speech, glassy eyes, and he was unsteady to the point of almost falling over. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the defendant then performed roadside tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: The State has to prove a defendant is impaired by a "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance to convict a defendant of DUI. Here, they they could not and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Oct 13, 2020 Case: 20-CT-019997 Judge Ingram
Facts: The defendant was stopped by police after a caller dialed 911 stating that the defendant was driving recklessly. Officers spotted the car driven by the defendant and observed her straddling the dashed lines. The officers did not detect an odor of alcohol, but observed the defendant to have mumbled/slurred speech, a flushed face, and she was slow and stumbling. She performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused to proved a urine sample.
Defense: The State could not prove by which specific chemical or controlled substance was impairing the defendant as required by Florida Statute 316.193. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 13, 2020 Case: 20-CT-019386 Judge T. Brown
Facts: A concerned citizen called 911 stating that the defendant was unable to maintain a single lane of travel and was driving over the speed limit. Officers conducted a traffic stop and noticed the defendant to have slow/slurred speech, glassy eyes, and he was unsteady to the point of almost falling over. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the defendant then performed roadside tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: The State has to prove a defendant is impaired by a "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance to convict a defendant of DUI. Here, they they could not and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Oct 13, 2020 Case: 20-CT-019997 Judge Ingram
Facts: The defendant was stopped by police after a caller dialed 911 stating that the defendant was driving recklessly. Officers spotted the car driven by the defendant and observed her straddling the dashed lines. The officers did not detect an odor of alcohol, but observed the defendant to have mumbled/slurred speech, a flushed face, and she was slow and stumbling. She performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused to proved a urine sample.
Defense: The State could not prove by which specific chemical or controlled substance was impairing the defendant as required by Florida Statute 316.193. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 8, 2020 Case: 20-CT-026307 Judge Peacock
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and a pale face. The defendant swayed, fumbled with his items, and was slow to respond to questions. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .128 and a .128 in the breath machine.
Defense: Due to vagueness of the defendant's alleged driving pattern as written in the police reports (i.e. the weaving), the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. 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. Get in touch with our firm by calling 239.217.3723, or fill out the form here.