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

Jan 20, 2020 Case: 18-036103MU10A Judge Solomon
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding, running a red light, and running a stop sign. Officers smelled an odor of alcohol as well as an odor of marijuana. They observed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He performed very poorly on the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath and urine tests.
Defense: The defendant suffers from ADHD, whereby many of the characteristics he exhibits mirror the effects of alcohol impairment. Despite the fact that the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were less than perfect, the defendant's medical history proved as a good explanation for the impairment. The State dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 14, 2020 Case: 19-021210MU10A Judge Pole
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. He also noticed the defendant swaying. The defendant had a flushed face and difficulty locating his registration, which was in his hand. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video was inconsistent with the police reports and testimony of the officer. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 14, 2020 Case: 19-021210MU10A Judge Pole
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. He also noticed the defendant swaying. The defendant had a flushed face and difficulty locating his registration, which was in his hand. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video was inconsistent with the police reports and testimony of the officer. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 10, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-011168 Judge Harper for Cunningham
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash at a fast food restaurant parking lot. He fled the scene and went back to his neighborhood. The tag on his vehicle was run after police were called and they tracked him down. He was sitting on the ground next to the vehicle in question. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred/not understandable speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was unsteady, lethargic, and very argumentative. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident and willfully refusing to sign the DUI citation.
Defense: Parks and Braxton pointed out to the State that the victim of the alleged crash stated that the truck was red in the 911 call. However, the truck the defendant was found sitting next to was blue. Thus, the caller's credibility about being able to actually ID the defendant as the driver was called into question. We also provided pictures to the State showing no damage. Thus, there was no "accident" as defined by case law. Therefore, the defendant could not have left the scene of an accident. If there was no actual crash initially as defined by the case law, the defendant was then being unlawfully detained by the police. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed all the other charges.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 10, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-011168 Judge Harper for Cunningham
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash at a fast food restaurant parking lot. He fled the scene and went back to his neighborhood. The tag on his vehicle was run after police were called and they tracked him down. He was sitting on the ground next to the vehicle in question. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred/not understandable speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was unsteady, lethargic, and very argumentative. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident and willfully refusing to sign the DUI citation.
Defense: Parks and Braxton pointed out to the State that the victim of the alleged crash stated that the truck was red in the 911 call. However, the truck the defendant was found sitting next to was blue. Thus, the caller's credibility about being able to actually ID the defendant as the driver was called into question. We also provided pictures to the State showing no damage. Thus, there was no "accident" as defined by case law. Therefore, the defendant could not have left the scene of an accident. If there was no actual crash initially as defined by the case law, the defendant was then being unlawfully detained by the police. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed all the other charges.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 8, 2020 Case: 19-CT-007318 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver whereby he hit two parked cars. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He swayed as he stood and was not making any sense in his statements to police. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton provided pictures to the State of the defendant's windshield after the crash, showing it had been shattered. The defendant's head had slammed into the windshield. Thus any impairment could have been as equally attributable to the crash versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 8, 2020 Case: 19-CT-007318 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver whereby he hit two parked cars. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He swayed as he stood and was not making any sense in his statements to police. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton provided pictures to the State of the defendant's windshield after the crash, showing it had been shattered. The defendant's head had slammed into the windshield. Thus any impairment could have been as equally attributable to the crash versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-013350 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. His face was flushed, his dexterity poor, and he kept wetting his lips. He also had a flushed face and was unsteady. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer’s reports. The defendant did not appear unsteady and his speech appeared normal. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-003125 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and he admitted to having drank two cocktails. He then performed the field sobriety tests such as the one leg stand and walk and turn. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to request roadside tests. The officer must have specific facts that the defendant was impaired. A mere odor of alcohol is not enough with no erratic driving. Thus, all the roadside tests could have been excluded. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 19-CT-013229 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped after an officer said the defendant cut him off. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The officer exaggerated the level of impairment in the roadside reports as compared to the video tape. The State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 19-CT-002237 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant failed to yield the right of way and was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was slow and lethargic, and he also swayed back and forth. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .090 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Defense: The firm was able to show that the defendant's breath alcohol level was under the legal limit through a .02 margin of error. Also, the video contradicted the officer's reports as to the observations both before and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 19-CT-002237 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant failed to yield the right of way and was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was slow and lethargic, and he also swayed back and forth. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .090 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Defense: The firm was able to show that the defendant's breath alcohol level was under the legal limit through a .02 margin of error. Also, the video contradicted the officer's reports as to the observations both before and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-013350 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. His face was flushed, his dexterity poor, and he kept wetting his lips. He also had a flushed face and was unsteady. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer’s reports. The defendant did not appear unsteady and his speech appeared normal. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-003125 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and he admitted to having drank two cocktails. He then performed the field sobriety tests such as the one leg stand and walk and turn. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to request roadside tests. The officer must have specific facts that the defendant was impaired. A mere odor of alcohol is not enough with no erratic driving. Thus, all the roadside tests could have been excluded. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 19-CT-013229 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped after an officer said the defendant cut him off. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The officer exaggerated the level of impairment in the roadside reports as compared to the video tape. The State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-010703 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant crashed and rolled over his vehicle in the rain trying to avoid an object in the road. Police helped the defendant get out of the vehicle as it was upside down. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He swayed, appeared unsteady, and staggered. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The firm pointed out to the State that the defendant was injured from the crash. Any impairment such as speech issues and unsteadiness were as equally attributable to the severity of the crash versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-011579 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash in an intersection with another vehicle. The police alleged he ran a red light and the other vehicle had the right of way. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests to which he refused. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: The defendant obtained the DUI video tape in discovery. For some unexplained reason, the officer did not place the defendant in front of the patrol car dash camera during the entire DUI investigation. However, we could hear the defendant speaking and his speech sounded normal, not slurred. Also, he denied that he ran the red light and said that the other driver ran the red. The State Dropped the DUI just prior to trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-503372 Judge Gonzalez
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and driving east bound in the west bound lanes. The officer did not smell any alcohol but observed slurred speech. Believing she was impaired, she was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she did not walk heel to toe, stepped off the line multiple times, and was unsteady. On the one leg stand, she failed to count, used her arms for balance, and failed to keep her toe elevated. She was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: To prove DUI, the state must prove that the defendant was impaired by alcohol, and/or a controlled and/or chemical substance. Here, the defense filed a motion for statement of particulars to pin the State down as to their theory of prosecution. They could not prove what substance was allegedly impairing the defendant and the Second DUI was Dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-010703 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant crashed and rolled over his vehicle in the rain trying to avoid an object in the road. Police helped the defendant get out of the vehicle as it was upside down. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He swayed, appeared unsteady, and staggered. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The firm pointed out to the State that the defendant was injured from the crash. Any impairment such as speech issues and unsteadiness were as equally attributable to the severity of the crash versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-011579 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash in an intersection with another vehicle. The police alleged he ran a red light and the other vehicle had the right of way. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests to which he refused. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: The defendant obtained the DUI video tape in discovery. For some unexplained reason, the officer did not place the defendant in front of the patrol car dash camera during the entire DUI investigation. However, we could hear the defendant speaking and his speech sounded normal, not slurred. Also, he denied that he ran the red light and said that the other driver ran the red. The State Dropped the DUI just prior to trial.
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.