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

Sep 13, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-021284 Judge Koenig
Facts: The defendant was involved in a hit and run accident. When officers found him, he was inside his house and he eventually came out to speak to them. He had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was very unsteady to the point of stumbling and staggering. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Under Florida law, one must be under the influence of alcohol "at the time of driving" to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove that he was under the influence while driving because he could have drank while he was in his house.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 11, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-003481 Judge Nimeth
Facts: The defendant was found passed out by officers in the parking lot of a hotel. Upon contact, the officer noticed mumbling speech, he appeared sleepy and dazed, and he admitted to consuming one beer (no odor of alcohol was observed ). He used the car for support and a beer was found in the car. The officer, believing he was impaired by alcohol, then had him perform field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI. He later took a breath test. Due to the breath alcohol level not being consistent with the impairment level that the officer observed, a DRE (drug recognition officer) was called in. The defendant then submitted to a full DRE drug exam. The defendant admitted to being a pot smoker and also taking some unknown white pill. He also provided a urine sample which came back from FDLE positive for marijuana.
Defense: Parks & Braxton brought several contradictions between the arresting officer and the DRE officer to the attention of the prosecutor. For one, the officer at the scene got no nystagmus prior to 45 degrees on the HGN (eye test) versus the DRE officer at the station got nystagmus prior to the 45 degrees. This is important because the DRE officer concluded that the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, and NOT marijuana which is the substance he tested positive for at FDLE. An officer wont see nystagmus prior to 45 degrees if under the influence of marijuana. The DRE was wrong. The firm then requested the state to disclose which "specific" controlled substance the state was going to argue that the defendant was impaired by as required by law. They could not and the DUI was dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Sep 11, 2019 Case: 19-CT-004194 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving and driving too slow. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and diminished dexterity. He also appeared disoriented, had glassy/watery eyes, and unsteady balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. Upon being asked to provide a breath test, the defendant refused and stated, "I ain’t providing you shit."
Defense: The observations that the officer wrote in his report were contradicted by the videotape. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dropped.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 11, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-003481 Judge Nimeth
Facts: The defendant was found passed out by officers in the parking lot of a hotel. Upon contact, the officer noticed mumbling speech, he appeared sleepy and dazed, and he admitted to consuming one beer (no odor of alcohol was observed ). He used the car for support and a beer was found in the car. The officer, believing he was impaired by alcohol, then had him perform field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI. He later took a breath test. Due to the breath alcohol level not being consistent with the impairment level that the officer observed, a DRE (drug recognition officer) was called in. The defendant then submitted to a full DRE drug exam. The defendant admitted to being a pot smoker and also taking some unknown white pill. He also provided a urine sample which came back from FDLE positive for marijuana.
Defense: Parks & Braxton brought several contradictions between the arresting officer and the DRE officer to the attention of the prosecutor. For one, the officer at the scene got no nystagmus prior to 45 degrees on the HGN (eye test) versus the DRE officer at the station got nystagmus prior to the 45 degrees. This is important because the DRE officer concluded that the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, and NOT marijuana which is the substance he tested positive for at FDLE. An officer wont see nystagmus prior to 45 degrees if under the influence of marijuana. The DRE was wrong. The firm then requested the state to disclose which "specific" controlled substance the state was going to argue that the defendant was impaired by as required by law. They could not and the DUI was dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Sep 11, 2019 Case: 19-CT-004194 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving and driving too slow. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and diminished dexterity. He also appeared disoriented, had glassy/watery eyes, and unsteady balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. Upon being asked to provide a breath test, the defendant refused and stated, "I ain’t providing you shit."
Defense: The observations that the officer wrote in his report were contradicted by the videotape. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dropped.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-025238 Judge T. Brown
Facts: The defendant was stopped for drifting and driving too slow. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and the defendant had difficulty locating his paperwork. His speech was slurred, he had a flushed face, and he swayed. After performing the roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .132 and a .129 in the breath machine.
Defense: During the short distance and time frame that the officer followed the defendant, his alleged drifting did not affect other traffic and neither did his driving too slow for conditions. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-025238 Judge T. Brown
Facts: The defendant was stopped for drifting and driving too slow. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and the defendant had difficulty locating his paperwork. His speech was slurred, he had a flushed face, and he swayed. After performing the roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .132 and a .129 in the breath machine.
Defense: During the short distance and time frame that the officer followed the defendant, his alleged drifting did not affect other traffic and neither did his driving too slow for conditions. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 28, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-002266 Judge Rada
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and mumbling speech. He was slow in his movements and he admitted to drinking wine. After refusing to do roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video contradicted the reports. For example, his speech was not mumbled and he wasn't moving slow. The State, after negotiations, Dropped the DUI short of going to trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 28, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-002266 Judge Rada
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and mumbling speech. He was slow in his movements and he admitted to drinking wine. After refusing to do roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video contradicted the reports. For example, his speech was not mumbled and he wasn't moving slow. The State, after negotiations, Dropped the DUI short of going to trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 27, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-000772AX Judge Henderson
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he fumbled with his documents. He had slurred/mumbled speech and he dropped his wallet on the ground. He also swayed and moved slow. After performing the roadside tasks such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .141 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer's reports and clearly showed that the defendant's level of impairment was consistent with someone who was lower than .141 at the time of driving. To prove DUI, one has to be "driving" with an unlawful breath alcohol level.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 27, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-000772AX Judge Henderson
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he fumbled with his documents. He had slurred/mumbled speech and he dropped his wallet on the ground. He also swayed and moved slow. After performing the roadside tasks such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .141 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer's reports and clearly showed that the defendant's level of impairment was consistent with someone who was lower than .141 at the time of driving. To prove DUI, one has to be "driving" with an unlawful breath alcohol level.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 26, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-027913 Judge Atkin
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, slurred speech, and he was slow in his movements. He swayed while he stood and admitted to having consumed whiskey with water. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .109 and a .112 in the breath machine.
Defense: The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question as the alleged weaving did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying pulling him over.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 26, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-027913 Judge Atkin
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, slurred speech, and he was slow in his movements. He swayed while he stood and admitted to having consumed whiskey with water. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .109 and a .112 in the breath machine.
Defense: The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question as the alleged weaving did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying pulling him over.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 19, 2019 Case: A9EVMRE Judge Mckuyton
Facts: The defendant was found inside his car and he was in the driver's seat parked against a curb. His car was facing in the wrong direction which is an infraction. The officer had the defendant roll his window down. The officer then noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. He admitted to having consumed 3 beers and then performed field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .127 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: There was insufficient reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. not enough specific articulable facts other than odor and bloodshot eyes) to justify the initial detention of the defendant. Thus, if the initial detention was unlawful, all of the roadside tests and breath test would be excluded from evidence.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 19, 2019 Case: A9EVMRE Judge Mckuyton
Facts: The defendant was found inside his car and he was in the driver's seat parked against a curb. His car was facing in the wrong direction which is an infraction. The officer had the defendant roll his window down. The officer then noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. He admitted to having consumed 3 beers and then performed field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .127 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: There was insufficient reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. not enough specific articulable facts other than odor and bloodshot eyes) to justify the initial detention of the defendant. Thus, if the initial detention was unlawful, all of the roadside tests and breath test would be excluded from evidence.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 14, 2019 Case: 2019-CM-005082 Judge Smith
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. She had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She swayed while she stood and made conflicting statements. She performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She was also charged with possession of pot which was found in the car after her arrest.
Defense: The officer made the defendant out to be more impaired in his reports than she appeared on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the possession of pot charge was dismissed.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 14, 2019 Case: 2019-CM-005082 Judge Smith
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. She had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She swayed while she stood and made conflicting statements. She performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She was also charged with possession of pot which was found in the car after her arrest.
Defense: The officer made the defendant out to be more impaired in his reports than she appeared on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the possession of pot charge was dismissed.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 13, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-001499 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was found passed out by police. His car was in a turning lane. Upon awakening the defendant, he had an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/red eyes. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video of the defendant contradicted the officer's reports as to the extent of the alleged impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 13, 2019 Case: 2018-CT-009675 Judge Pattey
Facts: An officer was doing a routine safety check at a rest area. An unnamed person drove up to the officer and asked if he was looking for the driver of the car that was parked on the grass. He also told the officer the the individual in question (i.e. the defendant) seemed highly intoxicated and was stumbling around. The officer then saw the defendant stumbling around the parking lot toward his patrol car. The officer made contact and observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was very off balance. The defendant stated he had drank a half bottle of whiskey and was stopping to get a drink of water and sleep it off. He admitted to being the driver of the vehicle parked on the grass. He was then requested to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI . He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. The first alleged that the arrest was unlawful under 901.15 of the Florida Statutes. In short, it states that when there is no crash, the officer must observe all elements of the misdemeanor. Here, a DUI, the officer must have observed the defendant behind the wheel. An officer cannot rely on a civilian when there is no crash. Thus, the arrest was unlawful. The firm also filed a motion to exclude all of the defendant's statements about being the driver. Since the officer never got the witness's name, the person was anonymous. Thus, since there was no way to call him into court, his statements would be inadmissible hearsay and excluded from evidence. Under the doctrine of corpus delicti, the State must produce substantial evidence that the defendant was the driver other than his own admissions. Here, there was none. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 13, 2019 Case: 2018-CT-009675 Judge Pattey
Facts: An officer was doing a routine safety check at a rest area. An unnamed person drove up to the officer and asked if he was looking for the driver of the car that was parked on the grass. He also told the officer the the individual in question (i.e. the defendant) seemed highly intoxicated and was stumbling around. The officer then saw the defendant stumbling around the parking lot toward his patrol car. The officer made contact and observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was very off balance. The defendant stated he had drank a half bottle of whiskey and was stopping to get a drink of water and sleep it off. He admitted to being the driver of the vehicle parked on the grass. He was then requested to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI . He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. The first alleged that the arrest was unlawful under 901.15 of the Florida Statutes. In short, it states that when there is no crash, the officer must observe all elements of the misdemeanor. Here, a DUI, the officer must have observed the defendant behind the wheel. An officer cannot rely on a civilian when there is no crash. Thus, the arrest was unlawful. The firm also filed a motion to exclude all of the defendant's statements about being the driver. Since the officer never got the witness's name, the person was anonymous. Thus, since there was no way to call him into court, his statements would be inadmissible hearsay and excluded from evidence. Under the doctrine of corpus delicti, the State must produce substantial evidence that the defendant was the driver other than his own admissions. Here, there was none. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
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.