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

Dec 7, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-012349 Judge Shepherd
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red bloodshot eyes, and there were partially consumed beers in the vehicle. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The firm pointed out to the State that any mishaps on the field sobriety tests were due to a language barrier between the defendant and the officer.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 5, 2018 Case: 18-CT-009730 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped because her passenger was hanging out of the window sitting on the door frame. The defendant was slow to stop her car, had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant stated she had drank "a little bit." According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: On video, it was clear that the officer had the defendant doing to roadside tests on a slope. Per NHTSA requirements, the tests are supposed to be conducted on a level area. Here, the officer administered them in violation of the NHTSA requirements.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 5, 2018 Case: 17-CT-017803 Judge Shepherd
Facts: The defendant was stopped for passing two cars and crossing over the double yellow lane markers into oncoming traffic. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, rapid/stuttered speech, and red/glassy eyes. He admitted to having consumed two beers and had an orbital sway. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, he mixed up the letters while stating the alphabet. On the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps and walked normal instead of heel to toe as instructed. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and swayed. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: At trial, during cross examination, the firm was able to get the officer to state that he had no independent recollection of any specific facts without referring to his reports. The firm also got the officer to admit on the stand that he didn't even know the actual DUI law, that one's normal faculties have to be impaired. The officer testified that the law as he understood it was that it is illegal to simply drink and drive. Also, on cross examination, firm got the officer to admit that he incorrectly instructed the defendant on the walk and turn. In the middle of cross examination, as the officer's credibility was being called into question and a recess was taken. The State then Dropped the DUI in the middle of trial and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 5, 2018 Case: 18-CT-009730 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped because her passenger was hanging out of the window sitting on the door frame. The defendant was slow to stop her car, had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant stated she had drank "a little bit." According to the officer, she failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: On video, it was clear that the officer had the defendant doing to roadside tests on a slope. Per NHTSA requirements, the tests are supposed to be conducted on a level area. Here, the officer administered them in violation of the NHTSA requirements.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 5, 2018 Case: 17-CT-017803 Judge Shepherd
Facts: The defendant was stopped for passing two cars and crossing over the double yellow lane markers into oncoming traffic. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, rapid/stuttered speech, and red/glassy eyes. He admitted to having consumed two beers and had an orbital sway. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, he mixed up the letters while stating the alphabet. On the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps and walked normal instead of heel to toe as instructed. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and swayed. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: At trial, during cross examination, the firm was able to get the officer to state that he had no independent recollection of any specific facts without referring to his reports. The firm also got the officer to admit on the stand that he didn't even know the actual DUI law, that one's normal faculties have to be impaired. The officer testified that the law as he understood it was that it is illegal to simply drink and drive. Also, on cross examination, firm got the officer to admit that he incorrectly instructed the defendant on the walk and turn. In the middle of cross examination, as the officer's credibility was being called into question and a recess was taken. The State then Dropped the DUI in the middle of trial and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 3, 2018 Case: 18-CT-001418 Judge Caraballo
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. There, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also appeared confused and admitted to having drank vodka. The police asked for a blood sample and she refused. She was then charged with DUI.
Defense: In order to ask for blood, one exception is that the breath test must be impracticable and/or impossible. Here, there was no showing as to any time frame as to how long the defendant was going to be released to get her to the station or jail for a breath test. Thus, the police had no lawful right to request a blood test and the defendant's refusal would have been inadmissible.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 3, 2018 Case: 18-CT-001418 Judge Caraballo
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. There, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also appeared confused and admitted to having drank vodka. The police asked for a blood sample and she refused. She was then charged with DUI.
Defense: In order to ask for blood, one exception is that the breath test must be impracticable and/or impossible. Here, there was no showing as to any time frame as to how long the defendant was going to be released to get her to the station or jail for a breath test. Thus, the police had no lawful right to request a blood test and the defendant's refusal would have been inadmissible.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 30, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-009117 Judge Eissey
Facts: Police were notified after a Duffy's employee notified them that there was an intoxicated male leaving the establishment who had just fallen and hit his head. Police located the defendant who was the person in question and stopped his vehicle. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having drank wine. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: In order to stop a vehicle based on a tip such as the one in question, there must be other specific facts from the caller other than a simple conclusory statement such as an "intoxicated male." Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 30, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-009117 Judge Eissey
Facts: Police were notified after a Duffy's employee notified them that there was an intoxicated male leaving the establishment who had just fallen and hit his head. Police located the defendant who was the person in question and stopped his vehicle. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having drank wine. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: In order to stop a vehicle based on a tip such as the one in question, there must be other specific facts from the caller other than a simple conclusory statement such as an "intoxicated male." Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 29, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-028475 Judge Babb
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a red light and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and the defendant admitted to having drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests which were not videotaped. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Just prior to trial, the defense presented evidence to the State about the defendant's prior injuries to his knees. He had surgeries and had titanium in one leg. This evidence showed that any balance issues that the defendant had on the field sobriety tests could have been as easily due to his injuries versus alcohol.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 29, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-028475 Judge Babb
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a red light and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and the defendant admitted to having drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests which were not videotaped. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Just prior to trial, the defense presented evidence to the State about the defendant's prior injuries to his knees. He had surgeries and had titanium in one leg. This evidence showed that any balance issues that the defendant had on the field sobriety tests could have been as easily due to his injuries versus alcohol.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 13, 2018 Case: 15-14807MU10A Judge Carpenter-Toye
Facts: The defendant was stopped after he was observed driving into the middle of an intersection which had a red light. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/red eyes, and he admitted to having consumed three vodka and cranberry cocktails. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down numerous times, swayed, and counted incorrectly. On the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, stepped off the line, and took an incorrect number of steps. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was "coerced" into performing the otherwise voluntary tests. The Judge granted the motion and excluded all the roadsides from evidence. The State then appealed, however, the firm defended the Judge's ruling and won on appeal. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 13, 2018 Case: 18-CT-502448 Judge M. Gonzalez
Facts: The defendant was stopped after he ran a stop sign causing other traffic to have to brake to avoid a crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he stated that he had "drank a few at home." The defendant's speech was mumbled, he swayed, and he used the car door for balance. He then performed very poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and did not touch heel to toe. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: A defendant can not be coerced into performing field sobriety exercises which are voluntary and not lawfully required by statute. Here, the officer made it clear to the defendant that if he did not perform the roadside tasks, he would be immediately arrested. This was pointed out to the State by the firm. The State agreed that the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 13, 2018 Case: 15-14807MU10A Judge Carpenter-Toye
Facts: The defendant was stopped after he was observed driving into the middle of an intersection which had a red light. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/red eyes, and he admitted to having consumed three vodka and cranberry cocktails. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down numerous times, swayed, and counted incorrectly. On the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, stepped off the line, and took an incorrect number of steps. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was "coerced" into performing the otherwise voluntary tests. The Judge granted the motion and excluded all the roadsides from evidence. The State then appealed, however, the firm defended the Judge's ruling and won on appeal. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 13, 2018 Case: 18-CT-502448 Judge M. Gonzalez
Facts: The defendant was stopped after he ran a stop sign causing other traffic to have to brake to avoid a crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he stated that he had "drank a few at home." The defendant's speech was mumbled, he swayed, and he used the car door for balance. He then performed very poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and did not touch heel to toe. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: A defendant can not be coerced into performing field sobriety exercises which are voluntary and not lawfully required by statute. Here, the officer made it clear to the defendant that if he did not perform the roadside tasks, he would be immediately arrested. This was pointed out to the State by the firm. The State agreed that the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 8, 2018 Case: 18-CT-5271 Judge Lefler
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers and he let the officer perform the HGN (eye test) on him. He refused to perform all other field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The firm pointed out that the officer's reports contradicted each other. For example, in one report he wrote that he observed slurred speech versus the other whereby he failed to check the slurred speech box.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 8, 2018 Case: 18-CT-6782 Judge Lefler
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and speeding. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant used the door for balance, swayed as he stood, and he admitted to having drank 5 beers. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer's written reports. For example, on the videotape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance. The high level of impairment on the field sobriety tests that he wrote about did not equate to the defendant's performance on the video tape.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 8, 2018 Case: 18-CT-5271 Judge Lefler
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers and he let the officer perform the HGN (eye test) on him. He refused to perform all other field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The firm pointed out that the officer's reports contradicted each other. For example, in one report he wrote that he observed slurred speech versus the other whereby he failed to check the slurred speech box.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 8, 2018 Case: 18-CT-6782 Judge Lefler
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and speeding. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant used the door for balance, swayed as he stood, and he admitted to having drank 5 beers. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer's written reports. For example, on the videotape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance. The high level of impairment on the field sobriety tests that he wrote about did not equate to the defendant's performance on the video tape.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 6, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-001432 Judge Alessandroni
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/deliberate movements, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant appeared confused and admitted to having drank wine. The defendant agreed to perform field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .144 and a .139 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, it was brought to the State's attention that the defendant had many prior hip issues which caused her to appear off balance and have difficulty with the field sobriety exercise. In addition, there was no sound on the videotape and the defendant can be seen over and over pointing to her hip.
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.