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 19, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-002612-WH Judge Grode
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights and swerving. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he admitted to having a few drinks. He was unsteady, staggered, and had slurred speech. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: There was no video, so the case came down to the officer's word. During a pretrial investigation by the firm of the arresting officer, it was uncovered he had been arrested and charged with a felony. This was discussed with the State, even though it had not been disclosed by the stste, and the defense set the case for trial. The defendant was advised and agreed not to plead to anything and take the case to trial. Once the case was set for trial, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Oct 18, 2018 Case: A96EC3E Judge Riba
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed her to have slurred/mumbled speech, a dazed/confused look, and watery eyes. The defendant's pupils were contracted and she went through mood swings. The defendant had no odor of alcohol, but admitted to being prescribed Ritalin. She was unsteady, almost fell over, and she performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DUI and later provided a urine sample which tested positive for Ritalin.
Defense: Prior to trial, the firm provided proof to the State that she was prescribed that medication and that she had not taken it that day. The effects of not taking the medication that day as required, caused the impairment, not the drug itself.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 18, 2018 Case: A96EC3E Judge Riba
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed her to have slurred/mumbled speech, a dazed/confused look, and watery eyes. The defendant's pupils were contracted and she went through mood swings. The defendant had no odor of alcohol, but admitted to being prescribed Ritalin. She was unsteady, almost fell over, and she performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DUI and later provided a urine sample which tested positive for Ritalin.
Defense: Prior to trial, the firm provided proof to the State that she was prescribed that medication and that she had not taken it that day. The effects of not taking the medication that day as required, caused the impairment, not the drug itself.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 16, 2018 Case: 18-CT-501546 Judge George
Facts: The defendant was stopped after being observed driving all over the road. He crossed over lane markers and drove on the grass. The officer observed the defendant to have a "fruity odor" and his eyes were droopy and bloodshot. He was unbalanced and had a confused/delayed demeanor. The defendant then performed poorly on roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Under Florida law, to be convicted of DUl, one must be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the officer could only smell a "fruity odor" which he believed to be some type of alcohol. However, based on odor alone, he could not state what specifically the defendant had to drink, when he had his last drink, or even how much. Thus, the State could not prove he was impaired by an "alcoholic beverage" as the DUI Statute requires.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 16, 2018 Case: 18-CT-501546 Judge George
Facts: The defendant was stopped after being observed driving all over the road. He crossed over lane markers and drove on the grass. The officer observed the defendant to have a "fruity odor" and his eyes were droopy and bloodshot. He was unbalanced and had a confused/delayed demeanor. The defendant then performed poorly on roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: Under Florida law, to be convicted of DUl, one must be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the officer could only smell a "fruity odor" which he believed to be some type of alcohol. However, based on odor alone, he could not state what specifically the defendant had to drink, when he had his last drink, or even how much. Thus, the State could not prove he was impaired by an "alcoholic beverage" as the DUI Statute requires.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 12, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-9566 Judge Harper
Facts: The defendant was found passed out in his car by police. They observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and he was very unsteady. The defendant was unable to formulate a sentence and he could not remember where he had come from. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control because he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 12, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-9566 Judge Harper
Facts: The defendant was found passed out in his car by police. They observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and he was very unsteady. The defendant was unable to formulate a sentence and he could not remember where he had come from. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control because he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 10, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-010668 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant appeared sleepy and had a flushed face. He then performed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .126 and a .130 in the breath machine.
Defense: There were numerous inconsistencies in the trooper's reports which were brought to the attention of the State. Since there was no video tape, and he never even called for one, his credibility was now in question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 10, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-010668 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant appeared sleepy and had a flushed face. He then performed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .126 and a .130 in the breath machine.
Defense: There were numerous inconsistencies in the trooper's reports which were brought to the attention of the State. Since there was no video tape, and he never even called for one, his credibility was now in question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 9, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-006859 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking beer. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and was off balance on the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and stumbled. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: Here, the driving pattern was very vaguely described. It was unclear how many times he weaved, over how long of a distance, and the amount of time. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 9, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-006859 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking beer. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and was off balance on the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and stumbled. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: Here, the driving pattern was very vaguely described. It was unclear how many times he weaved, over how long of a distance, and the amount of time. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-006084 Judge Shoemaker
Facts: The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane and speeding. Once stopped, officers observed him to have an odor of alcohol, he admitted to consuming 4 beers, and had glassy eyes. The defendant had trouble answering simple questions and appeared dazed. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and a .185 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with the State. We pointed out various inconsistencies in the officer’s reports. Since there was no video, his credibility was now called into question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2018 Case: 2017-MM-001277APK Judge Hamilton
Facts: A BOLO (be on the lookout) for the defendant and his vehicle was issued after a person reported him stumbling around his truck and appearing intoxicated prior to driving. After the defendant drove off, another person observed him driving all over the road. A deputy spotted the defendant and his vehicle as he was parked on the side of the road. The officer activated his emergency lights and made contact with the defendant. He observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. His face was flushed and his eyelids were droopy. The defendant stumbled and almost fell while outside his truck. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: In order to conduct a traffic stop based on the above tip, there must be corroboration of that tip. Here, the officer never observed any driving and activated his lights, thus detaining him illegally.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-008549 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he lost his balance during the instructions, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, used his arms for balance, and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on the videotape, the officer misstated the law as to the defendant's obligation to perform the voluntary exercises. Prior to arguing the motion, the State was provided the case law and agreed the officer coerced the defendant into performing them. Thus, all the roadside evidence would have been excluded.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2018 Case: 2017-MM-001277APK Judge Hamilton
Facts: A BOLO (be on the lookout) for the defendant and his vehicle was issued after a person reported him stumbling around his truck and appearing intoxicated prior to driving. After the defendant drove off, another person observed him driving all over the road. A deputy spotted the defendant and his vehicle as he was parked on the side of the road. The officer activated his emergency lights and made contact with the defendant. He observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. His face was flushed and his eyelids were droopy. The defendant stumbled and almost fell while outside his truck. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: In order to conduct a traffic stop based on the above tip, there must be corroboration of that tip. Here, the officer never observed any driving and activated his lights, thus detaining him illegally.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-008549 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he lost his balance during the instructions, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the turn. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down, used his arms for balance, and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on the videotape, the officer misstated the law as to the defendant's obligation to perform the voluntary exercises. Prior to arguing the motion, the State was provided the case law and agreed the officer coerced the defendant into performing them. Thus, all the roadside evidence would have been excluded.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 4, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-006084 Judge Shoemaker
Facts: The defendant was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane and speeding. Once stopped, officers observed him to have an odor of alcohol, he admitted to consuming 4 beers, and had glassy eyes. The defendant had trouble answering simple questions and appeared dazed. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and a .185 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with the State. We pointed out various inconsistencies in the officer’s reports. Since there was no video, his credibility was now called into question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 1, 2018 Case: 18-CT-502148 Judge Paluck
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Once contact was made, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to consuming beer. He also admitted to having taken numerous controlled substances prescribed to him. He then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He was then arrested for DUI. He took a breath test and blew a. 134 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: The defendant's performance on the videotaped roadside tests clearly showed that the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Oct 1, 2018 Case: 18-CT-502148 Judge Paluck
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Once contact was made, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to consuming beer. He also admitted to having taken numerous controlled substances prescribed to him. He then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He was then arrested for DUI. He took a breath test and blew a. 134 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense: The defendant's performance on the videotaped roadside tests clearly showed that the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 27, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-019665 Judge Koenig
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving and driving under the speed limit. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, a flushed face, and his eyes were bloodshot. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He performed poorly on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .107 in the breath machine.
Defense: Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted on a well lit and level surface according the NHTSA manual. Here, the defendant was given the exercises on a dark and very visibly sloped road. It was evident that a mishaps on the exercise were from the conditions, and not alcohol. The defendant can even be seen pointing to the road and its slope while conversing with the officer. This was discussed with the prosecutor.
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.