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

May 16, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-001171 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: A civilian flagged down an officer and told them that a vehicle driven by the defendant had been drifting all over the road. The officer then followed the defendant and observed weaving. He then conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and the defendant stated he had been drinking beer while playing golf. After performing field sobriety exercises on tape, the defendant was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video tape in the case contradicted the officer's written reports as to the alleged level of impairment prior to and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 16, 2018 Case: 17-015788MU10A Judge Gottlieb
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/incoherent speech, and she fumbled with her items. The defendant was very argumentative with the officers. She then performed the field sobriety exercises. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line, did not touch heel to toe, and made an improper turn. On the one leg stand, she raised her arms for balance, swayed, and did not count as instructed. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: The firm took a lengthy pretrial sworn deposition of the arresting officer. During questioning, the officer contradicted her police reports and could not remember many important details about the facts of the case. After the State read the depo and realized that their officer's credibility was called into question, they Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 16, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-001171 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: A civilian flagged down an officer and told them that a vehicle driven by the defendant had been drifting all over the road. The officer then followed the defendant and observed weaving. He then conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and the defendant stated he had been drinking beer while playing golf. After performing field sobriety exercises on tape, the defendant was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video tape in the case contradicted the officer's written reports as to the alleged level of impairment prior to and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 14, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-504418 Judge Hayward
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. His face was flushed and he appeared to speak incoherently. There was also damage to both his side passenger tires as if he had just hit something. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: A breath test can only be offered after one is arrested for DUI. In this case, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior to placing him under arrest. Thus, his refusal to take a breath test was inadmissible under law. This was brought to the State's attention. They agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 14, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-504418 Judge Hayward
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. His face was flushed and he appeared to speak incoherently. There was also damage to both his side passenger tires as if he had just hit something. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: A breath test can only be offered after one is arrested for DUI. In this case, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior to placing him under arrest. Thus, his refusal to take a breath test was inadmissible under law. This was brought to the State's attention. They agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 10, 2018 Case: A6MLM4E Judge Riba
Facts: The defendant was stopped for stopping past the stop bar, fishtailing and driving at a high rate of speed. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. He swayed while he stood and his dexterity was unsure. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .099 and a .101 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton provided documentation to the prosecutor showing that the defendant's both breath test results were under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving as required by Florida law. This is called retrograde extrapolation. We also pointed out that due to the .02 margin of error in the machine, the .099 could have also been as low as a .079 (under the legal limit).
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 10, 2018 Case: A6MLM4E Judge Riba
Facts: The defendant was stopped for stopping past the stop bar, fishtailing and driving at a high rate of speed. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. He swayed while he stood and his dexterity was unsure. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .099 and a .101 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton provided documentation to the prosecutor showing that the defendant's both breath test results were under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving as required by Florida law. This is called retrograde extrapolation. We also pointed out that due to the .02 margin of error in the machine, the .099 could have also been as low as a .079 (under the legal limit).
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 8, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-041683 Judge T. Brown
Facts: The defendant was stopped after being observed driving on a sidewalk area. Upon contact, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech, she stated she had drank 3 glasses of wine, and that she was lost. She exited the vehicle slowly and used the door for assistance. She walked slow and swayed while she stood. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was then arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense: Prior to trial, the defense attempted to obtain the in-car video camera of the incident. It was learned that there was an alleged problem with the upload of the video and it could not be retrieved. The defendant had stated that if that video had been retrieved, it would contradict all of the officer's observations and allegations in the police reports. Due to that evidence being exculpatory (meaning favorable to the defendant), the firm contacted the State about the destruction of that critical piece of evidence. Prior to filing any motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 8, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-041683 Judge T. Brown
Facts: The defendant was stopped after being observed driving on a sidewalk area. Upon contact, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech, she stated she had drank 3 glasses of wine, and that she was lost. She exited the vehicle slowly and used the door for assistance. She walked slow and swayed while she stood. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was then arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense: Prior to trial, the defense attempted to obtain the in-car video camera of the incident. It was learned that there was an alleged problem with the upload of the video and it could not be retrieved. The defendant had stated that if that video had been retrieved, it would contradict all of the officer's observations and allegations in the police reports. Due to that evidence being exculpatory (meaning favorable to the defendant), the firm contacted the State about the destruction of that critical piece of evidence. Prior to filing any motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 4, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-050521 Judge Ingram
Facts: The defendant was found by a security guard sleeping in her car in a 7-11 parking lot. The security guard woke her up and told her she could not sleep there. She then started her car and drove off. The security guard had noticed an odor of alcohol and called police. When police arrived, they conducted a traffic stop. Police observed an odor of alcohol, confused/mumbled speech, and she stumbled. She also swayed and used her car for balance. She performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. She was then arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and Second for subsequent refusal to provide a breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime for the police to conduct the traffic stop. At the motion, the firm argued that a "mere odor of alcohol" was not enough to evidence to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. After reviewing the case law, hearing testimony, and hearing argument of counsel, the Judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The State then Dismissed all charges.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
May 4, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-020744 Judge Bryson
Facts: The defendant was stopped after a unknown civilian called the police saying that the defendant was driving on a rim with sparks flying in the air. Police spotted the defendant and conducted a traffic stop. Once stopped, officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and lethargic movements. He swayed, appeared unsteady, and had a flushed face. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and .184 in the breath machine.
Defense: When an anonymous person provides information, the tip must be corroborated by the stopping officer. In this case, while the defendant was driving on a rim, the evidence was clear that there were no sparks. Absent the sparks, the state could not prove that the defendant was stopped lawfully.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 4, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-020744 Judge Bryson
Facts: The defendant was stopped after a unknown civilian called the police saying that the defendant was driving on a rim with sparks flying in the air. Police spotted the defendant and conducted a traffic stop. Once stopped, officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and lethargic movements. He swayed, appeared unsteady, and had a flushed face. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .194 and .184 in the breath machine.
Defense: When an anonymous person provides information, the tip must be corroborated by the stopping officer. In this case, while the defendant was driving on a rim, the evidence was clear that there were no sparks. Absent the sparks, the state could not prove that the defendant was stopped lawfully.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 4, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-050521 Judge Ingram
Facts: The defendant was found by a security guard sleeping in her car in a 7-11 parking lot. The security guard woke her up and told her she could not sleep there. She then started her car and drove off. The security guard had noticed an odor of alcohol and called police. When police arrived, they conducted a traffic stop. Police observed an odor of alcohol, confused/mumbled speech, and she stumbled. She also swayed and used her car for balance. She performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. She was then arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and Second for subsequent refusal to provide a breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime for the police to conduct the traffic stop. At the motion, the firm argued that a "mere odor of alcohol" was not enough to evidence to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. After reviewing the case law, hearing testimony, and hearing argument of counsel, the Judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The State then Dismissed all charges.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
May 2, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-2268 Judge Crown
Facts: Police were called after the defendant was kicked out of a hotel for being drunk and staying past check out. When police found him, he was found passed out in his car with the engine on in the hotel parking lot. He had an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, vomit on his shirt, and he was unsteady. A bottle of Vodka was found in the defendant's car. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: When the defendant was kicked out the hotel, he had nowhere else to go. If he stayed on the property, he would have been arrested for trespassing. If he walked down the road and left his car, he could have been arrested for public intoxication and had his car towed. He did the smartest and safest thing to do, not drive and sleep in his car. Legally, the State couldn't prove he ever drove, nor that he was he in "actual physical control" as he had "no capability" of operating the car since he was sleeping. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusal to perform the field sobriety tests.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
May 2, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-2268 Judge Crown
Facts: Police were called after the defendant was kicked out of a hotel for being drunk and staying past check out. When police found him, he was found passed out in his car with the engine on in the hotel parking lot. He had an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, vomit on his shirt, and he was unsteady. A bottle of Vodka was found in the defendant's car. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: When the defendant was kicked out the hotel, he had nowhere else to go. If he stayed on the property, he would have been arrested for trespassing. If he walked down the road and left his car, he could have been arrested for public intoxication and had his car towed. He did the smartest and safest thing to do, not drive and sleep in his car. Legally, the State couldn't prove he ever drove, nor that he was he in "actual physical control" as he had "no capability" of operating the car since he was sleeping. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusal to perform the field sobriety tests.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-022073 Judge Harper
Facts: The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and almost hitting a median. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant exhibited balance issues and admitted to drinking that night. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew .177 and .158 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. We pointed out that there are no specifics of how the defendant failed to maintain a single lane. For example, lack of specificity about the distance of swerving, how many times, and time frame. Due to the stop being potentially unlawful and the State losing all the evidence, the State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-022970 Judge Harper
Facts: The defendant was rear ended by another vehicle. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he appeared confused, and had slurred speech. His eyes were glossy and he admitted to drinking beers. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .194 and .189 in the breath machine.
Defense: Here, the defendant was the one who got rear ended. He called the police to do the right thing yet he got arrested. After discussions with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-022073 Judge Harper
Facts: The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and almost hitting a median. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant exhibited balance issues and admitted to drinking that night. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew .177 and .158 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. We pointed out that there are no specifics of how the defendant failed to maintain a single lane. For example, lack of specificity about the distance of swerving, how many times, and time frame. Due to the stop being potentially unlawful and the State losing all the evidence, the State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 27, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-022970 Judge Harper
Facts: The defendant was rear ended by another vehicle. When the officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he appeared confused, and had slurred speech. His eyes were glossy and he admitted to drinking beers. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .194 and .189 in the breath machine.
Defense: Here, the defendant was the one who got rear ended. He called the police to do the right thing yet he got arrested. After discussions with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Apr 25, 2018 Case: A6MLCWE Judge Bedinghaus
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and running a stop sign. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers and he staggered as he walked. He then performed the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: During pretrial negotiations, the firm pointed out to the State that DUI video tape contradicted the officer's reports. For example, on tape his speech was not slurred and he never staggered. Also, when the defendant disputed the reason for the traffic stop, the arresting officer told him that the stopping officer had a camera. That was not true. Thus, his credibility was now called into question.
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.