Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense | DUI Wins

OUR RECENT VICTORIES

Oct 11, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-021995AXXX-XX	Judge Clarke
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, slurred/confused speech, and a red face. The defendant told the officer she had a few beers with dinner. The defendant used the steering wheel for support upon exiting the car and struggled to remove her seat-belt. Upon being asked to perform the roadside tests, the defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and refused to perform any others. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred which contradicted the officer's report. Also, the defendant was not told of the consequences for her refusal to perform the rest of the field sobriety tests which was in violation of Florida case law. Thus, her refusal would have been excluded as evidence.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 11, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-007634	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting back and forth over the lane markers on at least five different occasions. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 2 to 3 Blue Moon draft beers. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks on video tape. After performing the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand tests, he was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	On video, the defendant told the officer prior to performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tasks, he had very bad knees and may have trouble doing them. The officer still proceeded the have the defendant do them. It was unclear on tape whether any alleged impairment cues observed by the officer were due to alcohol or his bad balance from having two bad knees. Those physical exercises were contradicted by his performance on the non-physical finger to nose exercise.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 11, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-017045	Judge Koenig
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant also had bloodshot/watery eyes and his movements were "slow and deliberate." When asked to exit the vehicle, the defendant used the car to maintain his balance and he swayed while standing outside the car. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks and to provide a breath test. He refused both and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Under the law, a defendant who refuses the field sobriety tests must be advised of the "adverse consequences" for refusing. Here, the defendant was never told of any consequences for refusing. Also, under Florida law, a defendant can only be asked to take a breath test "after" being lawfully arrested. In this case, the defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath "prior" to being arrested for DUI in violation of the law.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 5, 2016	Case: 2016-CF-001190	Judge Briggs
Facts:	A person called 911 alerting police that the defendant was highly intoxicated at a gas station. Officers arrived on the scene and came into contact with the defendant as he was pulling out. As one officer approached the defendant, his window was down, and the officer smelled an odor of alcohol. He also observed bloodshot eyes and slurred/mumbled speech. The officer asked the defendant to then step out of the car. The officer observed the defendant to sway, have poor coordination, and he admitted to drinking beer. Due to the heavy rain, all three officers on scene asked the defendant to step in front of the gas station entrance to perform roadside tasks in a dry area. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance and put his foot down a number of times. On the walk and turn test, he missed heel to toe, lost his balance during the instructions, and raised his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test. The defendant was charged with a Felony DUI since this was this was his Fourth DUI.
Defense:	The firm took pretrial depositions of all three officers. Two officers on scene, including the DUI unit, had in-car cameras in their patrol vehicles, however, they were not utilized. The DUI officer testified under oath that she couldn't use her camera because it was raining so hard during the roadside tests and she could not get back to her car to turn it on. However, one other officer stated in deposition that the rain had stopped prior to ever even asking the defendant to perform the tests. He also had a camera in his car and when asked why he didn't utilize it, his answer was "I don't know." Also, the arresting officer stated "I don't remember" multiple times when being questioned about specific details of the field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officers contradicted each other on many aspects of the defendant's alleged impairment such as whether he actually had slurred speech or was even unsteady. The State, after reading the deposition transcripts, Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 5, 2016	Case: 2016-CF-001190	Judge Briggs
Facts:	A person called 911 alerting police that the defendant was highly intoxicated at a gas station. Officers arrived on the scene and came into contact with the defendant as he was pulling out. As one officer approached the defendant, his window was down, and the officer smelled an odor of alcohol. He also observed bloodshot eyes and slurred/mumbled speech. The officer asked the defendant to then step out of the car. The officer observed the defendant to sway, have poor coordination, and he admitted to drinking beer. Due to the heavy rain, all three officers on scene asked the defendant to step in front of the gas station entrance to perform roadside tasks in a dry area. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance and put his foot down a number of times. On the walk and turn test, he missed heel to toe, lost his balance during the instructions, and raised his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test. The defendant was charged with a Felony DUI since this was this was his Fourth DUI.
Defense:	The firm took pretrial depositions of all three officers. Two officers on scene, including the DUI unit, had in-car cameras in their patrol vehicles, however, they were not utilized. The DUI officer testified under oath that she couldn't use her camera because it was raining so hard during the roadside tests and she could not get back to her car to turn it on. However, one other officer stated in deposition that the rain had stopped prior to ever even asking the defendant to perform the tests. He also had a camera in his car and when asked why he didn't utilize it, his answer was "I don't know." Also, the arresting officer stated "I don't remember" multiple times when being questioned about specific details of the field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officers contradicted each other on many aspects of the defendant's alleged impairment such as whether he actually had slurred speech or was even unsteady. The State, after reading the deposition transcripts, Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 15-026416MU10A	Judge Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, red eyes, and mumbled speech. The defendant told the officer that she had drank wine that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn task, the defendant missed heel to toe, used her arms for balance, and could not maintain her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down, used her arms for balance, and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .135 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defense brought to light an error that occurred in the machine as a result of radio frequency interference (RFI). The RFI occurred three times prior to the defendant providing her result of a .135. This RFI happening multiple times could have skewed the defendant's result to appear higher than what was her true breath alcohol level (BAC). On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 16-CT-500193	Judge Hayward
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car in a condominium parking lot after a 911 caller noticed him slumped over the wheel. The officers attempted to wake the defendant up by knocking on the windows several times. Once he awoke, the car began to move forward until he finally put it in park. Officers noticed the defendant have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a dazed look. Once out of the car, he was swaying and appeared sleepy. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) since he had back injuries which prevented him from doing any other tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Pursuant to Florida Rule 3.220, the State has the obligation to disclose all evidence within their possession. This requirement extends to police agencies as well. Parks & Braxton determined that the police failed to adequately turn over the entire evidentiary packet. The discovery violation was brought to the attention of the Court.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-007574	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car in his neighbor's driveway. The neighbors had called 911 not knowing it was the defendant. When the officer arrived and awoke the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and dilated pupils. The defendant was extremely loud and uncooperative. The defendant did not perform to standards on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .119 and .121 in the breath machine.
Defense:	No one ever observed the defendant driving. Thus, the State could not prove the defendant was in "actual physical control." Since he was sleeping in the car, he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle under the applicable Florida Statute.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 15-026416MU10A	Judge Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, red eyes, and mumbled speech. The defendant told the officer that she had drank wine that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn task, the defendant missed heel to toe, used her arms for balance, and could not maintain her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down, used her arms for balance, and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .135 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defense brought to light an error that occurred in the machine as a result of radio frequency interference (RFI). The RFI occurred three times prior to the defendant providing her result of a .135. This RFI happening multiple times could have skewed the defendant's result to appear higher than what was her true breath alcohol level (BAC). On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 16-CT-500193	Judge Hayward
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car in a condominium parking lot after a 911 caller noticed him slumped over the wheel. The officers attempted to wake the defendant up by knocking on the windows several times. Once he awoke, the car began to move forward until he finally put it in park. Officers noticed the defendant have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a dazed look. Once out of the car, he was swaying and appeared sleepy. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) since he had back injuries which prevented him from doing any other tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Pursuant to Florida Rule 3.220, the State has the obligation to disclose all evidence within their possession. This requirement extends to police agencies as well. Parks & Braxton determined that the police failed to adequately turn over the entire evidentiary packet. The discovery violation was brought to the attention of the Court.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-007574	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car in his neighbor's driveway. The neighbors had called 911 not knowing it was the defendant. When the officer arrived and awoke the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and dilated pupils. The defendant was extremely loud and uncooperative. The defendant did not perform to standards on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .119 and .121 in the breath machine.
Defense:	No one ever observed the defendant driving. Thus, the State could not prove the defendant was in "actual physical control." Since he was sleeping in the car, he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle under the applicable Florida Statute.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 27, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-032143	Judge Koons
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the painted stop bar at a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Once out of the car, he swayed and appeared to be "unsure." The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, in discussing the case with the prosecutor, pointed out that on tape, there was no slurred speech, no sway, and the defendant appeared to be totally coherent. Also, although the officer attempted to exaggerate the defendant's performance on the tests in his reports. The specific details written by the officer were contradicted by video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 27, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-032143	Judge Koons
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the painted stop bar at a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Once out of the car, he swayed and appeared to be "unsure." The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, in discussing the case with the prosecutor, pointed out that on tape, there was no slurred speech, no sway, and the defendant appeared to be totally coherent. Also, although the officer attempted to exaggerate the defendant's performance on the tests in his reports. The specific details written by the officer were contradicted by video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 23, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-502058	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost striking a curb. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had drank a glass of wine. The defendant appeared sluggish and avoided eye contact with the officer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line numerous times and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she stumbled and almost fell. She was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .105 and .095 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out that with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit (ie. .095). Also, the officer's reports about the defendant's extreme level of impairment was inconsistent with her breath test results. There was no in car camera.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 23, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-502058	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and almost striking a curb. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated she had drank a glass of wine. The defendant appeared sluggish and avoided eye contact with the officer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she stepped off the line numerous times and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she stumbled and almost fell. She was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .105 and .095 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out that with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit (ie. .095). Also, the officer's reports about the defendant's extreme level of impairment was inconsistent with her breath test results. There was no in car camera.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 21, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-001732	Judge Mcginnis
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the stop bar at a red light and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech,and dry lips. Upon exiting the car, the defendant appeared off balance and unsteady and he stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests and was eventually arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, the defense and State had discussions about the case. The officer wrote a very vague report. The defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not described in any detail and there was no video tape at the scene. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 21, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-001732	Judge Mcginnis
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the stop bar at a red light and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech,and dry lips. Upon exiting the car, the defendant appeared off balance and unsteady and he stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests and was eventually arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, the defense and State had discussions about the case. The officer wrote a very vague report. The defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not described in any detail and there was no video tape at the scene. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 14, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-005701	Judge Greco
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and hitting a curb. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish/clumsy movements. The defendant stated he had been at a club and had a couple of long island iced teas. He also stated that he was a little buzzed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out that on tape, the defendant was not clumsy or slow. In fact, he was being responsive and coherent. Also, he had no issues getting out of the car or walking around. Furthermore, the defendant's video contradicted the officer's reports as to his level of alleged impairment. It should be noted, the firm also represented the defendant on his last case four years ago and got that DUI Dropped too. In that case, he had blown a .14.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 14, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-005701	Judge Greco
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and hitting a curb. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish/clumsy movements. The defendant stated he had been at a club and had a couple of long island iced teas. He also stated that he was a little buzzed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out that on tape, the defendant was not clumsy or slow. In fact, he was being responsive and coherent. Also, he had no issues getting out of the car or walking around. Furthermore, the defendant's video contradicted the officer's reports as to his level of alleged impairment. It should be noted, the firm also represented the defendant on his last case four years ago and got that DUI Dropped too. In that case, he had blown a .14.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 13, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-002236	Judge Hitzeman
Facts:	The police were alerted to the defendant's truck by a 911 caller. The caller stated that the defendant and his passenger were passed out in a turning lane. When officers arrived, they found the defendant and his passenger asleep. The defendant was in the drivers seat, the engine was running, and the truck was in drive. When the officer reached in the truck to turn the truck off, the defendant awoke. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, a flushed face, and slow/mumbled speech. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests while still seated in the truck. He refused and was asked to exit the vehicle. The defendant was slow, lethargic, and leaned on the truck for balance. He was then placed under arrest for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, during the pretrial discovery process, got the DUI video tape. On tape, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing the roadside tests as required by Florida law. Also, the defendant's speech was not mumbled and he did not appear off balance nor unsteady. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

« prev 1 … 163 164 165 166 167 … 363 next »

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.