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 8, 2015 Case: 7172-XEQ Judge Seraphin
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving 102 mph in a 55 mph zone on the highway. He was also cutting in and out of traffic and tailgating. The officer stopped the defendant for reckless driving. That officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He then called for a DUI unit who made similar observations. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. According to the officer he failed. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped of the line and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, he put his foot down, swayed, and used his arms for balance. The defendant was arrested for reckless driving and DUI. It should be noted this was the defendant's second DUI arrest.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the morning of trial, the officer who stopped the defendant was asked numerous questions by the defense before trial got started. There were several things the officer added to the alleged driving pattern that were not written his report. For example, he stated the defendant almost rear ended him and was driving on the lane marker for a mile. The DUI officer also wrote a very vague report without including any specifics about the roadside tests. Prior to picking a jury, the State dismissed the reckless driving charge and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 1, 2015 Case: 2015 303293MMDB Judge DAVIDSON
Facts: The defendant was seen by the police in a parking lot doing "burn outs" on his motorcycle. There were about 20 people standing around watching. Officers approached the defendant and got him off his motorcycle. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking Bud Light beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests which were not video taped. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down 7 times and stumbled backwards. On the walk and turn exercise, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the initial seizure of the defendant by ordering him off his bike was unlawful. Pursuant to Florida case law, since no one standing around watching was affected by the defendant's acts of doing burn outs (i.e.. spinning his tires), there was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Sep 1, 2015 Case: 2015 303293MMDB Judge DAVIDSON
Facts: The defendant was seen by the police in a parking lot doing "burn outs" on his motorcycle. There were about 20 people standing around watching. Officers approached the defendant and got him off his motorcycle. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking Bud Light beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests which were not video taped. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down 7 times and stumbled backwards. On the walk and turn exercise, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the initial seizure of the defendant by ordering him off his bike was unlawful. Pursuant to Florida case law, since no one standing around watching was affected by the defendant's acts of doing burn outs (i.e.. spinning his tires), there was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 27, 2015 Case: 1577-XEO Judge HORROX
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and while out of the car he swayed. The defendant admitted to drinking Corona beer. The officer also found a beer can with beer in it inside the car. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within five years.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The week before trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer’s reports were totally contradicted by the defendant's video tape. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant was swaying, yet he was never off balance on tape. Also, the defendant's cousin was in the car and was prepared to testify that it was his beer can.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 27, 2015 Case: 05-2014-CT-052319-AXXX-XX Judge Murphy
Facts: The defendant was observed by the officer driving in what he described as an "S" pattern, drifting within her lane. The defendant's car also made a left turn and made contact with an orange plastic construction traffic barrel located in that lane. The barrel was protruding over the painted pavement markings. The officer then conducted a traffic stop. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant lost her balance numerous times, put her foot down, and raised her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, she did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The defendant was eventually arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. It should be noted the entire driving pattern was captured on video along with the DUI investigation.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the stop of the defendant's car. At the motion hearing, the Judge watched the video, listened to the officer's testimony, and heard argument of counsel. The Judge determined based on the officer's testimony that the officer did not consider the "S" driving pattern in his decision to stop the defendant's vehicle and that he did not even write it in his report. The officer also did not note any damage in his reports nor did he testify to any damage. The Judge concluded that the officer only made the stop because of the contact with the barrel. The Judge, in his legal conclusion, found that making contact with an improperly placed traffic barrel in the middle of the roadway did not amount to any legal basis for stopping the defendant. He went on to state that any reasonable person might have hit that barrel. In fact, on video, the officer himself had to actually slow down to avoid the barrel. The Judge granted the motion to suppress, finding no probable cause of any traffic infractions, nor reasonable suspicion of any crime. All the evidence was then excluded.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Aug 27, 2015 Case: 05-2014-CT-052319-AXXX-XX Judge Murphy
Facts: The defendant was observed by the officer driving in what he described as an "S" pattern, drifting within her lane. The defendant's car also made a left turn and made contact with an orange plastic construction traffic barrel located in that lane. The barrel was protruding over the painted pavement markings. The officer then conducted a traffic stop. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant lost her balance numerous times, put her foot down, and raised her arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, she did not touch heel to toe, and took an incorrect number of steps. The defendant was eventually arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. It should be noted the entire driving pattern was captured on video along with the DUI investigation.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the stop of the defendant's car. At the motion hearing, the Judge watched the video, listened to the officer's testimony, and heard argument of counsel. The Judge determined based on the officer's testimony that the officer did not consider the "S" driving pattern in his decision to stop the defendant's vehicle and that he did not even write it in his report. The officer also did not note any damage in his reports nor did he testify to any damage. The Judge concluded that the officer only made the stop because of the contact with the barrel. The Judge, in his legal conclusion, found that making contact with an improperly placed traffic barrel in the middle of the roadway did not amount to any legal basis for stopping the defendant. He went on to state that any reasonable person might have hit that barrel. In fact, on video, the officer himself had to actually slow down to avoid the barrel. The Judge granted the motion to suppress, finding no probable cause of any traffic infractions, nor reasonable suspicion of any crime. All the evidence was then excluded.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Aug 27, 2015 Case: 1577-XEO Judge HORROX
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and while out of the car he swayed. The defendant admitted to drinking Corona beer. The officer also found a beer can with beer in it inside the car. According to the officer, the defendant failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within five years.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The week before trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer’s reports were totally contradicted by the defendant's video tape. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant was swaying, yet he was never off balance on tape. Also, the defendant's cousin was in the car and was prepared to testify that it was his beer can.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 26, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000741AXMX Judge Johnson
Facts: The defendant was involved in a collision. Upon arrival, the first officer observed the defendant hanging out of the vehicle. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech. At some point, the defendant allegedly admitted to drinking "way too much." The defendant was subsequently taken to the hospital. At the hospital, the investigating Trooper made contact with the defendant. In addition to the above observations, the Trooper also noticed bloodshot, watery eyes. While at the hospital, a nurse approached the Trooper and revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .257 (over three times the legal limit). The Trooper asked the defendant if he would consent to turning over his medical records including the blood result. The defendant refused. As a result, the Trooper spoke with an investigator for the State Attorney's Office who subsequently acquired the results through a subpoena. The defendant was eventually charged with enhanced DUI.
Defense: Medical records involve an issue of privacy. In order to acquire the records, as well as the blood results, the State Attorney's Office must first provide the defendant with written notice. Upon receipt of such notice, the defendant through his lawyer has the opportunity to object upon which a hearing is held. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the medical records including the blood results for failure to provide notice. Days before the hearing, the prosecutor sent over a copy of the notice that they say was sent prior to acquiring the medical records. At the motion, Parks & Braxton argued that the prosecutor's office was manufacturing evidence that never existed. Specifically, that the notice was created after they acquired the blood results. The State's investigator took the stand and admitted that the prosecutor never signed the notice, but rather it was a computer generated signature. More important, the investigator testified on cross examination that the notice was sent out on March 15, 2015 However, the accident didn't occur until March 19, 2015.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 26, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000741AXMX Judge Johnson
Facts: The defendant was involved in a collision. Upon arrival, the first officer observed the defendant hanging out of the vehicle. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech. At some point, the defendant allegedly admitted to drinking "way too much." The defendant was subsequently taken to the hospital. At the hospital, the investigating Trooper made contact with the defendant. In addition to the above observations, the Trooper also noticed bloodshot, watery eyes. While at the hospital, a nurse approached the Trooper and revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .257 (over three times the legal limit). The Trooper asked the defendant if he would consent to turning over his medical records including the blood result. The defendant refused. As a result, the Trooper spoke with an investigator for the State Attorney's Office who subsequently acquired the results through a subpoena. The defendant was eventually charged with enhanced DUI.
Defense: Medical records involve an issue of privacy. In order to acquire the records, as well as the blood results, the State Attorney's Office must first provide the defendant with written notice. Upon receipt of such notice, the defendant through his lawyer has the opportunity to object upon which a hearing is held. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the medical records including the blood results for failure to provide notice. Days before the hearing, the prosecutor sent over a copy of the notice that they say was sent prior to acquiring the medical records. At the motion, Parks & Braxton argued that the prosecutor's office was manufacturing evidence that never existed. Specifically, that the notice was created after they acquired the blood results. The State's investigator took the stand and admitted that the prosecutor never signed the notice, but rather it was a computer generated signature. More important, the investigator testified on cross examination that the notice was sent out on March 15, 2015 However, the accident didn't occur until March 19, 2015.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 25, 2015 Case: 2014-MM-001878 Judge WOODARD
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and thick tongued speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant lost his balance, stepped off the line, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down, swayed. Also, on the estimation of time test, the defendant estimated 69 seconds for 30 seconds. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .136 and .140 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the in-car camera utilized by the officer to tape the roadside tests was completely blurry. Thus, one could not see the defendant's actual performance. Also, the defense was to exclude the breath test results because FDLE did not follow their own procedures relating to breath testing.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 25, 2015 Case: 2015-MM-001406 Judge WOODARD
Facts: The defendant crashed his car into a tree. He was found unconscious and the airbags had deployed. The car was destroyed. Numerous civilians had called 911. When police arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. The officer on scene. noticed a beer can which had beer in it next to the driver's seat. The officer then went to the hospital. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and asked the defendant for a blood sample. The defendant refused. The defendant was later charged with DUI by the State Attorney's Office.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that was no reasonable suspicion of a crime based on odor alone to even ask the defendant for blood pursuant to Florida Statutes and case law.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 25, 2015 Case: 2014-MM-001878 Judge WOODARD
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and thick tongued speech. According to the officer, the defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant lost his balance, stepped off the line, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand test, the defendant put his foot down, swayed. Also, on the estimation of time test, the defendant estimated 69 seconds for 30 seconds. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .136 and .140 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the in-car camera utilized by the officer to tape the roadside tests was completely blurry. Thus, one could not see the defendant's actual performance. Also, the defense was to exclude the breath test results because FDLE did not follow their own procedures relating to breath testing.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 25, 2015 Case: 2015-MM-001406 Judge WOODARD
Facts: The defendant crashed his car into a tree. He was found unconscious and the airbags had deployed. The car was destroyed. Numerous civilians had called 911. When police arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. The officer on scene. noticed a beer can which had beer in it next to the driver's seat. The officer then went to the hospital. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and asked the defendant for a blood sample. The defendant refused. The defendant was later charged with DUI by the State Attorney's Office.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that was no reasonable suspicion of a crime based on odor alone to even ask the defendant for blood pursuant to Florida Statutes and case law.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 12, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-001366 Judge GABBARD
Facts: The defendant as stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also was observed to be unsteady on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI within ten years.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that when the DUI officer turned on his video camera, you could only see the defendant for a short period of time. The officer kept the defendant off camera for almost the entire investigation. Also on video, the defendant's speech was normal as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports about it being slurred. Furthermore, the defendant did not appear unsteady when he was visible on camera.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 12, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-001366 Judge GABBARD
Facts: The defendant as stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also was observed to be unsteady on his feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks at the request of the officer. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI within ten years.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that when the DUI officer turned on his video camera, you could only see the defendant for a short period of time. The officer kept the defendant off camera for almost the entire investigation. Also on video, the defendant's speech was normal as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports about it being slurred. Furthermore, the defendant did not appear unsteady when he was visible on camera.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 11, 2015 Case: 14-009258MM10A Judge SOLOMON
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant told the officer he had drank some Corona beers. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he lost his balance and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, he put his foot down and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000235 Judge CUPP
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to drinking 6 beers. She then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she failed them all and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 11, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000235 Judge CUPP
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and the defendant admitted to drinking 6 beers. She then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she failed them all and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 11, 2015 Case: 14-009258MM10A Judge SOLOMON
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant told the officer he had drank some Corona beers. According to the officer, the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, he lost his balance and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, he put his foot down and swayed. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Aug 10, 2015 Case: 2015-CT-000901-E Judge ALLEN
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. He hit the back of a bus. The bus driver expressed concern that the defendant was either drunk or on drugs. When police arrived, they noticed the defendant leaning on his car and was very unsteady. The officer noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued, his eyes were glazed, and he was moving very slow and lethargically. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant consented to performing field sobriety tests. The defendant had trouble understanding almost every instruction and showed an overwhelming number of clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert), who is an officer with specialized training in detecting impairment by drugs, was called to do further evaluation on the defendant. That officer concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS Depressant.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.

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.