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

Mar 20, 2014 Case: CTC-13-2636SSLTWS Judge Salton
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving off the roadway. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, lethargic and sleepy movements, and slow hand / eye coordination. The defendant admitted to drinking wine. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were video taped and he was arrested for DUI. During an inventory search of the defendant's car, the officer found a few prescription bottles for anti-depressants. After his arrest, he tested positive for alcohol in the breath machine. The officer, however, concluded on his DUI ticket that the defendant was impaired by those controlled substances.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although the officer found the controlled substances (ie. the anti-depressants in the car), he never even asked the defendant if he took them that day. Furthermore, the officer never even asked for a urine test. Thus, the State could not prove though any testimony what specific controlled substance was "allegedly impairing" the defendant as required by Florida Law. Also, the video tape of the defendant's roadside tests contradicted the reports about the level of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction for any crime at all.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 20, 2014 Case: 6721-XEM Judge Newman
Facts: The defendant was stopped after an anonymous person told the officers that the defendant was driving all over the road. The defendant, for some unknown reason, then pulled behind the officers and they made contact. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, the defendant showed signs of impairment on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he only blew one breath sample of a .241 and then refused the second breath breath test. The police then called it a refusal to submit to breath testing because they only obtained one breath sample and not two as required.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the State about the case.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 20, 2014 Case: 9855-XEQ Judge Hague
Facts: The police were called after the defendant was observed getting into his car by a security guard who believed the defendant was intoxicated. The officer then observed the defendant swerving and conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, red eyes, and balance issues. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer did not write one specific pertaining to the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Thus, the complete performance was unknown.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 17, 2014 Case: 2012-CT-018600AXXXMA Judge Higbee
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow movements, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, she missed heel to toe every time, stepped off the line, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .144 in the breath machine.
Defense: Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton had several discussions about the contents of the video tape with the State. On video, the defendant was distressed and kept stating to the police officer that a male individual she had been with had attempted to assault her and that is why she drove in order to get out of the house. Her friend, who she had picked up from around the corner after she left the male's house, stated the same thing to police over and over on video. They both kept telling the officer that they were just trying to get home in order to figure out how to handle the attempted assault situation. The officer showed hardly any interest on tape about hearing their story and appeared to be only concerned with conducting the DUI investigation. The defendant and her friend even indicated to the officer that they believed the male in question was following them just before they were pulled over. Thus, the firm pointed out to the State, that the defendant only drove her car out of "Necessity" which is a defense under the law solely in order to get away from a potentially violent situation.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 17, 2014 Case: 2012-CT-018600AXXXMA Judge Higbee
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow movements, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, she missed heel to toe every time, stepped off the line, and used her arms for balance. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .144 in the breath machine.
Defense: Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton had several discussions about the contents of the video tape with the State. On video, the defendant was distressed and kept stating to the police officer that a male individual she had been with had attempted to assault her and that is why she drove in order to get out of the house. Her friend, who she had picked up from around the corner after she left the male's house, stated the same thing to police over and over on video. They both kept telling the officer that they were just trying to get home in order to figure out how to handle the attempted assault situation. The officer showed hardly any interest on tape about hearing their story and appeared to be only concerned with conducting the DUI investigation. The defendant and her friend even indicated to the officer that they believed the male in question was following them just before they were pulled over. Thus, the firm pointed out to the State, that the defendant only drove her car out of "Necessity" which is a defense under the law solely in order to get away from a potentially violent situation.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 14, 2014 Case: 6715-XCM Judge Ortiz
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was driving 90 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Prior to a trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote a very vague report and did not write any details about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 14, 2014 Case: 6715-XCM Judge Ortiz
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was driving 90 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Prior to a trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote a very vague report and did not write any details about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 11, 2014 Case: CT-A150GIE Judge Lefler
Facts: The defendant was stopped for straddling the center white line a couple of times and "drifting". The officer who made the traffic stop, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant stated he drank a couple of beers. The stopping officer then called for a DUI unit. That other officer made similar observations and requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, the defendant exhibited several signs of impairment on the tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .20 and .183 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the arresting officer misstated the law on video tape to get the defendant to agree to take a breath test. Thus, the firm argued he was coerced into taking the breath test based upon misinformation of the law. We also filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to believe a traffic infraction had occurred and also that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was an impaired driver.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 11, 2014 Case: 2013-CT-011145-A-O Judge Freeman
Facts: The defendant was found by police passed out in her car at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant after numerous attempts, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and mumbled speech. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .137 and .127 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor about various issues relating to the facts of the case prior to trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 11, 2014 Case: CT-A150GIE Judge Lefler
Facts: The defendant was stopped for straddling the center white line a couple of times and "drifting". The officer who made the traffic stop, observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot eyes. The defendant stated he drank a couple of beers. The stopping officer then called for a DUI unit. That other officer made similar observations and requested the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, the defendant exhibited several signs of impairment on the tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .20 and .183 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the arresting officer misstated the law on video tape to get the defendant to agree to take a breath test. Thus, the firm argued he was coerced into taking the breath test based upon misinformation of the law. We also filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause to believe a traffic infraction had occurred and also that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was an impaired driver.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 11, 2014 Case: 2013-CT-011145-A-O Judge Freeman
Facts: The defendant was found by police passed out in her car at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant after numerous attempts, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and mumbled speech. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .137 and .127 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor about various issues relating to the facts of the case prior to trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 6, 2014 Case: 6882-XEQ Judge Denaro
Facts: The defendant was stopped for making an illegal left turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, a sway, and stuttered speech. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State about the facts of the case.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 6, 2014 Case: 6882-XEQ Judge Denaro
Facts: The defendant was stopped for making an illegal left turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, a sway, and stuttered speech. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State about the facts of the case.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 3, 2014 Case: A08AKRP Judge Hague
Facts: The defendant allegedly hit a parked vehicle and left the scene of the crash. Officers from two different jurisdictions located him at the complex where he resided. The defendant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the security guard also saw him drive into the complex in a severely damaged car. The defendant, at one point when officers arrived, came out to check on his car, and the police noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .083 in the breath machine.
Defense: On the morning of Jury Trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash and while driving as required by Florida Law. Neither civilians or police, came into contact with the defendant until after he came out of his residence. Aside from Dropping the DUI, the State also Dismissed the Leaving the Scene of an Accident charge.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Mar 3, 2014 Case: A08AKRP Judge Hague
Facts: The defendant allegedly hit a parked vehicle and left the scene of the crash. Officers from two different jurisdictions located him at the complex where he resided. The defendant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the security guard also saw him drive into the complex in a severely damaged car. The defendant, at one point when officers arrived, came out to check on his car, and the police noticed him to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .083 in the breath machine.
Defense: On the morning of Jury Trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash and while driving as required by Florida Law. Neither civilians or police, came into contact with the defendant until after he came out of his residence. Aside from Dropping the DUI, the State also Dismissed the Leaving the Scene of an Accident charge.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 21, 2014 Case: 12-019882MM10A Judge Brown
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash. Upon arrival, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After exiting the car, the defendant was extremely unsteady on his feet. On video, the defendant was asked to perform several field sobriety tests. On the walk and turn test he failed to walk heel to toe, used his arms for balance and stumbled off of the line several times. On the one leg stand test the defendant dropped his foot and stated "I can't do it". The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's 5th DUI. This was the first time the firm represented the defendant.
Defense: Despite the impairment on video, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a violation of 316.645. Specifically, the arresting officer did not follow proper procedure when investigating an individual for DUI who was also involved in an accident. On the morning of the motion to suppress the DUI was dropped.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 21, 2014 Case: 12-019882MM10A Judge Brown
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash. Upon arrival, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After exiting the car, the defendant was extremely unsteady on his feet. On video, the defendant was asked to perform several field sobriety tests. On the walk and turn test he failed to walk heel to toe, used his arms for balance and stumbled off of the line several times. On the one leg stand test the defendant dropped his foot and stated "I can't do it". The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's 5th DUI. This was the first time the firm represented the defendant.
Defense: Despite the impairment on video, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a violation of 316.645. Specifically, the arresting officer did not follow proper procedure when investigating an individual for DUI who was also involved in an accident. On the morning of the motion to suppress the DUI was dropped.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 20, 2014 Case: 48-2013-CT-009963-A-0 Judge Bell
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red/glassy eyes. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test on another video tape at the breath alcohol testing facility. The State then charged the defendant with a Second Refusal. This was also the defendant's second arrest for DUI and also had a prior refusal to take a breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State prior to setting a trial date that the video tape of the defendant's field sobriety tests showed a better performance than that described in the police reports. Also, the firm pointed out to the State, that on the other video, the defendant was repeatedly blowing in the machine and never said he was refusing even though the officers stated he refused because they never got two valid results. The video also showed the officers also appearing to be very hostile toward the defendant for no reason as he was trying to blow into the machine. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the Second Refusal charge.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 20, 2014 Case: 48-2013-CT-009963-A-0 Judge Bell
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red/glassy eyes. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test on another video tape at the breath alcohol testing facility. The State then charged the defendant with a Second Refusal. This was also the defendant's second arrest for DUI and also had a prior refusal to take a breath test.
Defense: Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State prior to setting a trial date that the video tape of the defendant's field sobriety tests showed a better performance than that described in the police reports. Also, the firm pointed out to the State, that on the other video, the defendant was repeatedly blowing in the machine and never said he was refusing even though the officers stated he refused because they never got two valid results. The video also showed the officers also appearing to be very hostile toward the defendant for no reason as he was trying to blow into the machine. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the Second Refusal charge.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 13, 2014 Case: 6713-XEQ Judge Hague
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. There were un-opened beer bottles found in the car and the defendant admitted to drinking beer and wine. According to the officer, she failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .148 and .151 in the breath machine.
Defense: Parks & Braxton had pre-trial negotiations with the State prior to a trial. We pointed out that the first breath card obtained from the defendant minutes prior to gathering the two results on the second card as stated above had a "fail" indication. It was unknown as to why that "fail" had printed out on the first breath test attempt.
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.