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

Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-012481 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having consumed two beers and two mixed drinks. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-0002251 Judge Gould
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash. She tried to avoid an animal, struck a fence, and ended up in a cow pasture. No police came at that point, but the defendant was treated by EMS. She then left to go to the hospital. After the hospital, she and her family came back the crash site to get the car. A police officer was there inspecting the crash scene. He came into contact with her and asked her questions. The defendant admitted to being the driver at the time of the crash and that she had drank margaritas earlier before the crash. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. She then was asked to perform various field sobriety tests to which she complied. She was arrested for DUI over three and half hours after the crash. A little over five hours later after the crash, she blew a .065 and .068 in the breath machine. In his report, the officer tried to do a retrograde extrapolation placing the defendant's breath alcohol results at a .143 at the time of the crash.
Defense: The firm filed a pretrial motion to exclude the breath test results. In our motion, we provided case law that held a breath test taken over five hours later was not reasonable. In addition, the officer's retrograde extrapolation of a .143 was not accurate or reliable because he did not know when she had her first drink, her last drink, what she ate, and how much alcohol was in the drinks amongst other information. We also filed a motion to exclude her statement about being the driver under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti. This doctrine basically holds that the State must produce some independent evidence other than the defendant's statemen that they committed the crime (i.e., that she drove). Here, they could not, because when EMS arrived, she was standing with other people.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-502266 Judge Gagliardi
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving and driving too slow. He also almost hit another car and his tires crossed over the lane markers almost striking a curb. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was very sweaty. His speech was slurred and he had difficulty formulating sentences. In addition, his eye lids were droopy, his coordination was slow, and he had an uneven walk. He refused to perform field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and later refused breath test.
Defense: The firm announced ready for trial. Discussions were held regarding contradictions between the video and the police reports. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial call.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-011154 Judge Conrad
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving and pulling into an intersection, backing up onto a crosswalk right next to a cop. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank one beer. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: Many observations made by the officer of the alleged impairment and performance on roadside tests were over exaggerated by the officer in his reports as compared to the officer's body worn camera. After discussions with the State about how the video contradicted the police reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-012876 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving at night with no lights and blocking a crosswalk at a red light. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, fumbling with her documents, slurred speech, and difficulty dividing her attention. She then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). She was arrested for DUI and later blew a .156 and .154 in the breath machine.
Defense: After speaking with the State about the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-012425 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for having no lights on and running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, difficulty concentrating, and slurred speech. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused breath test.
Defense: It was apparent from the video that the defendant was being investigated because he and his friends were stopped in a high crime area. There were multiple cops on scene. Also, the defendant was driving a black truck but the DUI ticket stated that the defendant was driving a white truck. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he showed no signs of not being able to concentrate. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no probation or any penalties.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-0002251 Judge Gould
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash. She tried to avoid an animal, struck a fence, and ended up in a cow pasture. No police came at that point, but the defendant was treated by EMS. She then left to go to the hospital. After the hospital, she and her family came back the crash site to get the car. A police officer was there inspecting the crash scene. He came into contact with her and asked her questions. The defendant admitted to being the driver at the time of the crash and that she had drank margaritas earlier before the crash. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. She then was asked to perform various field sobriety tests to which she complied. She was arrested for DUI over three and half hours after the crash. A little over five hours later after the crash, she blew a .065 and .068 in the breath machine. In his report, the officer tried to do a retrograde extrapolation placing the defendant's breath alcohol results at a .143 at the time of the crash.
Defense: The firm filed a pretrial motion to exclude the breath test results. In our motion, we provided case law that held a breath test taken over five hours later was not reasonable. In addition, the officer's retrograde extrapolation of a .143 was not accurate or reliable because he did not know when she had her first drink, her last drink, what she ate, and how much alcohol was in the drinks amongst other information. We also filed a motion to exclude her statement about being the driver under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti. This doctrine basically holds that the State must produce some independent evidence other than the defendant's statemen that they committed the crime (i.e., that she drove). Here, they could not, because when EMS arrived, she was standing with other people.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-502266 Judge Gagliardi
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving and driving too slow. He also almost hit another car and his tires crossed over the lane markers almost striking a curb. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was very sweaty. His speech was slurred and he had difficulty formulating sentences. In addition, his eye lids were droopy, his coordination was slow, and he had an uneven walk. He refused to perform field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and later refused breath test.
Defense: The firm announced ready for trial. Discussions were held regarding contradictions between the video and the police reports. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial call.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-011154 Judge Conrad
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving and pulling into an intersection, backing up onto a crosswalk right next to a cop. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank one beer. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: Many observations made by the officer of the alleged impairment and performance on roadside tests were over exaggerated by the officer in his reports as compared to the officer's body worn camera. After discussions with the State about how the video contradicted the police reports, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-012876 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving at night with no lights and blocking a crosswalk at a red light. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, fumbling with her documents, slurred speech, and difficulty dividing her attention. She then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). She was arrested for DUI and later blew a .156 and .154 in the breath machine.
Defense: After speaking with the State about the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-012425 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for having no lights on and running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, difficulty concentrating, and slurred speech. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused breath test.
Defense: It was apparent from the video that the defendant was being investigated because he and his friends were stopped in a high crime area. There were multiple cops on scene. Also, the defendant was driving a black truck but the DUI ticket stated that the defendant was driving a white truck. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he showed no signs of not being able to concentrate. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no probation or any penalties.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-011809 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. He swayed while he stood and had a wristband on from a club. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .137 and .137 in the breath machine.
Defense: After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 27, 2024 Case: 23-CT-012481 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having consumed two beers and two mixed drinks. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 26, 2024 Case: AD4ACOE Judge Bach-Armas
Facts: The defendant was stopped for failing to yield and almost hitting a police car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant performed various field sobriety tests such as HGN (eye test), the walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .099 and .091 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm announced ready for trial. The arresting officer had a body worn camera. However, he did not have it positioned correctly and no one could see the defendant from the waist down on the walk and turn or one leg stand. In other words, we could not see how he actually performed. In addition, due to a .02 margin of error, we were able to place the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit. On the day of trial, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Feb 26, 2024 Case: AD4ACOE Judge Bach-Armas
Facts: The defendant was stopped for failing to yield and almost hitting a police car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant performed various field sobriety tests such as HGN (eye test), the walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .099 and .091 in the breath machine.
Defense: The firm announced ready for trial. The arresting officer had a body worn camera. However, he did not have it positioned correctly and no one could see the defendant from the waist down on the walk and turn or one leg stand. In other words, we could not see how he actually performed. In addition, due to a .02 margin of error, we were able to place the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit. On the day of trial, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Feb 22, 2024 Case: AI9MG6E Judge Komninos
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was fumbling over his words. He also staggered as he exited the vehicle. He then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test) and the walk and turn. While being instructed on the one leg stand, the defendant began to express his displeasure with the tests and would not stop interrupting the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 22, 2024 Case: A77AR9E Judge Croff
Facts: The defendant was involved in a sideswipe traffic crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant also had mood swings, provided inconsistent statements, and was unsteady. She refused to perform field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and later refused a breath test.
Defense: The firm was able to provide evidence to the State that the defendant was not the at fault driver and that the other driver was as equally as culpable for the crash. In addition, the officer made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk in his reports which was not the case on the video tape.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 22, 2024 Case: AHC454E Judge Komninos
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an overwhelming odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and thick/slurred/mumbled speech. She also had a blank expression and a drunk appearance. After performing numerous field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .132 and .130 in the breath machine.
Defense: After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 22, 2024 Case: AHC454E Judge Komninos
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an overwhelming odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and thick/slurred/mumbled speech. She also had a blank expression and a drunk appearance. After performing numerous field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .132 and .130 in the breath machine.
Defense: After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Feb 22, 2024 Case: AI9MG6E Judge Komninos
Facts: The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was fumbling over his words. He also staggered as he exited the vehicle. He then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test) and the walk and turn. While being instructed on the one leg stand, the defendant began to express his displeasure with the tests and would not stop interrupting the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
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.