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

Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-030141 Judge Musselman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. The office noticed an odor of alcohol, fast/mumbled speech, and glassy eyes. He fumbled with his documents, had dry mouth, and stated he had consumed two mixed drinks. He was unsteady when exiting he car, swayed while he stood, and walked very slowly. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .130 and .129 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.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-033945 Judge Baker
Facts: The defendant crashed his car into a light pole. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. They also found Bush Light beers in the defendant's car and he swayed while he stood. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-017777 Judge Baker
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a sideswipe crash. The defendant left the scene and was later spotted by police standing outside his car on the shoulder of a roadway. They noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued/slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. He fumbled with his documents and repeated questions. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
Defense: The firm pointed out numerous issues to the State. First, there was no description given of the driver of the car that had left the scene of the accident (i.e., the defendant). When the defendant was found, he was outside of the car, the rental agreement was not in his name, and a significant amount of time had passed. Thus, there was an issue of identity placing him as the driver at the time of the crash. Also, there was no evidence that the defendant hadn't drank after the crash. Thus, they could not prove he was under the influence at the time of the crash. In addition, the officer did not take any pictures of any damage, never even put the defendant in front of the dash camera prior to arrest, and when the defendant can be heard speaking, his speech was normal. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI and he received no conviction on the leaving the scene charge.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-005169 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for passing another car in a no passing zone. He had driven west in the eastbound lane after crossing over the double yellow lane divider. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish reflexes. He dropped his items, swayed while he stood, and also staggered. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .133 and .130 in the breath machine.
Defense: After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-005779 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights and having an expired tag. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he had difficulty following instructions. The defendant stated he had drank three beers and he also had difficulty following instructions. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-036859 Judge Musselman
Facts: The defendant was unable to maintain a single lane and drove into the bike lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes and his movements were slow and lethargic. The defendant appeared clumsy and unsteady, he swayed, and leaned for balance. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The police reports made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk. The video contradicted the reports as the defendant was not off balance or unsteady in any way. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-005169 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for passing another car in a no passing zone. He had driven west in the eastbound lane after crossing over the double yellow lane divider. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish reflexes. He dropped his items, swayed while he stood, and also staggered. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .133 and .130 in the breath machine.
Defense: After several negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-005779 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights and having an expired tag. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he had difficulty following instructions. The defendant stated he had drank three beers and he also had difficulty following instructions. The defendant refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-0004472 Judge Conrad
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. He also had an unsteady stance. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The video contradicted the police reports. On tape, the defendant's speech wasn't slurred, he was not unsteady, and appeared responsive and coherent. Prior to trial the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-030141 Judge Musselman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. The office noticed an odor of alcohol, fast/mumbled speech, and glassy eyes. He fumbled with his documents, had dry mouth, and stated he had consumed two mixed drinks. He was unsteady when exiting he car, swayed while he stood, and walked very slowly. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .130 and .129 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.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-036859 Judge Musselman
Facts: The defendant was unable to maintain a single lane and drove into the bike lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes and his movements were slow and lethargic. The defendant appeared clumsy and unsteady, he swayed, and leaned for balance. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The police reports made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk. The video contradicted the reports as the defendant was not off balance or unsteady in any way. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-033945 Judge Baker
Facts: The defendant crashed his car into a light pole. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. They also found Bush Light beers in the defendant's car and he swayed while he stood. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 7, 2023 Case: 23-CT-017777 Judge Baker
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a sideswipe crash. The defendant left the scene and was later spotted by police standing outside his car on the shoulder of a roadway. They noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued/slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. He fumbled with his documents and repeated questions. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
Defense: The firm pointed out numerous issues to the State. First, there was no description given of the driver of the car that had left the scene of the accident (i.e., the defendant). When the defendant was found, he was outside of the car, the rental agreement was not in his name, and a significant amount of time had passed. Thus, there was an issue of identity placing him as the driver at the time of the crash. Also, there was no evidence that the defendant hadn't drank after the crash. Thus, they could not prove he was under the influence at the time of the crash. In addition, the officer did not take any pictures of any damage, never even put the defendant in front of the dash camera prior to arrest, and when the defendant can be heard speaking, his speech was normal. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI and he received no conviction on the leaving the scene charge.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 6, 2023 Case: 23-CT-502037 Judge Paluck
Facts: The police received calls about a reckless driver running cars off the road and stopping in the middle of the road (i.e., the defendant). Police located his car and made contact with him as he was stopped in the middle of the road. They observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slurred speech, and he also staggered while walking. The defendant was unsteady and denied drinking any alcohol. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition , the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 6, 2023 Case: 23-CT-501223 Judge Gonzalez
Facts: The defendant was stopped for an inoperative rear brake light and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he moved slowly. The defendant also had bloodshot/watery eyes, had difficulty concentrating, and stated he had drank two shots of alcohol. He then performed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense: There was no video in the case. The firm pointed out to the State prior to the trial date that the police reports were vague and lacked any specific details regarding the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 6, 2023 Case: 23-CT-502037 Judge Paluck
Facts: The police received calls about a reckless driver running cars off the road and stopping in the middle of the road (i.e., the defendant). Police located his car and made contact with him as he was stopped in the middle of the road. They observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slurred speech, and he also staggered while walking. The defendant was unsteady and denied drinking any alcohol. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition , the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 6, 2023 Case: 23-CT-501223 Judge Gonzalez
Facts: The defendant was stopped for an inoperative rear brake light and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he moved slowly. The defendant also had bloodshot/watery eyes, had difficulty concentrating, and stated he had drank two shots of alcohol. He then performed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn exercises. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense: There was no video in the case. The firm pointed out to the State prior to the trial date that the police reports were vague and lacked any specific details regarding the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 2, 2023 Case: AHPFZHE Judge Croff
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick-tongued speech, and watery/bloodshot eyes. He also had a dazed and blank expression on his face. He then refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: After conversations with the State regarding the lack of evidence on tape that the defendant's normal faculties were impaired, the State agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 2, 2023 Case: AH5O1YE Judge Lawhorne
Facts: The defendant was stopped on his motorcycle for making a right turn on red in violation of a no turn on red sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and slurred/mumbling speech. He staggered, swayed, and appeared unsteady. The defendant stated he had drank one Bud Light 16 ounce beer. He performed poorly on various field sobriety tests such as the one leg stand, estimation of time, and finger to nose. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Fourth DUI.
Defense: The firm provided the State with various medical records from the defendant. We pointed out that his speech was so slurred because he had suffered from throat cancer and that his why his speech sounded like it did. In addition, he had various back and knee problems causing him to appear very unsteady and off balance. He tried telling the officer all of this on tape. After several conversations the State regarding the evidence and the defendant's medical history, the State Dropped his Fourth DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Nov 2, 2023 Case: AHPFZHE Judge Croff
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick-tongued speech, and watery/bloodshot eyes. He also had a dazed and blank expression on his face. He then refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense: After conversations with the State regarding the lack of evidence on tape that the defendant's normal faculties were impaired, the State agreed to Drop 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.