Our Recent DUI Victories

Parks & Braxton got depositions granted of the two officers in question. Prior to the depos, in speaking to the officers, it was uncovered that when the officers found the defendant, he was sleeping in the bed of his truck. This information was not written in the police reports and would have never been uncovered if the firm did not attempt to take depos. The state could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control of the truck.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm pointed out many inconsistencies between the officer's reports and the DUI video tape. Just prior to jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Issues were raised as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to a lack of particulars.

There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that she was sick, injured, or impaired when the officer stopped her, since no traffic was affected and the driving pattern did not go on for a long time.

Due to a lack of specifics by the caller, the police did not corroborate any indicators of impairment prior to seizing the defendant by ordering him our of the car.

When the officer did the HGN (eyes test), he did not get an angle onset of 45 degrees or less in the defendant's eyes. Under Tharpe's Formula, if that occurs, it may mean that the defendant was under the .08 legal limit.

In order to conduct a DUI investigation, the officer must be indicia of impairment. Here there was none, as she exhibited no erratic drving, no speech issues, and no balance issues. Thus, were was a lack of reasonable suspicion to even conduct a DUI investigation.

The officer made it out in his reports like the defendant was a falling down drunk. Almost all of his observations that were written were contradicted by the video.

On tape, the defendant was arrested very fast after refusing the roadside tests. It gave the imrpession that the officer already had made up his mind that he was going to arrest the defendant whether he did the roadsdies or not.

The officer did not see any driving pattern upon stopping the defendant. Thus, he had no corroboration to legally justify the traffic stop Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

Based on the video tape evidence, the firm pointed out that there was lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

There was a lack of reasonable suspicion of a crime for the officer to even legally request field sobriety tests. There must be indicators of impairment to justify the request.

The defendant's video tape showed that she may have been lower than .08 at the time of driving and that she was absorbing alcohol. Her roadside performance contradicted her breath test results.

The defendant had some mental health issues which caused his speech to appear slurred and also caused him to get very nervous and appear impaired. There was doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his mental health issues.

Issues were raised by the firm as to whether the breath test was lawfully obtained. Just because you provide a breath test, doesn't mean it is always admissible into evidence.

Many of the observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video. For example, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred and he did not appear unsteady on tape.

The State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle as he had no "capability" to operate it while asleep in a parking space.

Issues were raised by the firm as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop as well as probable cause to arrest.

The State could not prove that she was under the influence of the two drugs at the time of the crash. Marijuana can be in your system for up to 30 days. The officer did not smell any pot, nor find any. She is also prescribed the amphetamine. Also, on tape, prior to even beginning the roadside tests, the officer was having her car towed. The defendant can even be heard asking why are you towing my car. This proved that the officer had his mind made up to arrest her from the very beginning.

The firm raised issues as to the lawfullness of the traffic stop.

When there is no crash, under Florida Statute 901.15, the police are required to observe the defendant behind the wheel. If they do not, the arrest is unlawful and the breath test would have been excluded.

Parks & Braxton filed multiple motions to suppress evidence in the case. The firm also took depositions of the witnesses. The civilian witness involved in the crash contradicted almost every portion of the officer's testimony. Thus, there were credibility issues.

Since there was no DUI video, the firm put forth that there was a lack of evidence and also that the police reports were vaguely written.

Due to contradictions in the reports and video, the State Dropped the DUI.

After the firm raised various legal issue within the case based on the discovery, the State Dropped the DUI.

The State Attorney listed approximately 50 witnesses. Most important to the case was the traffic homicide investigator. After five (5) hours of cross-examination, the homicide investigator acknowledged the following. First, there was a box truck making a left turn that was discovered near the location of the crash which could have concealed the victim's bicycle just prior to the crash. There was a set of headphones that were located close to the victim's body which could have impaired the defendant's attention on the road. A toxicology report indicated both alcohol and cocaine in the victim's blood which could have impaired his ability to safely operate the bicycle. In addition, the officer recognized that many of the details that the independent civilian witness testified to were incorrect. The prosecutor acknowledged the weaknesses that were created by the defense. The vehicular homicide was amended to a reckless driving with injury.

Due to some conflicts within the discovery, the firm was able to convince the State that there were credibility issues.

Parks & Braxton filed a pre trial motion to suppress the breath test. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was improperly coerced into taking a breath test by the police because they gave him misinformation. The State subsequently Dropped the DUI after the motion hearing.

The firm put forth that there was an actual physical control issue as it was unknown where the keys were located to the vehicle. Also, many observations that the officer wrote in his reports were contradicted by the video tape. Furthermore, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused the roadside tests as required by law.

There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI ) to justify ordering the defendant out of the car. Also, there was a lack of actual physical control since he was sleeping in his car.

The call was not specific as to which males were actually fighting. Thus, the firm put forth that ordering the defendant out of the truck without reasonable suspicion of a crime was unlawful.

Based on the video and written evidence, the firm put forth that there was a lack of probable cause to make the arrest.

There was doubt as to whether any impairment observed was equally due to the severity of the rollover crash versus impairment by alcohol.

There is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine. Thus, the firm was able to put the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit.

Due to contradictions in the police reports versus the video, the Sate Dropped the DUI.

The defendant was stopped for weaving and straddling on the lane markers. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having consumed beer and taking Klonopin (a controlled substance). After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI.

The officers did not corroborate any diving pattern prior to making contact and ordering him out of the car. Thus, the firm put forth that initial stop was unlawful. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. The other two charges were dropped as well.

The State could not prove that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash due to the time frame and distance from the crash scene.

The firm raised issues with the State as to whether the the defendant was impaired prior to the vehicle being inoperable.

The firm pointed out to the State that on tape the officer had his mind made up to arrest the defendant prior to any DUI investigation being conducted. He was talking very fast and the defendant couldn't follow what he was saying. It was very clear that he was just going though the motions.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath results under the legal limit. In addition, when the officer performed the HGN (eye test) on the defendant, he did not get an angle of onset prior to 45 degrees. What that means is that the defendant could have been under the legal limit at the time of driving pursuant to Tharpe's formula. Also, many observations the officer wrote were contradicted by the video tape.

Many observations the officer wrote in his reports were contradicted by the video tape.

The initial seizure by police was unlawful when they ordered him out of the car because they made no DUI observations while he was still seated in the car.

The credibility of the officers was called into question as to whether or not the defendant actually had an odor of alcohol. One officer can he heard on tape saying he did not smell anything even as he was up close. Also, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred on tape.

On tape, it was clear the arresting officer was being trained by a field training officer. At one point on tape, after all the roadside tests were completed by the trainee, the trainee was overheard saying to his superior, "I am not sure." The arresting officer can be heard, "use your training and experience. " Well, he has none.

legal issues were raised by the firm about whether the defendant was coerced into taking a breath test.

The firm filed a pretrial motion to suppress any and all of the defendant's statements to police based on a violation of Miranda. On the day of the motion, the State agreed to Drop the DUI. He also received no conviction on the leaving the scene of an accident charge.

The firm raised various contradictions in the reports versus the video tape.

Parks & Braxton raised issues as to a lack of probable cause to make the arrest based on the video tape evidence.

Parks & Braxton raised issues as to the lawfulness of the arrest due to a lack of probable cause.

The firm brought contradictions between the reports and the video to the State's attention.

There were issues as to whether the defendant actually failed to yield calling into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

There were issues as to whether the State could prove that the defendant was in actual physical control because he was not behind the wheel when officers arrived on scene.

Issues were raised by the firm as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop based on the video and the reports.

The defendant was not in actual physical control as he had no capability to operate the vehicle while he was sleeping.

The defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform field sobriety tests as required by law.

There was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the video tape and police report evidence. This was presented to the prosecutor.

During discovery, the defense learned that the officer used some type of hand held video camera. It was discovered that the video was destroyed. Prior to filing any motions to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI and also the Leaving the Scene charge.

Parks & Braxton got the defendant's refusal to perform roadside tests excluded because the officer did not advise him of any adverse consequences as required by law. We also pointed out to the Sate without that evidence of the refusal, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him.

The firm brought issues to the State's attention that arose from the discovery relating to the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

The defendant performed much better on the roadside tests on tape than as described in the reports.

Based on odor of alcohol alone, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime to even request the defendant to perform field sobriety tests.

The defendant performed much better than described in the reports so the firm pointed out to the prosecutor there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.

The firm pointed out to the State that one officer got nystagmus on the HGN (eye test) and the officer did not. This was heard as they were talking on tape. As HGN is a strong indicator of alcohol being in one system, this inconsistency called their credibility into question.

Due to numerous inconsistencies between the video and the reports, the State Dropped the DUI.

and was arrested for DUI.
There was no corroboration of any driving pattern observed by the officers so the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. In addition, there were contradictions with the police reports themselves as well as what took place on video tape.

The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. His dexterity was clumsy, he exited the car slow, and appeared unsteady. After performing various field sobriety tests such and the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.

There were many conflicts between the video and the police reports. We pointed out that there was also a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.

There was no video of the DUI investigation, only audio. Many observations alleged in the reports were contradicted by the audio of the investigation.

During pretrial discovery, the defense uncovered that the arresting officer had some internal affairs issues. This called into question his credibility.

Based on the the defendant's video, the firm was able to show that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the Defendant.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of all the officers at the scene. As each officer came in and gave sworn testimony, they all not only contradicted themselves upon our questioning, but also their police reports. The State then Dropped the defendant's Fifth (5th) DUI.

The defendant was simply sitting in her car sleeping. She was not in actual physical control of the motor vehicle as she had no capability of operating the car.

The defendant's video of his roadside tests clearly showed that he may be been absorbing alcohol and under the legal limit at the time of driving.

After obtaining the evidence, it was clear that the video was a complete contradiction to the officer's testimony. Both the one leg stand as well as the walk and turn test differed exponentially from what the officer stated. After announcing ready for trial, the prosecutor agreed to drop the DUI.

Prior to obtaining the defendant's breath results of .161 and .151, the defendant had blown in the machine at least four other times. The breath readings were showing up as volume not met (not sufficient samples) and also outside of the .02 margin of error. This was all documented on the machine printouts. The firm point this out to the the State that the machine could have been erroneously reading the defendant's breath alcohol level.

There was no probable cause to charge the defendant with DUI baaed on odor being the only DUI observation.

Based on all evidence, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. Thus, the breath test would have been suppressed.

Parks & Braxton took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. At the depo, we were able to gain testimony from the officer that contradicted his reports. In addition, after the depo it was clear the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform roadside tests, as required by law.

The firm pointed out to the State that any mishaps on the roadside tests were not due to impairment by alcohol, but rather the aggressive nature of the officer. The State Dropped the DUI and the resisting charge was Dismissed.

The officers followed the defendant for a long time. There was no erratic driving pattern observed by the officers. The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question as there was no corroboration. In addition, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform the field sobriety tests. Also, all the observations alleged in the police report were contradicted by the video.

The caller on 911 stated only a conclusory statement that the defendant appeared drunk with no other supporting facts. When there is a only a conclusory statement about the defendant being drunk, the officers must observe some type of erratic driving pattern. The lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

There was no reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was sick, injured or impaired justifying ordering him out of his car. He could have just as easily been sleeping. The DUI observations weren't made until after they got him out of the car. Thus, the initial search and seizure was unlawful.

After performing the walk and turn, the defendant started to perform the one leg stand then refused. He was immediately arrested without being given any adverse consequences. Thus, his refusal to perform the rest of the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on all the evidence. The State Dropped the DUI and also we were able to get the felony Dismissed.

Many of the observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video tape.

Parks and Braxton pointed out to the State that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the video tape evidence

An initial call for service went out over dispatch about the defendant's driving prior to her being stopped. There was no corroboration of any driving pattern by the officer. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

There was doubt as to whether the defendant's breath alcohol level was above the legal limit at the time of the crash since it was administered hours later. It was unknown if he was absorbing or eliminating alcohol due to the time frame. Also, many written observations in the reports were also contradicted by the video.

Under Florida law, there must be a specific set for written guidelines for each individual roadblock. Here, they were somewhat vague as to specifics and did not meet with Florida Supreme court standards.

The firm pointed out that there were issues with the breathalyzer machine. Right before he blew there was a failure readout in the machine. Thus the results could not be trusted

The firm pointed out to the State that the defendant had brake issues which caused the car not to stop. Also, we pointed out there is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine. Thus, we were were able to place his breath test results under the legal limit.

Prior to trial, the frim filed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial detention. In our motion we put forth there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying ordering the defendant out of the car as he was simply sleeping. Also, there were many contradictions in the officers' reports. One officer stated that the defendant was found sleeping while another stated he saw the defendant getting in and out of his car as well as driving around the parking. lot. Their credibility was now called into question. The State Dropped the DUI prior any motion hearing.

The firm pointed out that the defendant had trouble with roadside tests because he had an injured leg. One could actually see the defendant limping around on the video tape.

The firm pointed out that some of the injuries that the defendant sustained could have as equally been attributable to any impairment from the crash versus alcohol.

Although the defendant did not drive immediately, there was no infraction since no traffic was affected. In today's day and age with technology, one could have been looking at their cell phone or radio etc. The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

The firm pointed out that any impairment could have just as easily been caused by the defendant's very high blood sugar taken by EMS at the scene versus alcohol.

Many observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video tape.

The firm took pretrial depositions of the officers. After lengthy questioning, we were able to establish that there was no "reasonable cause" pursuant to the DUI Statute for the officers to have even requested urine to begin with. Due to the fact the State could lose the urine test, they Dropped the DUI.