Our Recent DUI Victories

The firm pointed out to the State that the stop may be unlawful. There was no traffic that was affected by his driving and the officer did not write any specifics.

The firm announced ready for jury trial. A week prior to trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the defendant was a disabled vet. He had various medical issues including problems with his knees and mid-section. All of these issues contributed to his alleged poor performance on the field sobriety tests. Also, there was in car video which captured the defendant's performance on the roadside tests which the State did not produce. The defendant's speedy trial rights were not waived. The State Dismissed the DUI.

The specifics of the weaving were not detailed. Since no one knew the distance traveled, how many times he weaved, or the time frame, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that there was no lawful basis to initially seize and stop the defendant. Here the officer ordered the defendant to unlawfully roll down her windows and then turn off the car without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. Prior to the motion hearing, the State agreed with our legal position and Dropped the DUI.

Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted in a well lit area per the NHTSA regulations. Here, on video, they were conducted in a pitch black area. No one could even see how the defendant actually performed. The DUI was dismissed.

The defendant's video contradicted all the observations that the officer had written about in regards to his level of impairment. Further, the State could not prove that the defendant had consumed the marijuana the day in question, as it stays in your system for up to thirty days.

The firm pointed out to the State that any mishaps on the field sobriety tests were due to a language barrier between the defendant and the officer.

The firm was able to point out many characteristics that would have caused the defendant to have messed up the field sobriety tests, such as his age and numerous injuries.

For some unexplained reason, the defendant's roadside tests were not captured on tape even though the driving pattern was recorded. Prior to any motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence being filed by the firm, the State Dropped the DUI.

At trial, during cross examination, the firm was able to get the officer to state that he had no independent recollection of any specific facts without referring to his reports. The firm also got the officer to admit on the stand that he didn't even know the actual DUI law, that one's normal faculties have to be impaired. The officer testified that the law as he understood it was that it is illegal to simply drink and drive. Also, on cross examination, firm got the officer to admit that he incorrectly instructed the defendant on the walk and turn. In the middle of cross examination, as the officer's credibility was being called into question and a recess was taken. The State then Dropped the DUI in the middle of trial and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

On video, it was clear that the officer had the defendant doing to roadside tests on a slope. Per NHTSA requirements, the tests are supposed to be conducted on a level area. Here, the officer administered them in violation of the NHTSA requirements.

In order to ask for blood, one exception is that the breath test must be impracticable and/or impossible. Here, there was no showing as to any time frame as to how long the defendant was going to be released to get her to the station or jail for a breath test. Thus, the police had no lawful right to request a blood test and the defendant's refusal would have been inadmissible.

In order to stop a vehicle based on a tip such as the one in question, there must be other specific facts from the caller other than a simple conclusory statement such as an "intoxicated male." Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

Just prior to trial, the defense presented evidence to the State about the defendant's prior injuries to his knees. He had surgeries and had titanium in one leg. This evidence showed that any balance issues that the defendant had on the field sobriety tests could have been as easily due to his injuries versus alcohol.

A defendant can not be coerced into performing field sobriety exercises which are voluntary and not lawfully required by statute. Here, the officer made it clear to the defendant that if he did not perform the roadside tasks, he would be immediately arrested. This was pointed out to the State by the firm. The State agreed that the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was "coerced" into performing the otherwise voluntary tests. The Judge granted the motion and excluded all the roadsides from evidence. The State then appealed, however, the firm defended the Judge's ruling and won on appeal. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

The video contradicted the officer's written reports. For example, on the videotape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance. The high level of impairment on the field sobriety tests that he wrote about did not equate to the defendant's performance on the video tape.

The firm pointed out that the officer's reports contradicted each other. For example, in one report he wrote that he observed slurred speech versus the other whereby he failed to check the slurred speech box.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. Under Florida law, an officer must have "reasonable cause" to believe that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to lawfully request a breath test. In our motion, because the officer did not smell any alcohol, find any alcohol in the car, and the defendant denied drinking, we put forth there was no reasonable cause to request the defendant to submit to a breath test. Just prior the motion hearing, the State agreed to Drop the DUI.

The firm announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, it was brought to the State's attention that the defendant had many prior hip issues which caused her to appear off balance and have difficulty with the field sobriety exercise. In addition, there was no sound on the videotape and the defendant can be seen over and over pointing to her hip.

In order to stop someone based on an anonymous caller, the police must have some corroboration of the driving pattern. Here, there was none, so the lawfulness of the stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction on her record.

Under Florida law, to prove a DUI, the State must prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the individual. Here, since the defendant did not make any statements about taking any drugs that day, the State could not prove the DUI. The DUI was Dismissed and the State filed a new charging document for reckless driving. The defendant received No conviction or points on his record.

The firm pointed out to the State that the officer never smelled an odor of alcohol, even though he was right next to her. Also, although the medical records stated that she was intoxicated, they never tested her blood for alcohol or drugs. Thus, the State could not prove whether she was allegedly impaired by alcohol or drugs. In fact, in the medical records, one person treating the defendant wrote that she was clinically sober. That contradicted the findings of the other treating physician who believed she was intoxicated. The State Dropped the DUI to a Civil Traffic Infraction.

There was misinformation and coercion by the officer in obtaining breath samples from the defendant. Thus, there was a strong probability that the breath tests would have been excluded from evidence.

The defendant's video at the roadside contradicted her breath alcohol level which showed her breath alcohol level may have been under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving.

To be in actual physical control, one has to have the "capability" of operating the motor vehicle. Here, the defendant was sleeping and thus had no capability to operate the car.

It was clear from the evidence that a portion of the body camera was not properly preserved. Specifically, while the officer's instructions were captured, the defendant's performance was inexplicably erased. Parks and Braxton filed a motion to exclude the field sobriety tests based on destruction of evidence.

On video, the defendant can be heard telling the officer about leg and head injuries. Yet the officer still administered the physical exercises. In addition, on tape, it was clear that the officer was administering the exercises in violation of the NHTSA rules. The ground was not flat/level and was clearly sloped in the area where he had the defendant do the walk and turn and one leg stand. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

There was no video, so the case came down to the officer's word. During a pretrial investigation by the firm of the arresting officer, it was uncovered he had been arrested and charged with a felony. This was discussed with the State, even though it had not been disclosed by the stste, and the defense set the case for trial. The defendant was advised and agreed not to plead to anything and take the case to trial. Once the case was set for trial, the DUI was Dismissed.

Prior to trial, the firm provided proof to the State that she was prescribed that medication and that she had not taken it that day. The effects of not taking the medication that day as required, caused the impairment, not the drug itself.

Under Florida law, to be convicted of DUl, one must be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the officer could only smell a "fruity odor" which he believed to be some type of alcohol. However, based on odor alone, he could not state what specifically the defendant had to drink, when he had his last drink, or even how much. Thus, the State could not prove he was impaired by an "alcoholic beverage" as the DUI Statute requires.

Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control because he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle.

There were numerous inconsistencies in the trooper's reports which were brought to the attention of the State. Since there was no video tape, and he never even called for one, his credibility was now in question.

Here, the driving pattern was very vaguely described. It was unclear how many times he weaved, over how long of a distance, and the amount of time. This called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with the State. We pointed out various inconsistencies in the officer’s reports. Since there was no video, his credibility was now called into question.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests. In our motion, we alleged that on the videotape, the officer misstated the law as to the defendant's obligation to perform the voluntary exercises. Prior to arguing the motion, the State was provided the case law and agreed the officer coerced the defendant into performing them. Thus, all the roadside evidence would have been excluded.

In order to conduct a traffic stop based on the above tip, there must be corroboration of that tip. Here, the officer never observed any driving and activated his lights, thus detaining him illegally.

The defendant's performance on the videotaped roadside tests clearly showed that the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

There must be reasonable suspicion of a crime to request roadside tasks. In other words, there must be some evidence of impairment. Here, there was none and the roadsides would have potentially been excluded from evidence. Also, it was unclear why the officer did not give the two nationally standardized exercises (ie. the walk and turn and one leg stand). Yet, he chose to give the finger count test which is typically given in boating under the influence cases.

Roadside tests are supposed to be conducted on a well lit and level surface according the NHTSA manual. Here, the defendant was given the exercises on a dark and very visibly sloped road. It was evident that a mishaps on the exercise were from the conditions, and not alcohol. The defendant can even be seen pointing to the road and its slope while conversing with the officer. This was discussed with the prosecutor.

The defendant suffered from many medical illnesses. In fact, on tape she was trying to tell them about her illnesses and injuries, but the officers did not want to hear any of it. The firm brought this and her medical issues to the attention of the State. It was obvious that her illness caused the impairment, not any drugs. Also, the State could not prove whether those drugs were in her system at the time of driving.

Under Florida law, a person can only be requested to provide a breath test after being arrested. Here, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior the DUI arrest. The firm then filed a motion to exclude the refusal. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing field sobriety tests. The firm also filed a motion to exclude that refusal too. Finally, the officer never read the defendant his Miranda rights. The firm also filed a motion to suppress his statements under Florida's accident report privilege.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the refusal to perform roadside tests because no adverse consequences were given. The firm relied on the lead appellate case in Florida, State v. Thrift, in which Parks & Braxton had argued successfully on appeal, that without adverse consequences being given, the refusal to perform field sobriety tests should be inadmissible. Also, the arresting officer testified in a pretrial deposition taken by the firm, that a video recorded the defendant at the station. The firm then subpoenaed the records custodian of all videos from the police department who testified at a deposition that there was no video. Thus, the officer was caught in a lie. The State the Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's reports in many ways which was pointed out to the State. For example, the defendant's speech was not thick tongued and he did not appear unsteady. Also, the officer exaggerated the defendant's level of impairment on the field sobriety tests in his reports which was contradicted by the tape.

The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests contradicted her breath test results and clearly showed she was under the legal limit at the time of driving. Also, on tape the defendant's speech was not slurred and she was not off balance.

Due to the .005 and also the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defense was able to place the defendant under the legal limit.

The defendant's video tape contradicted the all the police reports.

On video, when asking the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests, they misstated the law. Thus, their actual knowledge of the DUI laws in Florida were called into question. Also, the defendant was not in actual physical control because he was sleeping in his car. The State Dropped the DUI.

Pretrial, the firm provided several pieces of favorable evidence provided by the defendant to the State. After a review, the State Dropped the DUI.

The officer believed the defendant was impaired by cocaine. However, if the defendant was impaired by cocaine, he certainly would not have been acting slow and sluggish. No DRE (drug recognition exam) was ever conducted. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No felony conviction on the possession charge.

There was no legal basis set forth in the reports, or the video tape, as to why the officers were conducting a welfare check on the defendant. Thus, there was no legal basis for ordering him to exit his car. Also, the officers wrote very vague police reports. For example, there were no specifics as to what the defendant did wrong on the finger to nose.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, case law was given to the State. It stated that a mere odor of alcohol does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime to legally request field sobriety tests. Thus, all the roadsides would have been thrown out. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial and the defendant received No criminal conviction on his record.

The firm announced ready for jury trial. There was no video at the scene and the officer's reports only vaguely described the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests with no specifics. Also, the video at the station was blurry and one could only hear the defendant. His speech sounded normal versus what the officer put in his report. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

English is the defendant's second language. It was evident that she did not fully understand many of the officer's instructions being given in English. Due to the language barrier, it was clear that her performance on the tests was due to the language issue versus alcohol.

The defendant told the officer he had many injuries which would prevent him from performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tests. However, the officer still had him perform them on the side of the highway very close to traffic. It was obvious from the tape, that his poor performance was due to the conditions on the highway and his injuries.

After a review of all the discovery and video tape, it became apparent that the defendant only swerved briefly and didn't come close to any parked cars. Thus, the stop may have been unlawful.

The defendant's performance on the roadside tests, which were captured on a body worn camera, clearly showed the defendant was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

The video contradicted the officer's reports as to the defendant's speech and his performance on the field sobriety tests.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. The basis of our motion was that the arrest was unlawful pursuant Florida Statute 901.15. Since no officer observed the defendant driving or in actual physical control, the fellow officer rule did not apply, even though civilians saw the defendant behind the wheel. The State read the motion and before the hearing date, the DUI was Dismissed. It should be noted that the firm beat the Defendant's last DUI too.

The officer had no video camera. His reports did not list any specifics of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. In addition, the officer actually believed the defendant may have been impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance with no facts to back up his conclusion.

The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. During our questioning, we were able to establish that the defendant did not speed up or attempt to take any evasive actions. The defendant is elderly and it was apparent he was simply oblivious to the police car. The officer also could not remember many specifics of the field sobriety tests. After the deposition, the State agreed to Drop the felony fleeing and eluding to a misdemeanor and also Drop the DUI.

During the breath test, there were errors which called the reliability of the results into question.

The defendant had suffered injuries in the crash. All the alleged signs of impairment were as equally as consistent with the traffic crash vs. alcohol.

The driving pattern was only vaguely described and not captured on tape. Thus, were wasn't enough reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.

The officer's reports were vaguely written as to any specifics of the field sobriety tests. Since there was no video tape, it was difficult to discern how the defendant actually performed on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI and he received No criminal conviction on his record.

During the HGN (eye test), the officer did not observe an angle of onset prior to 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes. Under Tharpe's formula, this would indicate his breath alcohol level was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

Parks and Braxton filed several motions to suppress. First, the firm filed a motion to exclude the field sobriety tests based on a lack of reasonable suspicion. Next, the firm filed a motion to suppress the refusal to submit to a breath test based on a lack of probable cause to believe the defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Finally, the firm filed a motion for statement of particulars requiring the state to name what substance the defendant was impaired by. Prior to the motions, the firm took sworn testimony from the officers in order to set up the motions. The state ultimately conceded the motion and the charges were dropped.

Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, the State could not prove he had the "capability" to operate the motor vehicle as required by the actual physical control definition in the DUI jury instruction.

On video, there was no sound. Thus, it was not clear if the officer misstated the law in obtaining the breath test. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer at the station, who also wrote a report, had numerous contradictory observations of the defendant as compared to the arresting officer. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. Through our questioning of the officer, the firm was able to establish that the officer unlawfully obtained the defendant's blood through coercion. In addition, it was also unlawfully obtained on another ground since a breath test was not impractical or impossible. After the State read the depo and applicable case law, they Dropped the DUI.

Since the defendant was sleeping, he had no capability to operate the motor vehicle. Thus, the State could not prove he was in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI. The felony is still pending.

It was pointed out to the State that the officer concluded the defendant was DUI even before he performed the roadsides, based on his off camera comments to another officer. Thus, his credibility was called into question.

In order to request field sobriety tests, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was impaired to lawfully request roadsides. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath results could have been under the legal limit. The defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.

The officer's body-worn camera, which captured the field sobriety tests, contradicted the officer's written reports as to the level of alleged impairment.

Every time the officer was seen instructing the defendant how to perform each field sobriety test on his body camera, the video then would cut out while he was actually performing each exercise. We put forth to the State that this was intentionally done. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to point out that one of the defendant's breath alcohol results could have been under the legal limit. Also, the videotape contradicted the officer's reports as to many things. For example, the defendant never tripped or stumbled and his speech was not slurred. Also, the extent of alleged impairment on the field sobriety tests as written in the reports was contracted by the tape.

Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that on tape the officer had already made up his mind that the defendant was impaired. This was based on his statements to the other officer on scene prior to even coming in contact with the defendant. Also, the officer never even brought the defendant in front of the camera so one could hear him or see him.

The video tape of the roadside tests contradicted the police reports.

Under Florida law (Statute 316.193), the State must prove which "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance was impairing the defendant. Here, after we filed a motion for statement of particulars, the State could not give a response. On the day of trial, the DUI was Dismissed.

It was clear from the tapes that the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests was as easily attributable to his weight and physical ailments versus alcohol. This was discussed with the State prior to trial.

Parks and Braxton raised the issue of a 316.645 violation. Specifically, the procedures surrounding a crash followed by a DUI arrest were not in compliance.

It was evident from the discovery that the only reason the defendant was arrested for DUI was because he was refusing to perform roadside tests and cooperate, not because the police had probable cause. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no convictions for the possession of pot and paraphernalia charges.

In order to arrest someone for DUI, there must be probable cause. Here, the investigating officer didn't make any personal observations and relied on another officer's upon arriving. He then immediately went up to the defendant within seconds and asked him to perform the roadside tasks. When the defendant initially said no, he was immediately cuffed and told he was under arrest. He then stated he would do them and was subsequently uncuffed. However, due to the initial illegality of cuffing the defendant without probable cause, all the evidence would have been thrown out including the field sobriety tests, observations, and statements. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

The firm brought information forward that the tail light was not defective. We argued that if the traffic stop was unlawful, all the evidence would have been thrown out.

It was apparent that the description the officers wrote about the defendant's level of impairment was contradicted by the video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No Conviction at all on her record.

Upon receipt of the evidence, it was clear that there was a malfunction regarding the video equipment. Counsel argued that any evidence that would have been captured on video should be excluded.

Officers had no reasonable suspicion of a crime to order the defendant to roll down his windows prior to making any DUI observations. Thus, all of the evidence that was gathered after he was ordered to roll down his windows was illegally obtained.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Given the fact that the defendant was sleeping behind the wheel of the vehicle, there was a question as to whether the defendant was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

On tape, the officer misstated the law and coerced the defendant into performing field sobriety tests. The firm then pulled the applicable case law and filed a motion to suppress the roadside tests. Prior to any motion hearing being held, the State Dropped the DUI.

The firm had discussions with the State whereby we pointed out them that the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired as required by Florida law.

Prior to trial, the firm sent the State pictures of the totaled car, the airbags deployed in the car, and photos of the defendant's injuries after the crash. It was obvious that the alleged impairment could have been as easily to do with the severity of the crash versus alcohol. Yet, the officer still had her doing a walk and turn and one leg stand tests versus non-physical exercises like the alphabet and finger to nose tests.

Under Florida law, a person can only be convicted of DUI if they are impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance, other than alcohol of course. The defendant admitted to taking various pills for different conditions and sleeping meds, but did not specify which ones. Although he was impaired, the State could not prove by which chemical and/or controlled substance specifically was impairing him as required by Florida Statute 316.193 (the DUI Statute).

There were no body cameras or an in-car camera on scene. Officers believed the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance. Since the defendant never submitted to a DRE (drug recognition exam), the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

There was no video and the officer only wrote in generalities in his reports. For example, he wrote she was "unsteady" but failed to articulate what facts led him to believe that. The firm pointed this out to the State prior to trial and they Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. There was no video tape and the officer did not describe the roadsides in any detail in his reports. Due the lack of specificity, the State Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, the defendant's speech did not appear to be slurred on tape and she was not off balance or unsteady. This was discussed with the prosecutor who then Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, in discussions with the State, we pointed out that the video totally contradicted what was written in the police reports. Many of the officer's written observations of the specifics of the roadside tests were contradicted by the tape. On the day of jury trial, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The video tape in the case contradicted the officer's written reports as to the alleged level of impairment prior to and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.

The firm took a lengthy pretrial sworn deposition of the arresting officer. During questioning, the officer contradicted her police reports and could not remember many important details about the facts of the case. After the State read the depo and realized that their officer's credibility was called into question, they Dropped the DUI.