Jun 17, 2016	Case: 05-2015-CT-037509AXXXXX	Judge Presiding Judge: Division 6 (Formerly Judge Murphy's Division)
Facts:	The defendant was parked behind a closed business. An officer spotted her car, drove around near it, got out of his car, and yelled “sheriff’s office.” There was no indication that the defendant ever saw or heard him. The defendant then drove away. The officer then got back in his car to stop the defendant to conduct a loitering and prowling investigation. While behind her, he observed her to be driving 30 mph in a 45 mph zone and she was allegedly swerving within her lane. Once stopped, the defendant was ordered out of her car at gun point by several officers and she was immediately handcuffed. She was cuffed for at least eight minutes or so and taken off camera. While off camera, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a clumsy demeanor. She also swayed and had bloodshot eyes. Once the cuffs were finally removed, the loitering and prowling investigation then turned into a DUI investigation. The defendant then performed several field sobriety tests on video tape. For example, on the one leg stand test, the defendant put her foot down several times and used her arms for balance. On the walk and turn exercise, she took the wrong number of steps, never touched heel to toe, and lost her balance. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was never arrested nor charged with loitering or prowling.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of any crime. In the other motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully arrested for loitering and prowling by the officer's actions of immediately handcuffing her, keeping her cuffed for a long period of time, and ordering her out of her car at gun point. At the motion hearing, the Officer could not remember any specifics of the alleged swerving such an the number of times she swerved, distance, or time frames. The judge Granted the illegal stop motion and threw out all the evidence. Thus, there was no need to ever argue the second motion. Without any evidence left, the State Dismissed the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jun 16, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-016396	Judge Cunningham
Facts:	The defendant made an illegal u-turn and struck other vehicle. An off duty officer observed the crash. He then called for officers who were on duty. Upon their arrival, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. The defendant stated he had drank gin and juice. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. According to the DUI officer, the defendant failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .091 and .084 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the officers in the case. At the depositions, the officers contradicted each other's testimony. For example, one officer stated that the defendant's speech was slurred, while the other testified it was normal with no slur. Also, the officers couldn't remember numerous details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tasks as there was no video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 14, 2016	Case: 2016-MM-000728	Judge Steele
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a two car crash whereby he rear ended someone. The defendant then drove down the road and stopped. When officers arrived, they came in contact with the defendant and immediately arrested him for leaving the scene of an accident. After that contact, the officers observed the defendant to have an odor of marijuana coming from his person, dilated/watery eyes, and he was speaking slowly. They then added a charge of DUI. In a search incident to arrest, the police found some marijuana in the defendant's car. The police then added another charge of possession of marijuana. Later at the police station, the defendant refused to provide a urine test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that the defendant was the one who actually called 911 about the crash. Thus, he was not trying to leave the scene at all and simply pulled his car a little further down the road to get to a safer place. Also, the officers never even inquired of the defendant as to why he had driven down the road. Furthermore, as for the DUI, the officers never attempted to conduct any type of DUI investigation such as asking the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The State Dismissed the DUI and leaving the scene of an accident charges. The defendant also received no criminal conviction at all for the possession of marijuana charge.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed,

Jun 13, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-002254-O	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he hit a parked car while leaving a parking lot. The defendant did not stop and continued driving. The incident was observed by a witness who notified police. When the police finally stopped the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a red face, and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank beer that day. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. He performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. After his arrest, he blew a .166 and .163 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State prior to trial. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction for the leaving the scene of an accident charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 10, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-000007AXXX	Judge Bonavita
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash in which his car went off the road into a canal. His dog had jumped onto his lap causing him to swerve. He and the dog got out of the car and swam to safety. When the police arrived, the defendant was soaking wet and fire rescue took him to the hospital to get checked. While at the hospital, the police came to talk to the defendant. They observed him to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to perform the roadside tasks outside the hospital. The defendant initially refused and then agreed to do them. He exhibited several clues of impairment on video and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .178 and .173 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer misstated the law as it related to performing field sobriety tests. Thus, the State agreed that based on the case law, all the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 9, 2016	Case: A0Z16AP	Judge Krieger-Martin
Facts:	An anonymous person called 911 stating that the defendant was passed out behind the wheel and in "distress." When officers arrived, the defendant was awake and talking on a cell phone. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. When asked if she had been drinking, the defendant stated "not a lot." After performing poorly on the the field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. While at the station, post Miranda, the defendant admitted to being impaired and that she should not have been driving. She then blew a .173 and .171 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under the law, when there is an anonymous tip, the officers must corroborate that tip. Here, the caller stated the defendant was passed out and in distress. However, when the police arrived, the defendant was awake and alert. Thus, there was no corroboration and the initial contact was unlawful.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 7, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-000326	Judge Mcginnis
Facts:	Officers responded to a car that was smoking and had blown out tires. Upon arrival at the scene, the officers noticed burnout tire marks all over the road leading up to where the defendant was found in his truck. Per the officer's report, the vehicle was disabled. The officers could also smell burnt rubber. Upon contact with the defendant, as he was seated in the driver's side of his vehicle, the officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unable to form a complete sentence and stumbled over his words. A bottle of liquor was found next to the defendant. The defendant was then asked to perform the roadside tests. He refused to perform them and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that when the officers arrived, the vehicle was actually "inoperable." There was no proof the defendant had ever driven the car to that location "while impaired" prior the car becoming inoperable, as required by Florida law.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 3, 2016	Case: 2014-CT-008000AXXX	Judge Hanser
Facts:	defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of his car at a red light with the car running. Upon the officer awakening the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed a couple of beers. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. It should be noted that this was the defendant's Second DUI arrest. The firm also represented the defendant on his first DUI a few years back. The firm got that DUI Dropped as well.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the defendant was never advised of any "adverse consequences" by the officer for refusing to perform the roadside tasks. The Judge granted the motion and excluded the refusal from evidence. Thereafter, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 31, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-003529	Judge Obrien
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by police for blocking traffic. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed her to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a wet stain on the pants. Once out of her car, the defendant appeared uneasy, unsteady, and very carefree. Believing the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks. The defendant stated she takes various controlled substances for medical issues. According to the officer, she exhibited numerous clues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she was asked to provide a urine sample. She complied, and once the results from the toxicology lab came back, it showed three different controlled substances in her system.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 31, 2016	Case: 2015-MM-007921	Judge Woodard
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and thick tongued speech. The defendant admitted to drinking a strawberry daiquiri and some cognac. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. On the walk and turn, she missed heel to toe and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, she hopped and put her foot down. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .121 and .120 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton was involved with pretrial litigation to exclude the breath test results. The Judge granted the motion to suppress and excluded the defendant's breath test results from evidence.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 27, 2016	Case: 16-CT-500800	Judge George
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving south in the northbound lane of travel. He was heading straight on toward a police car. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having a few glasses of wine. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. At one point, the defendant allegedly stated "he couldn't do them sober." According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .083 and .080 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged statement by the defendant about "not being able to do the field sobriety tests sober" was not captured on any video tape. Also, with the built in margins of error on the breath machine, both his test results could have been under the legal limit of .08.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 25, 2016	Case: A1G8HNE	Judge Newman
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The defendant's car actually burst into flames upon contact. When officers arrived, the defendant was sitting on the back of a fire rescue truck. The defendant was uneasy on her feet, had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, she took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms to balance, and missed heel to toe. On the one leg stand, she put her foot down and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the other individual who was hit, never saw the defendant behind the wheel due to the car bursting into flames and the subsequent chaos at the scene. Since the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 24, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-050687	Judge Babb
Facts:	The defendant was pulled over for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant performed the roadside tests on video tape. He performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). On the walk and turn, the defendant stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and lost his balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and lost track of his count. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and then blew a .105 and a .094 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer was clearly a new officer in training. He was reading the field sobriety test instructions off some type of sheet, almost like a teleprompter. However, the officer kept saying contradictory things while giving the instructions causing clear confusion on behalf of the defendant. For example, he told the defendant he did not have to count out loud during the walk and turn and then told the defendant he was not counting out loud half way through the exercise. The defendant at one point even said, "do I count or not? " Also, with the margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath test results could have been lower than the legal limit.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 24, 2016	Case: 15-1910MU10A	Judge Levey Cohen
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving 92mph in a 70mph zone. The initial officer observed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot watery eyes. During the conversation the officer stated that the defendant could not stop shaking. The defendant was asked if she took any medication and she handed over a prescription bottle of hydrocodone. Upon exiting the car she allegedly stumbled. The officer also stated that the defendant was continuously unsteady on her feet. She performed several field sobriety exercises including the walk and turn as well as the one leg stand. The investigating officer stated that she performed poorly and arrested her for DUI.
Defense:	The investigating officer arrived on scene with his camera on. However, rather than place the defendant on video, the defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests away from the camera. In addition, the officer who was operating the camera never placed his microphone on, and therefore none of the conversation was recorded. With no erratic driving and an investigation that was never captured on video, the State agreed to drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 18, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-022698	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a sway to his stance. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. The defendant admitted to drinking beer. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down and swayed. Also, on the walk and turn, the defendant did not touch heel to toe and stepped off the line. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .083 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant never stepped off the line on the walk and turn vs. what had been written in the report. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and he never swayed on video tape. In addition, there is a built in margin of error on the breath machine which could have put the defendant under the legal limit of .08.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 17, 2016	Case: 15-CT-504554	Judge Gagliardi
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down a few times and counted improperly. On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe several times and stepped off the line. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. We pointed out to the State that on video, one could not even see whether the defendant was not touching heel to toe due to the position of the camera. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and clear on tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report about it being slurred. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 16, 2016	Case: 15-CT-505084	Judge Hayes
Facts:	The defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks. He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He performed the HGN (eye test) and then when asked to start the walk and turn test, the defendant stated he did not want to perform any more exercises. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point did not contain the necessary criteria as set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in the case law. Also, we pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences of his refusal to perform the field sobriety tasks as required by law.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

May 9, 2016	Case: 14-2679MU10A	Judge Robinson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving on three flat tires. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. After a long discussion, the defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises. On video, the defendant stepped out of the instructional stance and failed to touch heel to toe on the walk and turn test. On the one leg stand, the defendant dropped his foot several times. The defendant was arrested for DUI and refused to submit to a breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed several motions to suppress based on an unlawful stop as well no reasonable suspicion to request roadside tests. At the motion to suppress, the officer who stopped the defendant completely contradicted the testimony of the arresting officer. In addition, despite the presence of a Spanish speaking officer, the investigating officer refused to allow him to interpret. Many of the problems that the defendant had during the roadside tests were equally attributable to the language barrier.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 9, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-000503AX	Judge Singer
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The defendant had bloodshot eyes, mumbled speech, and dilated pupils. He was off balance, unsteady, sluggish in his movements, and he also had body tremors. No odor of alcohol was detected. The defendant denied smoking marijuana, however, the officer stated he smelled it coming from his mouth. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose exercises. According the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that what the officer had written about his observations of the defendant's eyes on the HGN (eye test), was not consistent as set forth in the DRE (drug recognition manual) for someone who is alleged to have been impaired by marijuana.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

May 2, 2016	Case: 8622-GYZ	Judge Seraphin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and driving on a rim. The officer observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes, fumbling around with his paperwork, and difficulty following instructions. The officer also observed slurred speech and a flushed face. No odor of alcohol was detected. The officer, believing the defendant may be impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, requested the defendant to perform roadside tasks. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and rhomberg balance exercises. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant provided an urine sample and subsequently tested positive for marijuana at the toxicology lab.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that marijuana can be in one's system for at least 30 days. Unable to prove that the defendant was impaired by the marijuana at the time of the driving as required by Florida law, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.