Jan 12, 2022	Case: 21-CT-0111727	Judge Dominguez for Oster
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers did not smell any alcohol, but they noticed glossy eyes, and lethargic behavior. She was sweating profusely and was unsteady. Believing she was impaired by drugs, she then performed roadside tests. She performed poorly on tape and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a urine test.
Defense:	For the State to prove a DUI under 316.193 (DUI Statute), the defendant must be impaired by alcohol and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, they could not prove that she was impaired by any specific substance.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jan 12, 2022	Case: 21-CT-000801	Judge Dubois
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and the defendant admitted to having drank. He also stumbled and appeared cocky. He was then asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, it was pointed out to the State that on tape the officer misinformed the defendant about the law relating to roadside tests. In addition, he never stumbled and actually appeared sober. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2022	Case: AE8M8EE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	An individual working at a bar where the defendant was drinking stated she appeard intoxicated and attempted to get her an Uber. The defendant refused and drove off. Officers spotted the defendant driving and stopped her. They noticed an odor of alcohol, and glassy/watery eyes. After going back and forth with the officers, she performed field sobriety tests. She did not perform to their satisfaction and was arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The initial call leading to the traffic stop was vague and only had a conclusory statement that the defendant appeared intoxicated. Without more details, the stop was not corroborated and unlawful.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2022	Case: AEBM9OE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights or taillights. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and he was sweating. The defendant appeared confused and had difficulty following directions. The defendant agreed to perform the HGN (eye test) and then refused to perform anymore exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Based on the written report and video tape evidence provided by the State in discovery, the defense raised issues as to the lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2022	Case: ADW4LOE	Judge Croff
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for cutting in between cars and driving too closely. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. She also had a blank stare, stated she had consumed martinis and beer, and slightly staggered. After performing various field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .122 and a .117.
Defense:	Issues were raised by the defense as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2022	Case: AE8M1VE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and stopping over the stop bar. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and slow reactions to answering the officer's questions. He also had bloodshot eyes. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test), he was arrested for DUI. The defendant blew numerous times into the machine all resulting in invalid samples. The invalid samples called VNM (volume not met) were .143, .108, .130, and .103. Since he could not provide two valid samples, the police wrote it up as a refusal.
Defense:	According to the police reports provided in discovery by the State, all the defendant's roadside tests were videotaped. However, that tape was never turned over to the state by the police. In order to avoid the defense from filing a motion to dismiss the case for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 11, 2022	Case: A6MGQIE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. When the defendant rolled the window down, a large plume of marijuana smoke appeared. This made it difficult for the officer to see inside. The defendant appeared drowsy, disoriented, and stated he was "hot boxing." The defendant performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He the provided a urine sample which was sent to the lab. It tested positive for THC (marijuana).
Defense:	There were numerous pretrial discussions with the state. Eventually the defense was able to convince the State to Drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 10, 2022	Case: 21-CT-007015	Judge Palomino for Oster
Facts:	The defendant crashed her car into a concrete barrier. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. After performing roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .195 and a .181 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion we alleged that the officer misled the defendant into taking the breath test. Specifically, we put forth that the officer led her to believe she could get a hardship license if she blew, versus, she could not if she refused. Thus, the officer went outside Implied Consent by discussing hardships. On the day of the motion, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 6, 2022	Case: 21-CM-7566	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was driving his boat when it was boarded for a safety check. Officers observed an open container of alcohol at the helm. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant fumbled around and had problems using his fingertips. He then performed various field sobriety exercises used in boating under the influence cases such as the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, palm pat, and hand coordination test. He was then arrested for BUI.
Defense:	When the firm got the video (body worn camera) from the officer, it was missing all the field sobriety tests. The State, nor the police, could ever produce that evidence.
Result:	The Boating under the Influence charge was Dismissed by the State.

Jan 6, 2022	Case: 21-CM-006482	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after driving westbound in the eastbound lane. Officers observed her to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a blank/dazed stare. She had poor coordination, cyclical mood behavior, and she admitted to having drank alcohol. She then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She resisted arrested by pulling away, stiffening her arms, and refusing to place her arms behind her back. She was also charged with resisting arrest. She later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Every observation the officer wrote was either false or overly exaggerated. The DUI video completely contradicted everything that was on paper. In fact, the defendant actually performed very well on the tests.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the resisting charge.

Jan 6, 2022	Case: 21-MM-001545	Judge Wansboro
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby she backed into another car. Officers observed her to appear dazed, she had very slurred speech, and she could not comprehend commands. She threatened the officer by telling her she was going to kill her. Her speech became more incomprehensible as time went on. She was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. During the exercises, she started doing yoga and gymnast moves. She was then arrested for DUI and threatening a cop. She was also charged with criminal mischief for destroying the officers back seat camera. She later refused a breath and a urine test.
Defense:	To prove DUI, the State must prove that the defendant was impaired by alcohol and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Although, the defendant was clearly impaired, the State could not prove why what specifically.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant was also not convicted on the other crimes.

Jan 5, 2022	Case: 21-CT-030819	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after callers dialed 911 stating that the defendant was driving out of control and recklessly. When officers spotted her, they saw her swerving and striking the curb. She did not stop upon the officers using their lights and sirens. When contact was made, the defendant was incoherent and almost fell. Believing that she was impaired by drugs, she was asked to perform roadside tests to which she couldn't do. It was also determined that she had left the scene of an accident. She was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. She later provided a urine sample which was positive for marijuana.
Defense:	The defendant admitted to having taken Ambien ten minutes before driving. The officers did not find nor smell any marijuana. The marijuana could have been in her system for 30 days. The lab didn't test for the Ambien for some unknown reason. Thus, the State couldn't prove by what specific chemical and/or controlled substance was impairing her as required by the DUI statute 316.193. The State Dropped the DUI and dismissed the Leaving the scene charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 5, 2022	Case: 21-CT-037722	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and crossing over the fog line three times. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she was emotional. She was asked to perform roadside tests to which she complied. She was then arrested for DUI and she later blew a .209 and a .204 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to a lack of reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation, simply based on odor and bloodshot eyes, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 5, 2022	Case: 21-CT-003471	Judge Taylor
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He was belligerent, argumentative, and he swayed. After performing various filed sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .130 and a .132 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After numerous conversations with the prosecutor about various issues and discrepancies in discovery uncovered by the defense, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 4, 2022	Case: 21-CT-010333	Judge Palomino for Oster
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, droopy eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to consuming alcohol. He was also unsteady and had a bracelet from a bar. After performing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .158 and a .153 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control because he had no capability to operate the car while sleeping.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 16, 2021	Case: 21-CT-041687	Judge Peacock
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and having no taillights. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he stated that he had consumed a few drinks. He swayed while he stood and also vomited. After performing roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Due to various contradictions between the video and the written reports pointed out by the firm, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 14, 2021	Case: 21-CT-013583	Judge Damico
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving too fast for conditions. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and a distant stare. The defendant's speech was slow and deliberate, and he had difficulty balancing himself. The defendant then performed various roadside tasks such and the finger to nose, alphabet, and walk and turn . He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Issues were raised as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to the fact that the officer allegedly only visually estimated the defendant's speed and the "conditions" were not articulated in any detail.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 10, 2021	Case: 21-CT-036776	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glossy/bloodshot eyes, and he stated he had consumed 3 crown and cokes. He also swayed while he stood, had mumbled speech, and appeared unsteady. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .146 and a .143 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to inconsistencies between the police reports and the video tape that were pointed out by the firm to the State, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 8, 2021	Case: 21-CT-5854	Judge Jewett
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a traffic crash whereby she was the at fault driver. The defendant was taken to the hospital where she was met by officers. They observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was in and out of consciousness. She was asked to provide a blood sample and she refused. She was subsequently arrested for DUI.
Defense:	There as a lack of probable cause to arrest her due to the officer being unable to communicate with her at the hospital due to her medical condition.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Dec 7, 2021	Case: AEBLREE	Judge Bedinghaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving down the wrong lane, by driving westbound in the eastbound lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also gave the officer his debit card instead of his driver’s license. The defendant also appeared to stumble and he stated he had drank two beers. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a 144 and a .143 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The video of the defendant at the scene clearly contradicted many of the officer’s written observations which were highly exaggerated.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.