Jul 18, 2018	Case: A6MM9PE	Judge Bedinghaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and failure to maintain a single lane. Once stopped, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, he swayed as he stood, and was unable to keep his balance. After admitting to having consumed some glasses of wine that evening, he was then was asked to perform field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .100 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The video tape of the roadside tests contradicted the police reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 18, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-000012	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was driving at a high rate of speed when he lost control of his car and crashed. When the officer arrived, he saw that the airbags had deployed and a tire was missing. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. He had difficulty maintaining his balance and also swayed back and forth. The defendant refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 18, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-018768	Judge Silverman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for crossing over the center lane divider into oncoming traffic. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant fumbled with his documents and his manipulation was slow. He also stumbled and tripped on his feet. He then performed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .102 and .098 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 9, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-001034	Judge Grosshans
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and he was very off balance. He admitted to consuming some drinks at a bar. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew. a .208 and .191 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 9, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-001618	Judge Grosshans
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and a slur to his speech. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 9, 2018	Case: 1909-XDZ	Judge Newman
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car. Officers observed him to have slurred speech, a flushed face, blood shot eyes, and he appeared incoherent. The defendant admitted to having taken numerous medications. He was arrested for DUI after performing the field sobriety tests. The defendant was asked for a urine sample and he refused.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jun 26, 2018	Case: 18-CT-00068	Judge Everett
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and he stated he had drank 3 to 4 beers and also smoked pot earlier in the day. The defendant denied being drunk and refused to perform field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI. The search incident to arrest of the defendant's vehicle revealed marijuana and paraphernalia.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 25, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-001399	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant crashed his car into a giant palm tree. When police arrived, they saw the car up on a curb and up against the tree. The defendant was observed to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and he was off balance, staggering, and unsteady. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests to which he complied. He performed very poorly and even stated "I am intoxicated." He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 22, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-003998CTAXWS	Judge Poblick
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving and straddling the lane markers. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and watery/glassy eyes. The defendant stated she had drank 2 to 3 beers. Her coordination and listening ability were fair. She then performed the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. She later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 22, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-020592	Judge Hanser
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for a defective tail light. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 2 beers. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .192 and .183 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 18, 2018	Case: 16-024677MU10A	Judge M. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a one car crash on the highway. Upon arrival, the the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant agreed to perform the walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the HGN (eye test) exercises. The officer stated that the defendant was unable to walk a straight line or keep her foot up during the sobriety tests. All tests were supposedly captured on video. The defendant was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 15, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-052281AXXXXX	Judge Atkin
Facts:	The defendant was found inside his car at a bar parking lot. Attention was drawn to his vehicle because his car alarm was going off. When the officer went to the car, the defendant was trying to get the alarm to turn off. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. He swayed and his movements were slow. He admitted to consuming several beers earlier in the night. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 13, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-000650	Judge Shoemaker
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car by an officer. Upon awaking the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he stumbled while he stood. His eyes were bloodshot and his mouth as dry and pasty. He performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction at all on his record.

Jun 8, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-013770AXXXXX	Judge Naberhaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted to having drank 2 to 3 Bud Light beers. She swayed while she stood and was emotional. After performing the field sobriety tests on tape, she was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 8, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-050712AXXXXX	Judge Naberhaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. He was slow to exit the vehicle, slow walking, and swayed while he stood. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were videotaped and he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 7, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-038928	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he struck a mailbox, a fire hydrant, and finally a tree stump. Prior to the crash, a caller called 911 about the defendant driving recklessly. Officers observed the defendant to have bloodshot eyes, slurred/mumbled speech, and he was unsteady. The defendant staggered, stumbled, and had various mood swings. Believing he was impaired by drugs, he was asked to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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).
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 7, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-022170	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby she drove off the roadway into a ditch. She also hit a DOT sign which ended up causing the car to be totaled and airbags were deployed. When the trooper arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, an orbital sway, and glassy eyes. She admitted to drinking post Miranda and then was asked to perform the HGN (eye test ), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She performed poorly on video tape and was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 7, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-000050	Judge S. Jewett
Facts:	A caller advised 911 that the defendant was driving all over the road. When police spotted the defendant's car, they observed him drifting all over and almost crashing. Upon contact, after the traffic stop was conducted, officers detected a faint odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he rambled on about unrelated topics. He appeared sleepy, had flaccid muscle tone, glassy eyes, and was very unsteady. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused breath and urine tests.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 7, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-023188	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	Police were dispatched to a call about a reckless driver. Upon seeing the car matching the description, which was driven by the defendant, the officer observed her run a stop sign. He then initiated a traffic stop. He observed her to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted to having drank beer. Officers also observed slurred speech and unsteadiness. She refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 4, 2018	Case: 18-CT-500084	Judge Gagliardi
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and following too closely. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also had a flushed face, lethargic movements, appeared unsteady, and stated he had a couple of drinks. He then performed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.