Dec 5, 2018	Case: 17-CT-017803	Judge Shepherd
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for passing two cars and crossing over the double yellow lane markers into oncoming traffic. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, rapid/stuttered speech, and red/glassy eyes. He admitted to having consumed two beers and had an orbital sway. He then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, he mixed up the letters while stating the alphabet. On the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps and walked normal instead of heel to toe as instructed. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and swayed. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 3, 2018	Case: 18-CT-001418	Judge Caraballo
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, the defendant had already been transported to the hospital. There, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also appeared confused and admitted to having drank vodka. The police asked for a blood sample and she refused. She was then charged with DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 30, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-009117	Judge Eissey
Facts:	Police were notified after a Duffy's employee notified them that there was an intoxicated male leaving the establishment who had just fallen and hit his head. Police located the defendant who was the person in question and stopped his vehicle. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He admitted to having drank wine. He performed very poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 29, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-028475	Judge Babb
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and the defendant admitted to having drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests which were not videotaped. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 13, 2018	Case: 15-14807MU10A	Judge Carpenter-Toye
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after he was observed driving into the middle of an intersection which had a red light. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/red eyes, and he admitted to having consumed three vodka and cranberry cocktails. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down numerous times, swayed, and counted incorrectly. On the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, stepped off the line, and took an incorrect number of steps. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 13, 2018	Case: 18-CT-502448	Judge M. Gonzalez
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after he ran a stop sign causing other traffic to have to brake to avoid a crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he stated that he had "drank a few at home." The defendant's speech was mumbled, he swayed, and he used the car door for balance. He then performed very poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, took an incorrect number of steps, and did not touch heel to toe. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 8, 2018	Case: 18-CT-5271	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to having drank two beers and he let the officer perform the HGN (eye test) on him. He refused to perform all other field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 8, 2018	Case: 18-CT-6782	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and speeding. Upon contact, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant used the door for balance, swayed as he stood, and he admitted to having drank 5 beers. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 6, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-001432	Judge Alessandroni
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slow/deliberate movements, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant appeared confused and admitted to having drank wine. The defendant agreed to perform field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .144 and a .139 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 6, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-000046	Judge M. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred/thick tongued speech, and an odor of some type of pepper spray on the defendant's breath. The defendant denied having anything to drink and was was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .112 and a .112 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 31, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-8530	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	A caller dialed 911 stating the defendant was swerving. When the police stopped her, they noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she admitted to having drank wine. She also appeared unsteady. She then performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later blew .158 and .153 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 30, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-028277AXXXXX	Judge Naberhaus
Facts:	A civilian called 911 stating that they believed the defendant was an impaired driver. They told 911 that the defendant was driving erratically and hitting curbs. The defendant was eventually stopped by police. Upon contact, they observed him to have difficulty walking and he used his door for support. His eyes were glassy and constricted. He rambled on and on as he spoke and was fumbling with his documents. The officer did not smell any alcohol. Believing he was impaired by drugs, the officer requested that he perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of a chemical and/or controlled substance.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 29, 2018	Case: A6MM4AE	Judge Kominos
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end traffic crash. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant have slurred speech, red/watery eyes, and she was having mood swings. She was transported to the hospital where the officer followed up with her. Believing she was impaired by alcohol or drugs, he requested a blood sample to which she refused. However, medical personnel had taken her blood for medical purposes already. The State then got her medical records after a motion hearing. She was charged with DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 26, 2018	Case: 18-CT-7140	Judge Shepherd
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slow/slurred speech, and he admitted to having drank beers. He was lethargic in his movements and had poor coordination. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .207 and a .201 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 23, 2018	Case: 16-015352MU10A	Judge Kal Evans
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way towards oncoming traffic. The defendant subsequently made a u-turn and again was driving the wrong way. The initial officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech as well as unsteadiness. A DUI officer was subsequently called to the scene to conduct an investigation. The defendant performed a series of field sobriety tests including the one leg stand, walk and turn, finger to nose, as well as the HGN (eye test). Believing that the she performed poorly on the tests, the defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 23, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-7273	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving without her headlights on. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a red face, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant then performed the HGN (eyes test) , one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. She was arrested for DUI and later blew a .171 and a .157 in the breath machine.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 23, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-006360	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in her car. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and she was unsteady on her feet. She then performed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 22, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-502085	Judge Paluck
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy eyes. He struggled to maintain his balance and a bottle of vodka was found in the car. He then performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand, he placed his foot on the ground and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 19, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-002612-WH	Judge Grode
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights and swerving. The officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he admitted to having a few drinks. He was unsteady, staggered, and had slurred speech. He refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 18, 2018	Case: A96EC3E	Judge Riba
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed her to have slurred/mumbled speech, a dazed/confused look, and watery eyes. The defendant's pupils were contracted and she went through mood swings. The defendant had no odor of alcohol, but admitted to being prescribed Ritalin. She was unsteady, almost fell over, and she performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DUI and later provided a urine sample which tested positive for Ritalin.
Defense:	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.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.