Jul 28, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-024093	Judge Bryson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a sarcastic attitude, and slurred speech. Once outside the car, the defendant swayed while she stood. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests and was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .144 and .138 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 28, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-004023	Judge Cunningham
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking four cups of rum. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .196 and .195 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After numerous negotiations with the prosecutor, the State agreed to drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 25, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-003006	Judge Starr
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officer arrived on the scene, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, she failed and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	On video, the defendant was stating repeatedly that she had to "pee" really bad prior to and during the roadsides and it was an emergency. The officer would not let her urinate until after she performed the tests. The defense then pointed out to the State that she was "coerced" into doing them under duress. After reviewing the case law, it was clear the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 20, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-830395CTAXWS	Judge Grey
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and braking erratically which was captured on video. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. According the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. This was the Defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	On video, the officer, upon following the defendant, already had another person he had just arrested for DUI in the back seat. Prior to pulling the defendant over, he blurted out on tape "He's drunk" before even making any contact with the defendant. When he pulled the defendant over, he had the defendant perform the roadside tasks on a hill, not level ground. It starting becoming obvious that he was looking to make as many DUI arrests as he could. Once the defendant was arrested, the officer is then heard bragging about the number of DUI arrests he had made in the past week. Although the officer also said he smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath, the defendant blew triple 0's in the breath machine. The officer then asked for a urine sample. The defendant provided a sample which came back from the FDLE lab positive for Methamphetamine and Xanax. Due to the fact that the firm called the officer's credibility into question, the State Dropped the DUI short of trial. It should be noted that the firm also got the Defendant's first DUI Dropped as well.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 20, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-000404	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and swerving. She nearly struck several mail boxes. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and she was very unsteady on her feet. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Defense:	The firm pointed out to the State prior to trial that on the video tape, the officer had told the defendant she would be arrested whether she did the field sobriety tests or not. Thus, he already had his mind made up whether she did them or not. This showed the officer's clear bias toward making an arrest vs. giving her a fair opportunity to avoid arrest.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 19, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-000717-A-W	Judge Shoemaker
Facts:	The defendant was located by the police as he was stopped on the side of the road. A citizen, who provided their name, had called 911 stating that the defendant was driving all over the roadway and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He also had red eyes and there was an open bottle of beer in the car. He swayed while he stood and told the officer he had drank a few beers. He was asked to perform the roadside tasks but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial the defense pointed out to the State that the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences as required by case law when he refused to perform the roadside tests. Thus the defendant's refusal would have been excluded from evidence. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 18, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-011217	Judge Harper
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was very agitated. He also had a flushed face and admitted to drinking. He then performed the field sobriety exercises. According to the officer, he exhibited many cues of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	The State could not prove that the defendant was the driver of the car upon arriving at the crash scene. Without being able to prove that the defendant was either driving or in actual physical control, they could not prove the first element of a DUI charge.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jul 17, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-004559AXXMA	Judge Mitchell
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking 3 beers. The defendant was unsteady, had a flushed face, and at one point officers had to hold onto him to keep him from falling. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. He refused and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Under Florida law, one’s drivers license can only be suspended for refusing to submit to a breath, blood, or urine tests. Here, the officer erroneously advised the defendant on the law by telling him he would lose his driver's license for refusing field sobriety tests. Also, on tape, the defendant never appeared off balance or unsteady as the officers had written in their reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 17, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-039846AXXX-XX	Judge Koons
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping over the stop bar after coming out of a bar and then weaving while on her three wheel motorcycle. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer smelled an odor of alcohol, observed slow/slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant stated she had drank 2 beers and a glass of wine earlier in the night. She was off balance, unsteady, and staggered. The officer then had the defendant perform the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and finger count tests. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Through pretrial investigation, it was learned that this particular officer and others were on a DUI saturation patrol that night simply looking to make DUI arrests. They had been watching the bar that the defendant had exited and then were pulling people over after they had left. It was also uncovered, that the defendant's neighbor had been arrested the same night by the the same officer. The firm got the testimony of the officer from that case and used it to attack his credibility in our case since many facts were similar. This was brought to the attention of the prosecutor. Also, in our case, the officer wrote a very vague report as he did not write any specific details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests and simply checked off boxes on his Alcohol Influence Report. After reviewing the case, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 29, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-007883000-A-O-X	Judge Starr
Facts:	The defendant crashed into a sign at a McDonald's restaurant hard enough to cause his airbags to deploy. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and an orbital sway. He had a turquoise film surrounding the top layer of his tongue, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to drinking two long island iced teas. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and vomited on video tape. He was arrested for DUI and blew a .152 and .157 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State. Any unsteadiness exhibited by the defendant could have easily just have been attributed to getting hit with the airbags vs alcohol. Also, his vomiting a few times prior to the breath test and the police giving him water could have skewed his breath test results.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 16, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-002531	Judge Bell
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Upon arriving, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, bloodshot eyes, and dry lips. The defendant stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he didn't perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The defendant was misinformed by the officer that if he refused the breath test, he would be charged with a misdemeanor. That was a misstatement of the law as it's only a misdemeanor to refuse the breath test and an additional crime if it is a Second or subsequent refusal.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 12, 2017	Case: 17-CF-001453	Judge Pomponio
Facts:	The defendant was found asleep in his car while stopped at an intersection. Upon waking the defendant, officers noticed the defendant to be confused and disoriented. Also, they observed him to have extremely slurred speech, bloodshot/watery eyes, and a heavy orbital sway. The defendant appeared very sleepy during the entire investigation. Believing the defendant to be impaired by either a chemical and/or controlled substance, the defendant was requested to perform roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down, he used his arms for balance, and swayed. On the walk and turn, he lost his balance, took an incorrect number of steps, and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. In a search incident to arrest, officers found cocaine in the defendant's wallet. That cocaine did test positive at the FDLE lab. He was also charged with possession of cocaine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that all the signs observed by the officers did not point to the fact that the defendant was impaired by cocaine, a stimulant. In fact, on the other hand, all the observations were consistent with impairment by a depressant. Thus, the State would have been unable to prove that he was impaired by cocaine. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received No conviction the felony possession charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 6, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-022268	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was stopped when an officer saw him driving around a parking lot with his door open. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stumbled as he walked and had an "orbital sway." He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks to which he complied. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the walk and turn and one leg stand tests . He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that the defendant had numerous medical issues such as a prior traumatic brain injury. This injury led to all his balance issues prior to and during the roadside tests, to which the officer totally ignored.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 2, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-017044	Judge Bonavita
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for following to closely behind another vehicle. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank a few beers. The defendant agreed to perform the roadside tests on video and according to the officer he failed. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	There was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's poor performance on the roadside tests was due to alcohol or his medical issues. He is on tape telling the officer about a bad back which affects his balance. The officer then is heard telling the defendant that his bad back won’t affect his performance on the walk and turn or one leg stand, which is false as both are physical exercises. The firm brought these medical issues to the attention of the State just prior to trial. Also, the officer is heard telling the defendant on tape that it is a crime to drink and drive. That statement is false and showed the officer did not even know the law. To be guilty of DUI, one must be either driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level and/or be driving under the influence to the extent that their normal faculties are impaired.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 15, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-039857AXXXXX	Judge Naberhaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for not stopping at a stop bar and failing to maintain a single lane. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, constricted pupils, and slurred speech. The defendant was sluggish and also had glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming some beer and having taken his prescribed pain medication called "Percocet." That drug is considered a controlled substance. The defendant was then asked to then perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant complied, and according to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. The officer, who was a DRE (drug recognition expert), believed the defendant was impaired by a controlled substance, (i.e. the Percocet), so he has asked the defendant for a urine sample. The defendant refused to provide a urine sample. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior trial, the defense brought to the attention of the State that the officer had administered a walk and turn and one leg stand test. Normally that would be ok, but here the defendant was over 65 years old. The NHTSA manual, which sets forth the parameters for administering the field sobriety tests, states in part that an officer should use caution in administering the those tests to people over 60 years old. Here, even though the defendant kept telling them he had back and neck issues due to his age, the officer still proceeded with the exercises. In addition, we pointed out that the defendant's speech sounded slurred because he had hearing issues and even wore a hearing aid.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 12, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-042764AXXXXX	Judge Atkin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for a broken tag light. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had consumed 3 drinks and appeared confused while answering the officer's questions. After performing the HGN (eye test), finger to nose, and the finger count exercises, the defendant was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the firm pointed out various conflicts within the arresting officer's own police reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 5, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-017469ASB	Judge Bonavita
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled/slurred speech, and she admitted to having drank three glasses of wine. The defendant appeared very sleepy and off balance. She then performed the roadside tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose. She performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .169 and .168 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 5, 2017	Case: 2014-CT-011284	Judge Hanser
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. He was off balance, unsteady, and lethargic in his movements. The defendant also admitted to drinking. He was taken to the hospital due to his injuries. Due to a breath test being impracticable or impossible, the officer requested a blood sample from the defendant. The blood came back from the toxicology lab indicating a blood alcohol level of a .204 and .205. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton raised several pretrial issues with the State regarding legality of the blood draw. After reviewing the applicable case law and officer's testimony, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 4, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-019784	Judge Jeske
Facts:	A caller had called 911 stating that the defendant was driving very erratically. When the officer spotted her, he observed her weaving and then initiated a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant denied having anything to drink. After asking the defendant four times to perform field sobriety exercises, and her continuing to refuse, the officer arrested her for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Under Florida Case Law, a defendant must be advised of the adverse consequences of refusing to perform the field sobriety tests or the refusal is inadmissible into evidence. Here the officer simply arrested the defendant without advising her of any adverse consequences.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 2, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-029534AXXXXX	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a side swipe crash. After the crash, she left the scene and went to her house. The victim gave a description of the defendant, the make and model of the car, and tag number. The officers then went to the defendant's home a short time later. They made contact with her when she opened the front door. They observed an odor of alcohol, incoherent speech, and droopy eyelids. The defendant stated she had drank and taken pain medication prior to the crash. She then performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the defendant's statements about drinking and taking pain medications. Our motion was premised under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti which states that there must be independent substantial proof of a crime other than the defendant's statements. Here, there was no such evidence that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the crash (i.e. driving). Prior to the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received NO conviction for the LSA charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.