Feb 27, 2024	Case: 23-CT-012425	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having no lights on and running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, difficulty concentrating, and slurred speech. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused breath test.
Defense:	It was apparent from the video that the defendant was being investigated because he and his friends were stopped in a high crime area. There were multiple cops on scene. Also, the defendant was driving a black truck but the DUI ticket stated that the defendant was driving a white truck. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he showed no signs of not being able to concentrate. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no probation or any penalties.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 26, 2024	Case: AD4ACOE	Judge Bach-Armas
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to yield and almost hitting a police car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant performed various field sobriety tests such as HGN (eye test), the walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .099 and .091 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. The arresting officer had a body worn camera. However, he did not have it positioned correctly and no one could see the defendant from the waist down on the walk and turn or one leg stand. In other words, we could not see how he actually performed. In addition, due to a .02 margin of error, we were able to place the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit. On the day of trial, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 22, 2024	Case: AI9MG6E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he was fumbling over his words. He also staggered as he exited the vehicle. He then performed various roadside tests such as HGN (eye test) and the walk and turn. While being instructed on the one leg stand, the defendant began to express his displeasure with the tests and would not stop interrupting the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 22, 2024	Case: A77AR9E	Judge Croff
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a sideswipe traffic crash. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant also had mood swings, provided inconsistent statements, and was unsteady. She refused to perform field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The firm was able to provide evidence to the State that the defendant was not the at fault driver and that the other driver was as equally as culpable for the crash. In addition, the officer made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk in his reports which was not the case on the video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 22, 2024	Case: AHC454E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an overwhelming odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and thick/slurred/mumbled speech. She also had a blank expression and a drunk appearance. After performing numerous field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew a .132 and .130 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 20, 2024	Case: 23-CT-013781	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving recklessly around a parking lot. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his movements were slow/sluggish. He also had slurred speech and appeared unsteady. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .193 and .188 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 20, 2024	Case: 23-CF-00185AP	Judge Garcia
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road, driving below the speed limit, and driving westbound in the eastbound lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and thick tongued speech. Her eyes were glassy. She was also slow to respond, unsteady, and she exhibited mood swings. She performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI. She was also charged with Felony possession of cocaine.
Defense:	During negotiations with the State, we pointed out that although the defendant performed various field sobriety tests and the trooper had a dash camera, but for reasons unknown, not one was conducted in front of the camera. In addition, for some unknown reason the drugs were never tested by the lab. The State Dismissed the DUI and also Dismissed the Possession of Cocaine.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 19, 2024	Case: 23-CT-002030CTAXEX	Judge Wansboro
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle on the side of the road by a road ranger. The car had run out of gas. When police arrived, the defendant was standing outside of his car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/glassy eyes, and incoherent/mumbling speech. He swayed while standing, was slow to respond, and appeared confused. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	Under Florida Statute 901.15, all element of a misdemeanor DUI must occur in the presence of the officer unless there is a crash (i.e., they must observe the defendant driving or in actual physical control) or the arrest is unlawful. Here, the defendant was outside the car when the officer arrived so we pointed out to the State that the arrest was unlawful and they agreed. Also, when a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. The State Dropped the defendant's Third DUI and received no probation.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 16, 2024	Case: 23-CT-032048	Judge Silverman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and clumsy dexterity. She also had slurred speech, made repetitive statements, and had unsteady balance. She then performed various roadside tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). She was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The defense pointed out various medical issues that the defendant had which could have affected her performance on the field sobriety tests. After conversations with the State, they Dropped her Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 15, 2024	Case: 23-CT-002033CTAXES	Judge Poblick
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was driving 115 mph, almost hitting two cars, and swerving lane to lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, he admitted to consuming two shots of Hennessey, had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He also swayed while outside the vehicle. He performed poorly on various field sobriety tests and was arrested of DUI. He later blew a .106 and .103 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 15, 2024	Case: 22-010497CF10A	Judge Kollra
Facts:	The defendant was charged with a third offense felony DUI. He was involved in a crash whereby he drove his vehicle into a tree. It is important to note that the defendant did not suffer any injuries. There were several witnesses to the crash. The defendant left the scene in a different car, but returned shortly thereafter. After the witnesses identified the defendant as the driver the officers began conducting a DUI investigation. The officers asked the defendant a series of questions relating to his health. He informed them that he was a diabetic. He did not, however, tell the officers that he was suffering from a high or low blood sugar level. In addition, he did not complain of any injuries. The officers conducted a series a field sobriety tests and subsequently arrested the defendant for DUI. After arrest he was asked to provide a breath test to which he agreed. Fire rescue informed the police that the defendant had to be medically cleared first before they can take him to jail. As a result, the officers requested a blood test claiming that because the defendant was going to the hospital for medical clearance it would be impractical to obtain a breath test. He subsequently agreed. His blood alcohol level was a .257 (over three times the legal limit).
Defense:	Florida law does permit an officer to request a blood test if a breath test would either be impossible or impractical. After taking depositions of the officers, counsel discovered that the defendant's blood sugar level was actually checked on scene in the fire rescue truck. In addition, the officers admitted that they conducted a comprehensive medical check which came back normal. There was no reason to bring the defendant to the hospital. In fact, the defendant was only in the hospital for a total of 37 minutes. There was plenty of time to take the defendant to the breath alcohol testing facility to secure a breath test. Counsel filed a motion to exclude the .257 blood test as a violation of the defendant's 4th Amendment rights. The State conceded the motion and the DUI was completely dropped.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 7, 2024	Case: 23-CT-012447	Judge Taylor
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights after dark and an obstructed tag. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, a blank/dazed stare, and slurred speech. His movements were slow and deliberate, he appeared lethargic, and had fumbling fingers. He performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 7, 2024	Case: AGR46XE (23-07384MM)	Judge Vaccaro
Facts:	Police were called to a bar because the defendant was allegedly causing a disturbance and needed to be trespassed. When the officer arrived, he came into contact with the defendant as she was seated in her truck with the engine running. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. She appeared unsteady, swayed, and she was very irate. She agreed to perform only the HGN (eye test) and then refused to perform any further roadside tests. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. After her arrest, she was cursing and swearing at the officer the entire ride to the jail. She was also charged with disorderly conduct.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. On video and prior to her arrest on tape, she was not swaying, nor did she appear unsteady. In addition, her speech was not slurred. In fact, she appeared totally responsive and coherent. It was apparent on tape that the officer was getting frustrated and arrested her simply because she didn't want to perform roadside tests. She was very angry and cursing in the back of the patrol car because she felt she was being wrongly accused. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and dismissed the disorderly charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 7, 2024	Case: 23-CT-015871	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a side swipe crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and he swayed and stumbled. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .149 and .147 in the breath machine.
Defense:	On tape, the defendant requested an independent blood test. When a defendant does that, they must agree to take a breath test to which the defendant did. Under the law, an officer must give them some assistance such as either a cell phone or some means to contact whomever to get that test. Here, the Officer did nothing to assist. Thus, the breath test would have been excluded from evidence. Short of filing a motion to suppress, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 6, 2024	Case: 23-CT-009398	Judge Conrad
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, cutting off another car, and crossing over the fog line markers. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a bar bracelet on his wrist. He also had slurred speech. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Many written observations in the police reports were contradicted by the video. After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 6, 2024	Case: 23-CT-015894	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving on a rim without a front tire. The officer noticed an odor alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/glassy eyes. She also appeared unsteady on her feet and admitted to having consumed two drinks. After refusing to perform field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After pointing out a lack of probable cause to arrest her based on the video tape evidence, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no penalties other than court costs.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 1, 2024	Case: 23-CT-015821	Judge Booras
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she admitted to consuming beer and whiskey. She swayed while standing. She performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. The defendant later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After reviewing the DUI video, many observations written in the police reports were contradicted by the video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 30, 2024	Case: 23-CT-009564	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and she admitted to having drank alcohol. She also had bracelets on her wrist from a bar. She then performed various field sobriety tests such as the one leg stand, walk and turn, and HGN (eye test). She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	On tape, the defendant performed very well on the field sobriety tests and we pointed out that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest her.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 30, 2024	Case: 23-CT-014900	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and following too closely. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, unstable balance, slurred speech, and he leaned against the car for balance. He performed poorly on the videotaped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jan 26, 2024	Case: 23-CT-013903	Judge Zuckerman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. It was later determined that she had an expired driver's license. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and she admitted to having one drink. She then performed the HGN (eyes test), walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, and the estimation of 30 seconds. She was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After several conversations with the prosecutor and their supervisor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.