Apr 10, 2018	Case: 14-040150MU10A	Judge Lerner-Wren
Facts:	An officer received a call regarding a crash. The officer located the alleged victim who subsequently pointed at the defendant's car. The officer proceeded to pull over the defendant. He observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and a flushed face. The defendant told the officer that she had been drinking lite beer and was on her way home. The defendant performed poorly on the walk and turn, one leg stand and finger to nose tests, and was arrested for DUI. This was her second offense for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. Specifically, the firm argued that there was no damage to either vehicle and therefore the officer was not legally entitled to pull the defendant over. The officer testified that he later observed no damage but was unaware at the time of the stop. The Judge granted the motion based on the fact that the officer failed to observe any damage prior to activating his lights and pulling over the defendant. All of the evidence was excluded.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 10, 2018	Case: 2017-CM-002296	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving down a one way street. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol, a strong odor of marijuana, noticed watery/bloodshot eyes, and also observed slurred speech. She also exhibited a sleepy appearance and admitted to having drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. After performing field sobriety exercises, the defendant was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused the breath and urine tests. In a search incident to arrest, marijuana as found in the car and she was also charged with possession.
Defense:	The officer's police reports were contradicted by the video tape as it related to the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction on the possession charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 5, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-002237	Judge Vandercar
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after swerving in and out of his lanes of travel. The officer observed slightly slurred speech, poor coordination, and a noticeable odor of alcohol. The defendant was unsteady on his feet and swayed while walking. He was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. He performed poorly and was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Upon cross examination under oath at the civil administrative hearing, the officer testified that he did not smell an odor of alcohol and concluded that the defendant was impaired by something, but could not state by what chemical or controlled substance as required by Florida law. The officer's credibility was now called into serious question because of his conflicting statements under oath about an odor of alcohol in his police report versus his administrative hearing testimony. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction at all on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 4, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-019663	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving at slow speeds and stopping inappropriately. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant leaned on the car for balance and gave inconsistent answers. He then refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	The firm announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations, the defense pointed out that on tape the defendant's speech was not slurred, he answered the officer's questions, and he was not leaning against the car for balance. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 28, 2018	Case: 16-011717CF10A	Judge Merrigan
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash with a pedestrian, causing serious bodily injury. He subsequently left the scene. Two individuals who witnessed the crash attempted to stop the defendant from leaving the scene. He was eventually located a few miles away from the accident. The officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face as well as bloodshot eyes. The defendant subsequently performed poorly on the walk and turn as well as the one leg stand tests and was arrested for DUI Serious Bodily Injury, Leaving the Scene of a Crash Causing Serious Bodily Injury, DUI Causing Property Damage and DUI. His blood alcohol level was a .115. The defendant was facing 22 years in state prison.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took the deposition of all 15 witnesses. Despite the lack of photographs, an independent investigation in conjunction with the officers testimony in deposition revealed skid marks. Ultimately, the defense was able to prove that the defendant was not the cause or contributing factor of the accident. As a result, the State dismissed both the felony DUI serious bodily injury count as well as the DUI causing property damage count. The defendant went to veteran's court on the felony leaving the scene of a crash causing serious bodily injury which will result in a dismissal and will ultimately do probation for a second degree misdemeanor.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Mar 28, 2018	Case: 2016-CF-009638	Judge Colbath (JURY TRIAL)
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after he ran a red light and was weaving in and out of his lane of travel. He did not pull over immediately and drove on the grass before stopping. Officers noticed the defendant to have blood shot eyes, an odor of alcohol, and heavily slurred and mumbled speech. The defendant had difficulty completing sentences and complete thoughts. Once out of the car, he swayed while he stood, he admitted to drinking, and the officers also noticed four beer cans in the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. He was subsequently arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI within ten years and the State charged him with Felony DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, along with co-counsel, announced ready for Jury trial. At jury trial, the firm attacked the two officers' credibility as much of the their testimony contradicted the video tape and each other. Also, the defendant testified that he was not impaired, that the officers were exaggerating his level of impairment, and lying about the extent of his weaving. We also argued that the officers were lying about the beer cans in the car as nothing was placed into evidence and no pictures were taken of them. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty. It should be noted, the firm represented this same defendant on his last DUI a few years back and that DUI was Dismissed. Otherwise, this would have been his Fourth DUI, not his Third.
Result:	The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

Mar 28, 2018	Case: 17-011425MU10A	Judge Solomon
Facts:	The defendant was observed asleep in a vehicle that was occupying the middle of the road. When the police approached the car, they noticed a white powdery substance on the defendant's nose. In addition, the officers observed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking four beers. The defendant agreed to perform field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Despite the fact that the defendant had consumed both cocaine as well as alcohol, it was still incumbent on the part of the prosecutor to prove that his normal faculties were impaired. The video contradicted a fair amount of the officer's sworn affidavit.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 20, 2018	Case: A6MLJKE	Judge Bedinghaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving, speeding up and slowing down, and stopping over the stop bar. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She was then arrested for DUI after her performance and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Prior to trial, we pointed out out to the State, that it was clear on video tape that the defendant was the proverbial "guinea pig" so a new officer in training can learn how to do a DUI. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 20, 2018	Case: A6MM7OE	Judge Bedinghaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	An officer must have probable cause to believe that a defendant was "impaired" in order to arrest a defendant for DUI. Under the case law, and under the facts of this case, we pointed out to the State in pretrial talks that there was no probable cause.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 20, 2018	Case: A6MM6YE	Judge Bedinghaus
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and glassy/glazed eyes. The defendant swayed as he stood and he admitted to consuming three beers. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .105 and .102 in the breath machine.
Defense:	On video, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests contradicted the officer's description in the police reports. Prior to trial, and after negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 15, 2018	Case: 2016-CT-002094	Judge Shoemaker
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault drive in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, an orbital sway, and she admitted to having drank wine. Due to injuries sustained by the defendant in the crash, she only performed the HGN (eye test). She was then transported to the hospital. The defendant provided an blood sample to the police. A blood alcohol toxicology report revealed results of .120 and .120. Once the blood was analyzed and the officer received the FDLE results, the defendant was subsequently charged by the State with DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the blood was illegally drawn by the officer. First, the officer who requested blood was outside his jurisdiction. Thus he had no authority to even order a blood draw. Additionally, the officer unlawfully coerced her into consenting to provided a blood sample by telling her that her driver's license will be suspended. Finally, the officer used the wrong documents required by FDLE when conducting a blood draw.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Mar 9, 2018	Case: 2018-CT-000545	Judge Shepherd
Facts:	The defendant was spotted by the police late at night, behind closed businesses. The officer turned on his overhead lights and stopped the defendant to find out what was going on and why he was back there. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. A bottle of wine was found in the car. When the defendant stepped out of the car, he was very off balance and stumbling. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention the case law on illegal traffic stops when someone is simply behind a closed business late at night. In order to stop someone, there must either be probable cause that the defendant committed a traffic infraction and/or there must reasonable suspicion of crime. Here there was neither. Thus, the traffic stop was unlawful. The DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Mar 9, 2018	Case: 2017-MM-022576AXXXXX	Judge Silverman
Facts:	The defendant rear ended another car in the drive thru lane of a McDonalds. The defendant was observed by the police to have a strong odor of alcohol, slow speech, and glassy eyes. The person he crashed into stated to the police that the defendant had stumbled out the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. After performing the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises, he was arrested for DUI. A search incident to arrest revealed marijuana in the defendant's car for which he was later charged with possession. He subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to sever the DUI charge from the Possession charge. During discussions prior the motion, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer's reports exaggerated the defendant's alleged impairment on his performance on the field sobriety tests versus what was depicted on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction on the possession charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-017882	Judge Cunningham
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for allegedly having one operable brake light. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he stated he had drank two IPA beers. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tasks. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down numerous times, swayed, and used his arms for balance. He also mixed up letters during the alphabet. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .163 and .154 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Pretrial, the firm pointed out to the State that there was no probable cause to lawfully stop the defendant as his brake light was working and the reason the officer provided did not meet the requirements of the inoperable brake light statute.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-020801	Judge Hanser
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to stop behind the stop bar line. The officer observed the defendant to have a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was unsteady exiting the car. The defendant stated he had drank wine earlier. He performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .153 and .140 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After numerous pretrial discussions, the State Dropped the DUI. We pointed out to the State that in the area that the defendant allegedly went over the stop bar, he did so out of "necessity," as one cannot see oncoming traffic without having to cross over it.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-017999	Judge Hanser
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his car. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. For example, on the alphabet test, the defendant messed up numerous letters. On the walk and turn, he stepped off the line and did not touch heel to toe. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .110 and .103 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After pretrial talks, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 26, 2018	Case: 2017-CT-001931	Judge Duckworth
Facts:	The defendant was hit head on by another driver who fled the scene. When the ambulance arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. Police were called. Upon contact with the defendant, the police noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was unsteady. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, the defendant was transported to the hospital. There, a blood draw was requested and the defendant complied. The FDLE lab report later revealed a blood alcohol level of .240 and .240. The defendant was subsequently charged with DUI.
Defense:	In order to get the blood results into evidence, a proper FDLE implied consent predicate must be laid in court. Prior to trial, the firm pointed out numerous mistakes made by the officer in his DUI blood paperwork packet used in this case. After review, the State agreed that the blood would not be admitted into evidence. Without the blood result, any impairment observed could have been as easily been attributed to the airbags hitting the defendant versus alcohol. The DUI was Dismissed
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 22, 2018	Case: 17-011498MU10A	Judge Levy
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. Other cars had to avoid her in order to avoid a collision. She also struck the curb numerous times. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to appear confused and have dilated pupils. She had a flushed face, glassy eyes, and she was unsteady. Believing she was impaired, the officer requested the defendant to perform roadside tasks. She performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath and urine tests.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample. The basis of our motion was that there was no probable cause to request a breath test since there was no odor of alcohol nor any indication of consumption of alcohol on the day in question. The Judge granted that motion. The firm then filed a motion for statement of particulars in an attempt to pin the state down as to what specific chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by Florida Statutes. They were unable to do so at the motion hearing and then were forced to Dismiss the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 15, 2018	Case: A6MLF3E	Judge Riba
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after illegally driving through a construction zone that had barriers around it. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. She also appeared to be swaying and was unsteady. After performing the roadside tests, she was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	The video contradicted the officer's reports as they related to her alleged swaying, unsteadiness, and also her performance on the field sobriety exercises. The Sate Dropped the DUI short of trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 14, 2018	Case: 15-23979MU10A	Judge Levy-Cohen
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to obey a traffic signal device. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he staggered as he walked. While talking to the officer, he swayed consistently and stated he had consumed a couple of drinks. He was then asked to perform field sobriety tests to which he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests. The basis of our motion was that the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing. The Judge granted the motion. The State then took an appeal. On appeal, the firm, in our reply brief, cited all the applicable case law to defend the judge's initial correct legal ruling. In its appellate ruling, the circuit court ruled in our favor and this has now become one of the lead opinions on this issue. The State then Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.