Aug 15, 2017	Case: 16-009972MU10A	Judge Solomon
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officer arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she was very unsteady on her feet. The defendant used her vehicle for support on a few occasions. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she almost fell and the exercise was terminated for her safety. On the HGN (eye test), she did not follow the stimulus with her eyes and looked straight ahead. She was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took pre trial depositions of the officers and civilians involved in the case. All of the officers' sworn testimony contradicted each other’s and also the testimony of the civilians involved in the crash. The firm announced ready for trial and on the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 14, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-000815NC	Judge Denkin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and swerving. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant stated he had been drinking beer that night. He was then asked to perform the roadside tests. According to the officer, he exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew over the legal limit by providing breath samples of a .088 and .082 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer coerced the defendant into taking a breath test by advising the defendant that he can get a work permit and continue to drive if he took a breath test, however, if he refused, he would not be able to get a hardship license nor continue to drive. The Judge watched the video, read the applicable case law, heard argument of counsel, and then Granted the motion. The breath test results were then excluded from evidence. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction at all on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 14, 2017	Case: 17-CT-000533	Judge M. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol and the defendant appeared very confused as to her direction of travel. EMS was called to the scene to check the defendant out for any medical issues. After being cleared medically, the defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. She then performed the HGN (eye), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. According to the officer, she did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	In order to conduct field sobriety tests, an officer must have "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (i.e. that the defendant was impaired) in order to administer roadside tests. Here, there was a lack of "reasonable suspicion" thus the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 3, 2017	Case: 2016-CT-023394	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he was unsteady exiting his car. The defendant admitted to drinking and there were some beer bottles in the car. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	The firm pointed out to the State that the video contradicted the officer's police reports. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. Yet on video, that was not the case. Also, he had written that the defendant was unsteady, however, he was not off balance or unsteady at all on tape. Since the officer's credibility was being called into question, the State Dropped the DUI just prior to the trial date.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 3, 2017	Case: 2017-CF-000120	Judge Barber
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after being observed squealing his tires in a gas station parking lot and attempting to exit at a high rate of speed. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and noticed an unopened 18 pack of of beer in the front seat. While waiting for the DUI unit to arrive, he observed the defendant to be unsteady while exiting his truck. When the DUI unit arrived, he made similar observations and then conducted roadside tests. After the defendant performed them, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .164 and .166 in the breath machine. The defendant was later charged with a Felony DUI by the State as this was his Third DUI within ten years.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of both the officer who stopped the defendant and the arresting officer. Subsequently, the firm filed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause to believe an infraction occurred. Under Florida law, it is not an infraction to squeal one's tires unless other people or vehicles are affected. At the motion hearing, although the officer testified that he thought maybe a robbery had just occurred, that explanation was not "reasonable" because in the same breath on cross examination he also testified maybe the defendant was having a medical emergency. It was obvious he was speculating and and had no rational basis for giving those opinions. In addition, at the motion hearing, the defense called the DUI officer as a witness. He testified that the stopping officer told him he that he only "heard" the squealing of the tires, not seeing it as he had testified. Thus, his credibility was now be called into question. The Judge Granted the motion, threw out all of the evidence, and the Defendant's Felony DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Aug 1, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-003435	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming two Crown Royals with ginger ale and two shots of Jack Daniels over the course of the evening. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walks and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .098 and a .091 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place the defendant under the legal limit on both breath tests results.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

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.