Jun 16, 2015	Case: 14-CT-048681	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a rear end crash. According to the officer, the defendant had an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking shots. The defendant failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .222 and .240 in the breath machine
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 12, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-002984-A-O	Judge Clark
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash in his parking garage. A civilian witness saw the crash and believed the defendant to be highly intoxicated, even though he never got up close. He called 911 to alert the police and the police then came to the parking garage. Soon after, they located the defendant via his vehicle tag and went to the defendant's apartment in the building where the crash occurred. At the apartment, the defendant opened the door and was highly intoxicated. The officers smelled and odor of alcohol and his speech was not understandable. The defendant was very off balance and had to sit down to keep from falling. The defendant denied being in the crash and stated he only had drank beers while inside his apartment. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test and was also charged with a second refusal. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that neither the officers, nor the civilian witness, smelled any alcohol on the defendant's breath at the time of the crash or shortly thereafter. Thus, they could prove he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash (while driving) as required by law. The State dismissed the second refusal charge and the DUI was Dropped.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 11, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-000358	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car on the side of the road in a parking space. Upon awakening the defendant after several minutes, the officers on scene noticed the defendant to have and odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. After displaying several signs of intoxication on the video taped field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .155 and .144 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that someone who is sleeping in their car has no capability of operating the vehicle. Thus, they would not be able prove actual physical control.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 11, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-008747AXXX	Judge Shepherd
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and the defendant stated he drank three beers. The defendant used the door for balance as he exited the car. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests. For example, on the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. On the walk and turn test, he stumbled, took the wrong number of steps, and lost his footing several times. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had negotiations with the State prior to trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 11, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-049373	Judge Overton
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol. slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was also unsteady on his feet. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .158 and .153 the first time in the breath machine. The second time he blew a a .131 and a .150.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the DUI video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, there was no slurred speech and the defendant was not unsteady. Furthermore, we pointed out to the prosecutor that after the first breath test results were obtained, the breath card indicated a problem with the machine. However, the proper steps were not taken, nor documented, by the breath test operator as to how the machine allowed two more samples of the defendant's breath.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 10, 2015	Case: 56-2015-CT-000150-A	Judge Nelson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving, almost running into a curb, and speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glossy eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant admitted to having a drink or two and had poor balance. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks and Braxton questioned the arresting officer at the civil administrative driver's license hearing soon after the defendant's arrest. The firm then ordered the transcript and provided it to the State. In the hearing, the officer misstated the law and also contradicted herself. This led not only to the defendant getting his driving privileges fully restored but also the State dropping the DUI in court.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 9, 2015	Case: 2015 302031 MMDB	Judge Schumann
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash whereby he hit a parked car in a parking lot and was doing a "burn out." The officer who arrived, noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 6 or 7 beers earlier in the evening. According to the officer, he failed the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .112 and .117 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State from the beginning of the case and then a couple of weeks before the trial date to try to get them to drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jun 4, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-003939-O	Judge Bell
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, and watery eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking three beers. According to the officer, he failed all the roadside tests which were not video taped. The defendant was arrested for DUI. Later, the defendant tested positive for alcohol on the breath machine, however the officer noticed a blue coating on the defendant's tongue and then suspected drug use.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State early on after the defendant's arrest that the defendant did not make any statements about taking any chemical or controlled substances. Thus, the State could not prove by which specific drug was alleged impairing the defendant as the officer concluded based on some blue coating.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jun 1, 2015	Case: 303382-X	Judge Newman
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a two car crash. Upon arrival, officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant was also screaming and flailing his arms. He admitted to consuming two beers and almost fell down two times as he lost his balance. According to the officers, he failed the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton made several requests for discovery items from the State, including various police reports. After the third time requesting them, the State dismissed the DUI due to the police not turning over the documents to them. Thus, they could not turn them over to the defense.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

May 14, 2015	Case: 05-2013-CT-065706	Judge Clarke
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving, failing to stop a red light, and driving under and over the speed limit. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. She also had a flushed face. According to the officer, she failed the video taped roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line, used her arms for balance, and did not touch heel to toe. On the one leg stand exercise, she hopped and swayed. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and she later refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape clearly showed that the roadside tests were conducted off to the side of the road in a sloped ditch. The defendant even stated to the officer on tape that she did not believe the ground was level. However, the officer did not move her to the side where the ground was level and had her do them on uneven ground. Furthermore, the defendant's speech sounded normal on video. The firm announced ready for jury trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 11, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-000538-A-E	Judge Allen
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer which were not video taped. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, the defendant swayed and counted wrong. The defendant was asked if he was also taking any medications and the defendant stated "yes" but he did not specify which medications and when he took them. The officer concluded that the defendant was impaired not only by alcohol, but also a chemical and/or controlled substance based on the defendant's statements about taking medications.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the State could not prove by which chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant based on his vague statements and the officer not obtaining specifics as to the medications. A few weeks prior to the trial date, the State dismissed the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

May 5, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-500334	Judge Mann
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving in and out of lanes and making an improper right turn. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and she was repeating the same thing over and over. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady and off balance outside her car. She failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. There was no video tape used by the officer.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged weaving was not described in any detail. Also, the officer hardly wrote any specifics about the defendant's alleged performance on the roadside tasks.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 5, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-149893	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving and drifting. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She leaned against her car for balance and was swaying. Three empty vodka bottles were found in the defendant's back seat. She refused to perform the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer wrote in his reports that an in car camera was used during the entire DUI investigation. However, upon investigation, it was determined that the video could not be retrieved off the department's computer server. No explanation was ever given by the police as to why the video was purged.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

May 4, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-145299	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The police were called out as someone saw the defendant passed out in a bar parking lot. They gave a description of his car. When officers responded, the defendant was driving off. The officers followed and observed the defendant weaving all over the road. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant used his hands to balance himself on the car and swayed as he stood. He refused to perform the roadside tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying as the officers had written and his speech was not slurred on tape. Also, the defendant was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing the field sobriety tests as required by law.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 30, 2015	Case: A0Z0OWP	Judge Krieger-Martin
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in a drive thru by police. After finally awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to consuming 4-5 beers. He failed all the roadside tests due to his level of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .173 and .167 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 29, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-025761AXXX	Judge Bonavita
Facts:	The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he was very confused, and stated he had drank three whiskey and cokes. The defendant was not making sense in his responses to questioning by the officer. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests on videotape to which he complied. According to the officer, he showed signs of intoxication and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant's performance on the tests contradicted the beginning portion of the video tape as to his level of alleged impairment. The week before a jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 28, 2015	Case: CTC14-5994XBCNC	Judge Pierce
Facts:	The defendant rear ended another car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. While standing, she was unsteady and staggering according to the police reports. The officer asked her to perform the field sobriety tests and she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the videotape at the scene, the defendant's speech appeared normal versus what the officer wrote in his report. Also, she was not off balance or unsteady on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences relating to her refusal to perform the roadside tests as required by case law.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 24, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-022764AXXX	Judge Weiss
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a rear end crash in which she was the at fault driver. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She was observed staggering and swaying upon exiting the car. The defendant failed the roadsides tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pre-trial talks with the prosecutor for a few months to convince them to drop the DUI. We pointed out to them that the roadside report was very vague and there were hardly any details of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests. Also, we showed them pictures that there was no damage to the other car as it was just a slight bump at a traffic light.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 23, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-505243	Judge Gagliardi
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road and almost hitting another car. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have rapid speech, poor coordination, and difficulty focusing in on answering basic questions. She had no odor of alcohol. The defendant stated she takes numerous prescribed controlled substances for anxiety, depression, and ADHD among other medical conditions. The defendant performed field sobriety tests, and according to the officer, she failed them and was arrested for DUI (chemical and/or controlled substance). Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition expert) was called in to conduct a further investigation. One the evaluation was concluded, that officer with specialized training, concluded the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, a CNS stimulant, and a narcotic analgesic. A urine sample was then provided to the police by the defendant. The toxicology lab determined via testing that there were amphetamines, also known as CNS stimulants, in her system.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had numerous talks with the State pretrial. We pointed out that the DRE was wrong in that he concluded she was impaired by a CNS depressant and narcotic analgesic and none were found in her system. Also, the field sobriety tests he conducted back at the station contradicted her performance at the scene. There was no video tape. His conclusions contradicted the urine results. Also, we showed the State a letter from her Dr. who prescribes all her medications. He was with her just hours before the arrest and he observed no signs of impairment. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no criminal conviction at all.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Apr 20, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-000273-E	Judge Clark
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the roadway. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and her movements were slow and lethargic. Her eyes were red and her pupils were dilated. The defendant stated she had been drinking beers. She was asked to perform the roadside tasks to which she refused. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial , we pointed out to the State that none of the alleged driving pattern was on video tape. Once the officer stopped the defendant, she then turned on the camera. During half of the video tape, the officer, for some unknown reason, took the defendant away from the camera so the defendant's actions could not be seen. Also, we pointed out that some of the defendant's normal faculties were not impaired on video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.