Dec 12, 2017	Case: 14-0002369MU10A	Judge Lerner-Wren
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for straddling the bicycle lane and almost striking other vehicles. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, finger to nose, and HGN (eye test) exercises. For example, on the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, stumbled, and took an incorrect number of steps. On the finger to nose, he kept his eyes open and missed the tip of his nose. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The defendant had a very thick Spanish accent and was also speaking Spanish. The officer, who did not speak Spanish, did not ever call for a translator. It was clear form the tape that there was a language barrier and any impairment was not due to alcohol, but due to the language barrier.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 11, 2017	Case: 17-000048TTAXMX	Judge Cowden for Judge Riteneour
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a sideswipe crash. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant stated he had also taken Xanax and muscle relaxers earlier that morning. He was also observed to have been stumbling. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test) and finger to nose tests. The walk and turn and one leg stand tests were not administered due to the defendant's prior injuries. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest and he was also charged with Second or subsequent refusal to provide a breath test and/or urine test.
Defense:	The firm pointed out to the State that the HGN would not be admissible into evidence because the officer was not a DRE (drug recognition expert). In addition, since the officer did not read the defendant his Miranda rights, all of the defendant's statements about the drugs would have been excluded from evidence pursuant to the accident report privilege. Furthermore, there were conflicting stories as to who caused the crash. Finally, the firm pointed out that the video never showed the defendant stumbling or speaking with a slurred/mumbled voice. The State Dropped the DUI and the Second Refusal charge was Dismissed.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Dec 6, 2017	Case: 17-CT-006257	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving in a reckless manner and speeding. Officers noted the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a drowsy appearance. He also had droopy eyelids and red/glassy eyes. He was unsteady and off balance. He then performed the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's THIRD DUI arrest this year.
Defense:	The video contradicted the officer's reports and this was brought to the State's attention. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI. It should be noted, Parks & Braxton represented this client on all three of his DUI cases this year. The firm won all three DUI's and the defendant did NOT receive one DUI conviction on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 29, 2017	Case: A760BZE	Judge Bedinghaus
Facts:	The defendant was found the by the police passed out and slumped over the wheel at an intersection. Officers observed the defendant to have bloodshot/glassy eyes, he was very unsteady, and swayed while he stood. The officer, having not observed an odor of alcohol, believed that the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance based on the defendant telling him he had been taking pain medication by the dentist for a dental procedure earlier that week. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he took an incorrect number of steps, stepped off the line, did not touch heel to toe, and lost his balance during the turn. He was then arrested for DUI. He subsequently refused both a breath and urine test.
Defense:	The defendant wasn't able to articulate what specific medication he had been taking. Under Florida law, a defendant, to be convicted of DUI, must either be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or a controlled substance. Here, the State could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance was impairing the defendant as required by Florida Statute 316.193. This was brought to the State’s attention during pretrial discussions. The State Dropped the DUI to civil traffic infraction
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 29, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-015660	Judge McNeil
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a sideswipe crash. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was making unusual statements and denied drinking. The defendant then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and finger to nose tests. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	First, there were two different stories of how the accident occurred and who was actually at fault. Also, the defendant told the officer prior the field sobriety tests that he had a screw in his right ankle from breaking it years ago. In addition, he told him he was under the care of a doctor for the injury. The officer still proceeded to administer the one leg stand and walk and turn tests. The defense provided the medical records as proof to the State. There was doubt as to whether the defendant's alleged impairment was due to alcohol or the injuries he had sustained.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 22, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-007425	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving in and out of his lane of travel. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he appeared confused and disoriented. He admitted to having consumed 3 bourbons. The defendant was off balance and stumbled while exiting the car. He then performed very poorly on the field sobriety tasks. For example, he almost fell over while walking the line. The defendant was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew .175 and .170 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After pretrial negotiations with the State, they Dropped the DUI short of a trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 20, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-000558AX	Judge Henderson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred/thick tongued speech. The officer could smell the alcohol from six feet away. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	It was clear from the officer's reports describing the defendant's performance on the roadside tasks that they were contradictory to the video tape. In fact, the officer had written a females name when describing the roadside tasks, and not the defendant's in certain parts of the report. Thus, the question then became, was the officer writing about this defendant or another. His credibility was now called into question.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 16, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-031179	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no rear lights illuminated. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and was slow in her movements. She then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. She was arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .101 and .094 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm pointed out with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath tests results would have been under the legal limit. In addition, on video, we pointed out to the State that the officer conducting the roadside tests was a trainee. It was clear from the tape that she was unsure whether to arrest the defendant as she had to consult with the FTO (field training officer) a few times. In addition, on the HGN (eye test), there was no angle of onset in the defendant's eyes prior to 45 degrees. That would indicate, under Tharpe's Formula, the defendant's breath alcohol level would have been under the legal limit.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 16, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-030408	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was found by police passed out in his car in a parking lot. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed him to have an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. He exited the car slowly and and swayed while he stood. He was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The defendant was not in actual physical control of the vehicle even though the engine was running. Per the jury instruction on actual physical control, one has to have the "capability" to operate a motor vehicle. Here, he could not be "capable" of operating the car because he was sleeping. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 16, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-025541	Judge T. Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and following too closely. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and mumbled speech. He also had a flushed face, staggered while walking, and swayed while he stood. He was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant did not speak any English on video tape. Yet, the officer who only spoke English, was trying to get the defendant to understand the instructions to the roadside tests by having read the instructions himself in Spanish from a card. This was a direct violation of the NHTSA rules on roadsides They require that an officer explain and then demonstrate the tests, not hand an instruction card to a defendant. Furthermore, the video contradicted the officer's report as the defendant was not staggering or swaying on tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 7, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-022307	Judge Baker
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for crossing over the center lane marker and stopping in the middle of the roadway. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, lethargic movements, and he admitted to having drank two beers. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The officer had wrote in the reports that the walk and turn and one leg stand tests were conducted on a level surface. When the defense watched the video, one could clearly see that the ground was not level and was on a major slant. This was a violation of the NHTSA manual on filed sobriety tests. Further, the officer made the police reports seem like the defendant was a falling down drunk, yet the video tape contradicted those allegations.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 7, 2017	Case: 17-CT-501760	Judge Gill
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and he had a blank stare. The defendant stated he had drank beer and a bottle of tequila was found in the car. The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 7, 2017	Case: 17-000003MU10A	Judge Pole
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving slow and swerving. Upon contact with the defendant after the traffic stop, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had been coming from the casino and had drank beer. The defendant was asked to perform the field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he stepped off the line, missed heel toe, and had to stop and steady himself. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew .165 and .162 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime for the officer to lawfully stop the defendant. At the motion hearing, the officer, upon cross examination by the defense, was not able to testify to any specifics of the defendant's driving pattern such as distance traveled, time he was behind the defendant, speed, or how many times he had weaved. After hearing all the testimony and being provided case law by the defense, the judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Nov 3, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-002215	Judge Bryson
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked to step out of the car and perform field sobriety tests. He then performed the HGN (eye test), one leg stand, and walk and turn tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, lost his balance, and used his arms for balance. On the one leg stand, he swayed, used his arms for balance and did not complete the test. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the Defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The firm pointed out to the State that the roadsides were conducted on a very large slant in the road, on the side of I-95. Per the NHTSA manual on field sobriety tests, they are supposed to be conducted on level ground. In addition, rather than taking the defendant off the highway to do them, he had him perform the test within a few feet of moving traffic. Finally, per the NHTSA manual, roadsides are supposed to be explained and demonstrated prior to administering them. Here, the officer violated procedure and did not demonstrate the walk and turn. In fact, after the defendant performed it, another officer actually came over to help the first officer and he demonstrated it. The defendant had to then do it a second time. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 1, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-007660	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having drank a couple of whiskeys. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The video tapes totally contradicted the officer's reports about the extent of the defendant's level of impairment. After a full review of the evidence, the DUI was Dismissed prior to trial.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 31, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-010599	Judge Farr
Facts:	A call went out about a driver who was all over the road. The driver was the defendant. Officers spotted the car in question parked upon a curb on the side of the road. When the officer went up to the car, he noticed vomit on the ground outside the driver's door. Upon talking to the defendant, he noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and she admitted to having drank 4 beers and getting sick. The defendant was unsteady and then performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	After numerous pretrial talks with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI just prior to trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 26, 2017	Case: 2016-MM-009267MMAXWS	Judge Grey
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road which was captured on video tape. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he smelled marijuana coming from the interior of the car, and noticed bloodshot/watery eyes. The officer had to repeat questions to the defendant as she wasn't listening. The defendant was detained as the officers searched for marijuana. After finding marijuana, the officer then asked the defendant to perform roadside tests to which she refused. She was arrested for DUI and possession of marijuana. After her arrest, she refused the breath test. This was the Defendant's Second DUI and also her second refusal charge for failing to provide a breath and/or urine test.
Defense:	The firm was able to enhance the poor audio quality on the officers' body cameras. After we were able to that, the defense was able to hear the arresting officer talking to the other officer and commenting that the defendant may not be impaired, yet he was going to conduct a DUI investigation. This was immediately brought to the attention of the State. The refusal charge was Dismissed, the defendant received no conviction at all on the marijuana charge, and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 26, 2017	Case: 2017-CT-001115	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant crashed his car into a parked car. When officers arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and he had glossy eyes. He also had a hard time walking and keeping his balance. The defendant admitted to having a few drinks and just stared into space on numerous occasions. The defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he attempted to blow into the breath machine but the machine registered invalid samples of a .185 and .198. Thus they stated he refused.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pre trial negotiations with the State. The State then Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 25, 2017	Case: 2017-MM-029088	Judge Atkin
Facts:	Officers responded to a beach parking lot in response to call about an unresponsive male. When they arrived, they noticed the defendant passed out in his car. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed him to have bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils. His speech was mumbled and slurred. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The defendant had been arrested in May of 2017. He did not hire the firm until September. He had been going to court by himself for months with no lawyer. The State had not provided him any discovery or even filed any charges. Parks & Braxton, upon obtaining the police reports called the State. We pointed out that under Florida law, to prove DUI, a defendant must be under the influence of either alcohol and/or a "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, since there was no odor of alcohol, the State could not prove by which "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by the DUI Statute, 316.193. The firm convinced the State to not even file any charges against the defendant.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.