Nov 29, 2016	Case: A0Z1CGP	Judge Wolfson
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When the officers arrived at the scene, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. He then performed the field sobriety tests and exhibited several clues of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently blew a .187 and .181 in the breath machine.
Defense:	There were issues with the defendant's breath test as one of the control tests was reading high. Thus, his breath readings could have been skewed higher than what was actually in his system.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 29, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-011070	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and stopping past the stop bar. The defendant stated he had a couple of drinks. He had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was then asked for perform field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .088 in the breath machine.
Defense:	On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what the officer had wrote in her report. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath test results could have been under the legal limit.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 17, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-007096	Judge Bell
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light and speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and he admitted to having consumed beer. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. He exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .093 and .098 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Since there is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two test results could have been under the legal limit.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 16, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-001899	Judge Blechman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having an obscured tag. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have a pale face and appeared to be confused. No odor of alcohol was observed. The defendant's speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot. Believing the defendant may be impaired, he was detained at the scene. While he was being detained, the officer had called for K-9 units. As the dogs sniffed the car, they alerted the officers. A small amount of marijuana was found. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. Back at the station, a DRE (drug recognition exam) was conducted to determine if the defendant was under the influence of drugs. He then submitted to a urine sample which later tested positive at the toxicology lab for marijuana.
Defense:	Under Florida case law, a defendant cannot be detained longer than necessary for the officer to write a traffic citation when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, on video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he didn't appear to be confused. There was no odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's person, nor any odor of alcohol. After doing the research, the case law was clear that the defendant was detained on video tape longer than necessary for the officer to have written the citation for an obscured tag. Also, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI) to justify detaining him as the video contradicted the officer's report. The officers never charged the defendant with possession of marijuana. Due to the unlawful detention, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was Dismissed.

Nov 10, 2016	Case: 2016-CM-004139	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped as she entered the middle of an intersection at a steady red light. The officer, who was at the intersection and observed her infraction, then stopped the defendant. Upon approaching the car, he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's car and her person. He also observed a green leafy substance in the defendant's mouth and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was off balance, unsteady, and swayed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According the officer, she performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she provided a urine sample. That sample came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana.
Defense:	The officer's reports were contradicted by the video. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. However, on tape it appeared she never stepped off the line. The officer also wrote that she was unsteady. However, on tape, she appeared to be standing normally. In addition, the officer wrote that the defendant had an odor of alcohol, but he never even asked her for a breath test. These examples, plus many other contradictions, were brought to the State's attention a week before trial.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 9, 2016	Case: 16-001582CT	Judge Martin
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving in the wrong lane of travel. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and red eyes. While talking to the defendant at the car, the defendant stated to the officer that he "had a little bit to much drink." He was then asked to performed field sobriety tests. He then responded "that he would fail. " After unsuccessful attempts to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, he was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test.
Defense:	The defendant denied making those statements. In addition, he told the officer he had recent head trauma issues which would cause him to be off balance and fail any physical tests. This created doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his head trauma.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 7, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-010873AXXX-XX	Judge Koons
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after a caller on 911 stated that the defendant was driving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant stated he had drank two beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The defendant stated on videotape that his legs were almost totally disabled from the military. Yet, the officer still had him perform the physical tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. The defendant did not perform well on tape , however, it was unclear from the video whether any impairment was due to alcohol vs. his disability. Due to the conflict in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 7, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-006984	Judge Miller
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick/rambling speech, and his gait was jerky and very unsteady. The defendant told the officer that he had drank a bucket of beer. He then performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .133 and .127 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The officer gave the defendant misinformation about the penalties of refusing a breath test. Thus, by misstating the law, he coerced the defendant into taking the breath test.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Nov 1, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-041815	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving up on a curb. When stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred/mumbled speech and he fumbled with his license. No odor of alcohol was observed. The officer, believing the defendant was impaired by something, asked him to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant performed poorly. For example, on the one leg stand, he used his arms for balance and put his foot down. On the walk and turn, he did not count out loud, did not touch heel to toe, and had difficulty maintaining his balance. He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Under Florida law, a person has to be impaired by a alcohol, a specific chemical, and/or controlled substance to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove by what specific substance the defendant was impaired. After reviewing the discovery, the firm then pointed this out to the State and the DUI was dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was Dismissed.

Nov 1, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-009442	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. Once stopped by the police, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, droopy eyelids, and a sleepy appearance. The defendant stated she had drank a margarita and was swaying outside the car. She then agreed to perform HGN (eye test). After that test, she refused to perform any other field sobriety tasks and was arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	On video, the defendant was not swaying and did not appear to be sleepy on video. She was responsive, coherent and answering all the officer's questions. Thus, the officer's reports were contradicted by the in car camera. The defense announced ready for trial and just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 31, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-006428	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed and making an improper lane change. He allegedly came within seven feet of the officer's bumper who then initiated a traffic stop. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he used his door for support, and swayed while standing. The defendant admitted to having drank 3 beers. He then performed the field sobriety tests on video. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant put his foot down numerous times and could not keep his balance. On the finger to nose, he left his finger on his nose without removing it as instructed and also missed the tip of his nose on all attempts. The defendant was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	The defendant was never paced clocked and no radar device was used to show that the defendant was driving over the speed limit. Also, the defendant never interfered with the safe operation of the officer's patrol car as required by Florida Statutes. Thus, the defendant did not violate any traffic laws and the issue of the defendant having being unlawfully stopped was brought to the State's attention. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 31, 2016	Case: 15-029720MU10A	Judge Gottlieb
Facts:	The defendant was found by the officer passed out in his car in a travel lane. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. When the defendant was asked how much he had to drink, he replied "too much." The defendant made threatening comments and movements towards the officer so no roadside tests were conducted. He was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	The firm conducted a pretrial investigation into this arresting officer's background. It was discovered that he had a history of incidents of misconduct, including incidents involving untruthfulness. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was Dismissed.

Oct 27, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-005429	Judge Bell
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after an officer saw him hit a shopping cart being pushed by a pedestrian. He then caught up to the defendant and observed an odor of alcohol and he had a difficult time walking. A DUI unit was called. That officer observed an odor of alcohol, droopy eyelids, and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had maybe 2, 4, or 6 drinks. He then performed the roadside tasks. On the one leg stand, the defendant almost fell over and the exercise was stopped. On the walk and turn, he used his arms for balance, stepped off the line, and did not understand many, if not all, of the instructions. The defendant was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI and Second refusal to submit to a breath test.
Defense:	The arresting officer's report, which stated that the initial officer saw the defendant driving, was not true. That initial officer had stated that he heard the sound of a crash and then saw the defendant walking down the road. Thus, the two officers contradicted each other and no witness observed the defendant either driving or in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 25, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-006266	Judge Wilson
Facts:	The defendant ran a red light and collided with another car. When the police arrived, the officer observed the defendant to have slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, and droopy/red eyes. He was also staggering and stumbling around. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape. For example, on the walk and turn test, the defendant used his arms for balance, counted incorrectly, and stepped off the line. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and used his arms for balance. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	On video, the officer is seen and heard reading the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant requested a lawyer, however, the officer then proceeds to tell the defendant that he is "still required" to perform the roadside tests under the law. That statement was misinformation and a misstatement of the law as roadside tasks voluntary. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 24, 2016	Case: 8622-XEQ	Judge Wolfson
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks and he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Due to discovery violations committed by the State, Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the day of trial, there was a speedy trial violation due to those discovery issues and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was Dismissed.

Oct 13, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-002508CTAXMS	Judge Hitzeman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving all over the road. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/incoherent speech, and he was lethargic. The defendant leaned against the vehicle for balance and also had bloodshot eyes. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance, put his foot down, and he hopped. On the walk and turn, he did not touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, and took an incorrect number of steps. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton discovered several inconsistencies in the officer's police reports and brought them to the attention of the prosecutor. After discussing the case with the State, they Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no crimina
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 13, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-009566	Judge Weis
Facts:	The defendant was found asleep in his car in someone's driveway. 911 callers alerted police to the vehicle after they observed the defendant driving all over the road. When the officer arrived, he found the defendant passed out in the driver's seat. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. The defendant was not making any sense while talking and was incoherent. He was very off balance and had trouble standing. The defendant was only able to perform the finger to nose test. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton argued that despite being found in the driver's seat, the defendant did not have the capability to operate the motor vehicle at the time the officer arrived. As a result, the defendant was not in actual physical control of the motor vehicle in the presence of the officer.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 11, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-021995AXXX-XX	Judge Clarke
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor alcohol, slurred/confused speech, and a red face. The defendant told the officer she had a few beers with dinner. The defendant used the steering wheel for support upon exiting the car and struggled to remove her seat-belt. Upon being asked to perform the roadside tests, the defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) and refused to perform any others. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred which contradicted the officer's report. Also, the defendant was not told of the consequences for her refusal to perform the rest of the field sobriety tests which was in violation of Florida case law. Thus, her refusal would have been excluded as evidence.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 11, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-007634	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting back and forth over the lane markers on at least five different occasions. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant stated he had drank 2 to 3 Blue Moon draft beers. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks on video tape. After performing the walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand tests, he was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	On video, the defendant told the officer prior to performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tasks, he had very bad knees and may have trouble doing them. The officer still proceeded the have the defendant do them. It was unclear on tape whether any alleged impairment cues observed by the officer were due to alcohol or his bad balance from having two bad knees. Those physical exercises were contradicted by his performance on the non-physical finger to nose exercise.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 11, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-017045	Judge Koenig
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. The defendant also had bloodshot/watery eyes and his movements were "slow and deliberate." When asked to exit the vehicle, the defendant used the car to maintain his balance and he swayed while standing outside the car. The defendant was then asked to perform roadside tasks and to provide a breath test. He refused both and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Under the law, a defendant who refuses the field sobriety tests must be advised of the "adverse consequences" for refusing. Here, the defendant was never told of any consequences for refusing. Also, under Florida law, a defendant can only be asked to take a breath test "after" being lawfully arrested. In this case, the defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath "prior" to being arrested for DUI in violation of the law.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.