Oct 5, 2016	Case: 2016-CF-001190	Judge Briggs
Facts:	A person called 911 alerting police that the defendant was highly intoxicated at a gas station. Officers arrived on the scene and came into contact with the defendant as he was pulling out. As one officer approached the defendant, his window was down, and the officer smelled an odor of alcohol. He also observed bloodshot eyes and slurred/mumbled speech. The officer asked the defendant to then step out of the car. The officer observed the defendant to sway, have poor coordination, and he admitted to drinking beer. Due to the heavy rain, all three officers on scene asked the defendant to step in front of the gas station entrance to perform roadside tasks in a dry area. For example, on the one leg stand, the defendant used his arms for balance and put his foot down a number of times. On the walk and turn test, he missed heel to toe, lost his balance during the instructions, and raised his arms for balance. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest he refused the breath test. The defendant was charged with a Felony DUI since this was this was his Fourth DUI.
Defense:	The firm took pretrial depositions of all three officers. Two officers on scene, including the DUI unit, had in-car cameras in their patrol vehicles, however, they were not utilized. The DUI officer testified under oath that she couldn't use her camera because it was raining so hard during the roadside tests and she could not get back to her car to turn it on. However, one other officer stated in deposition that the rain had stopped prior to ever even asking the defendant to perform the tests. He also had a camera in his car and when asked why he didn't utilize it, his answer was "I don't know." Also, the arresting officer stated "I don't remember" multiple times when being questioned about specific details of the field sobriety tests. Furthermore, the officers contradicted each other on many aspects of the defendant's alleged impairment such as whether he actually had slurred speech or was even unsteady. The State, after reading the deposition transcripts, Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 15-026416MU10A	Judge Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, flushed face, red eyes, and mumbled speech. The defendant told the officer that she had drank wine that night. The defendant then performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn task, the defendant missed heel to toe, used her arms for balance, and could not maintain her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, the defendant put her foot down, used her arms for balance, and swayed. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .135 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defense brought to light an error that occurred in the machine as a result of radio frequency interference (RFI). The RFI occurred three times prior to the defendant providing her result of a .135. This RFI happening multiple times could have skewed the defendant's result to appear higher than what was her true breath alcohol level (BAC). On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 16-CT-500193	Judge Hayward
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car in a condominium parking lot after a 911 caller noticed him slumped over the wheel. The officers attempted to wake the defendant up by knocking on the windows several times. Once he awoke, the car began to move forward until he finally put it in park. Officers noticed the defendant have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a dazed look. Once out of the car, he was swaying and appeared sleepy. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test) since he had back injuries which prevented him from doing any other tests. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Pursuant to Florida Rule 3.220, the State has the obligation to disclose all evidence within their possession. This requirement extends to police agencies as well. Parks & Braxton determined that the police failed to adequately turn over the entire evidentiary packet. The discovery violation was brought to the attention of the Court.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Oct 4, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-007574	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his car in his neighbor's driveway. The neighbors had called 911 not knowing it was the defendant. When the officer arrived and awoke the defendant, he observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and dilated pupils. The defendant was extremely loud and uncooperative. The defendant did not perform to standards on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .119 and .121 in the breath machine.
Defense:	No one ever observed the defendant driving. Thus, the State could not prove the defendant was in "actual physical control." Since he was sleeping in the car, he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle under the applicable Florida Statute.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 27, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-032143	Judge Koons
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the painted stop bar at a stop sign. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Once out of the car, he swayed and appeared to be "unsure." The defendant then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises on video tape. According to the officer, he did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, in discussing the case with the prosecutor, pointed out that on tape, there was no slurred speech, no sway, and the defendant appeared to be totally coherent. Also, although the officer attempted to exaggerate the defendant's performance on the tests in his reports. The specific details written by the officer were contradicted by video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 21, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-001732	Judge Mcginnis
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for stopping beyond the stop bar at a red light and weaving. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech,and dry lips. Upon exiting the car, the defendant appeared off balance and unsteady and he stated he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests and was eventually arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, the defense and State had discussions about the case. The officer wrote a very vague report. The defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not described in any detail and there was no video tape at the scene. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 14, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-005701	Judge Greco
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign and hitting a curb. Upon being stopped, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and sluggish/clumsy movements. The defendant stated he had been at a club and had a couple of long island iced teas. He also stated that he was a little buzzed. The defendant then performed the field sobriety tests on video tape. After performing them, he was arrested for DUI and then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out that on tape, the defendant was not clumsy or slow. In fact, he was being responsive and coherent. Also, he had no issues getting out of the car or walking around. Furthermore, the defendant's video contradicted the officer's reports as to his level of alleged impairment. It should be noted, the firm also represented the defendant on his last case four years ago and got that DUI Dropped too. In that case, he had blown a .14.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Sep 13, 2016	Case: 2015-CT-002236	Judge Hitzeman
Facts:	The police were alerted to the defendant's truck by a 911 caller. The caller stated that the defendant and his passenger were passed out in a turning lane. When officers arrived, they found the defendant and his passenger asleep. The defendant was in the drivers seat, the engine was running, and the truck was in drive. When the officer reached in the truck to turn the truck off, the defendant awoke. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, a flushed face, and slow/mumbled speech. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests while still seated in the truck. He refused and was asked to exit the vehicle. The defendant was slow, lethargic, and leaned on the truck for balance. He was then placed under arrest for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, during the pretrial discovery process, got the DUI video tape. On tape, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing the roadside tests as required by Florida law. Also, the defendant's speech was not mumbled and he did not appear off balance nor unsteady. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State Dropped the DUI.

Aug 30, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-000957CTAXMX	Judge
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking 2-3 beers and staggered while walking. The defendant then performed the field sobriety exercises on video tape. She performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. She was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton watched the video tape during the discovery process. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and she spoke normally. Also, she never staggered and was never off balance or unsteady. Also, the alleged weaving was not captured on video tape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 17, 2016	Case: 16-CT-501242	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was observed by two civilians weaving on the roadway in front of them. All of the sudden, the driver's door opened and the defendant, who was the driver, fell out of the car onto the ground. The car kept going for a bit, until it ended up in a ditch. Police were called and the defendant was transported to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. Due to the defendant's high level of intoxication, no roadside tests could be conducted. The nurse told the officer that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .394 (nearly five times the legal limit).
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to various discovery issues during the pretrial process, the State was never able to retrieve the defendant's medical records. Thus, without the actual records, they wouldn't be able to introduce that blood alcohol result. On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 17, 2016	Case: 16-CT-501227	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon contact with the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also had a dazed look. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tests. He refused and was advised of the adverse consequences for refusing. The defendant still refused and was then arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The officer who arrested the defendant was wearing a department issued body camera. On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what was written in the police reports. Also, on video, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 16, 2016	Case: 16-CT-008093	Judge Lefler
Facts:	The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car in a parking space. When the officers awoke the defendant, they asked him to step out of the car. Once outside of the car, the officers smelled an odor of alcohol, observed bloodshot and watery eyes, and the defendant staggered as he stood. When asked for his driver's license, the defendant gave the officer his bank card. At the request of the officers, the defendant performed the field sobriety tests which were captured on a body camera. According to the officers, he did not perform to standards and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton received the body camera in discovery. Based on the video and the audio of the officers ordering the defendant to exit the car, there was no reasonable suspicion of crime (ie. DUI ) to justify ordering him out of the car. Thus, all evidence observed when the defendant was outside the car would have been excluded.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 15, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-002272	Judge Cameron
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving all over the road. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and the defendant had to grab the door for support while exiting the vehicle. The defendant admitted to consuming Johnnie Walker Black and beer. The defendant then attempted to perform the roadside tests at the request of the officer. For example, on the walk and turn test, the officer had to explain the instructions 8 times. Based on the defendant's confusion, the officer proceeded onto the one leg stand. The defendant had to be explained the instructions numerous times once again. He did not perform that test either and was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI and he also charged with a second or subsequent refusal to submit to breath testing. It should be noted, at the breath testing facility, the defendant was on video falling asleep and had his head down the entire time.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton, learned through discovery, that the officer who stopped the defendant, conducted the DUI investigation, and made the arrest, was outside of his jurisdiction. He was supposedly part of a DUI saturation patrol pursuant to a mutual aid agreement. However, the mutual aid agreement was vague and did not specify whether an officer who was outside their jurisdiction had the right to conduct a DUI investigation, nonetheless arrest a suspect for DUI. The State agreed, Dropped the DUI, and the defendant received no criminal convictions. In addition, the refusal charge was dismissed.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 8, 2016	Case: 14-8982MU10A	Judge Lerner-Wren
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by the police after an anonymous BOLO (be on the lookout) went out about a driver (ie. the defendant) being passed out behind the wheel. When the officer saw the defendant's car, he conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and she admitted to drinking vodka with red bull. The defendant could not stand up without leaning on her vehicle. The defendant then performed the roadside tests and showed several signs of impairment. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .173 and .172 in the breath machine, over twice the legal limit.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the traffic stop was unlawful. We argued that under Florida law, there needs to be corroboration when the tip is anonymous. Here, not only was the defendant awake when the officer came into contact with her, but also there was no allegation of criminal activity. The Judge Granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State then Dismissed the DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Aug 2, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-001007	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. After performing the roadside tests on video tape, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .117 and .113 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We discussed with the State, that on video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred at all. Also, we pointed out that based on the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower than .08 at the time of driving.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 2, 2016	Case: 15-023982MU10A	Judge Brown
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and drifting within his lane of travel. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow and sluggish movements, and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking tequila. At the request of the officer, the defendant performed the roadside tests. The defendant performed very poorly according the officer and he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he also performed the roadsides on video tape at the Sheriff's sub station. Subsequent to performing them again, he then refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant’s performance on the roadside tests on video tape contradicted the level of impairment the officer allegedly stated he observed, which was not on camera. Also, the defendant 's speech was normal and clear on video versus the slurred speech that the officer wrote he noticed in his reports. On the day of jury trial the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 2, 2016	Case: 2016-302779MMDB	Judge Schuman
Facts:	The defendant was seen by the police in a heavily occupied pedestrian area while on his motorcycle. The defendant abruptly applied his brakes and the motorcycle fell over, along with the defendant. The officer then went up to the defendant to see if he was alright. Upon contact, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slow/slurred speech. The defendant stated he had just drank a few beers. The defendant performed the field sobriety tests at the officer's request. He then performed the HGN (eyes test), Rhombeg balance (estimate 30 seconds), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor prior to setting the case for trial. We pointed out that since there was no video tape of the DUI, we had to rely on the officer's reports. In this case, the officer wrote only a half page report with no supplements. He wrote only one brief vague line describing the defendant's performance on each of the tests. The officer did not write one specific detail pertaining to any of the exercises, only vague statements.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 2, 2016	Case: 2016-CT-004951	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for continuously weaving all over the road. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/thick tongued speech, and a blank stare. The defendant stated she had nothing to drink and was swaying. The officer only performed the HGN (eye test) on the defendant and then she refused to perform any other tests. She was then arrested for DUI and then subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State just prior to trial. On video, the defendant was not swaying and her speech was clear as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Aug 1, 2016	Case: A4AC7AE	Judge Seraphin
Facts:	An anonymous person called 911 stating they observed a possible drunk driver who ran off the road. The police spotted the defendant's vehicle, which was the suspected vehicle, and conducted a traffic stop. Upon contact with the defendant, they observed her to have an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, and a flushed face. The defendant was unsteady, used her car for support, and swayed all over. She then performed the road side tests. The defendant exhibited several signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI.
Defense:	Park & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Our legal basis for the motion was that under Florida case law, the officers must corroborate either a driving pattern or other facts indicating that the defendant may be intoxicated when the tip is anonymous. Here, there was none and the State agreed the stop was unlawful. The DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.