Nov 25, 2015	Case: 15-CT-501854	Judge GONZALEZ
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and a broken tag light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and extremely slurred speech. On video, the defendant performed the roadside tests. He performed the walk turn, one leg stand, and alphabet tests. Prior to the roadsides being administered, the defendant told the officer about a concussion he had recently suffered. He exhibited several signs of intoxication on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton acquired the medical records from the defendant relating to his concussion. We pointed out to the State that any impairment seen an tape could have been as easily attributed to his head injury versus intoxication by alcohol. This information was provided to the State Attorney's Office who in turn to agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 23, 2015	Case: 13-017291MM10A	Judge BROWN
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving at a high rate of speed, failing to maintain a single lane, and improper passing. The officer had to use his horn and lights to get the defendant to pull over. The defendant exhibited an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant had to use the car for support as he almost fell over. He failed every roadside test and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the all the officers involved in the case. Each officer contradicted the other's description of events from that night. After reading the sworn transcripts, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 19, 2015	Case: A0Z4UIP (Jury Trial)	Judge MCKYTON
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The officer also alleged that the defendant was swaying. He then had the defendant step out the car and the officer performed the HGN (eyes test). The officer then had the defendant walk across the parking lot to perform the walk and turn and one leg stand exercises. After performing them, the defendant was arrested for DUI. After being arrested, the officer then asked the defendant if his passenger had been drinking. The defendant responded by stating "yes he has, but not as much as me." He was then transported to the police station to provide a breath sample. The defendant complied and blew a .137 and a .142 (almost twice the legal limit). The entire incident was captured on tape, including the driving pattern.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton took the case to a jury trial. At trial, the firm first pointed out to the jury that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape and he was not swaying as the officer testified. We also pointed out though cross examination that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better on tape than the officer testified to. On cross examination, the firm went through every specific thing that the defendant performed correctly on the roadside tests. The officer testified that the defendant stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. It was clear on tape that he never did. The officer testified he swayed during the one leg stand, It was clear on video he was not swaying. Thus the officer's credibility was called into question. In addition, the officer followed the defendant for about two miles plus over 3 minutes on tape and the defendant never failed to maintain a single lane. The defense's argument that was made to the jury was that none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. As to the breath test, the firm argued that the State presented no evidence or testimony as to what the defendant's breath alcohol level was at "the time of driving" as required by Florida law. We also argued that the solutions that were used on the maintenance of this machine to stimulate a breath test were reading higher than the labeled bottle. Thus, the firm argued that the defendant's breath test results could have been skewed higher. Also, we argued that the machine was portable and had a handle. No one called to have the machine brought to the scene so that the breath test could have been administered closer in time to when the defendant was stopped. Finally, the firm pointed out that the video tape contradicted the breath test results which clearly showed that the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty.
Result:	The Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

Nov 19, 2015	Case: A0Z0QKP	Judge DENARO
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for reckless driving. The officer alleged the defendant was driving over 100 mph, running a red light, and weaving. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer and showed several signs of intoxication. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant admitted to consuming 5 beers. He then blew a .163 and .167 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the State prior to trial. After pointing out how vague the police reports were, the State dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 18, 2015	Case: 2015-MM-002437A	Judge GALLUZZO FOR WOODARD
Facts:	The defendant was first observed by the officer on video tape for speeding. The defendant was clocked at 79 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer then made a U-turn to catch up to the defendant. The defendant was finally stopped about 3 to 4 miles later. The defendant could not be seen on tape at all until he was eventually stopped. The officer stated at one point he got his patrol car up to speeds of 110 mph. The officer alleged in his report he constantly maintained visual contact of the defendant the entire time except for a about fifteen seconds. The officer stated at one point the defendant slowed at a light and did a "California Roll" through a red light. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer immediately ran up to the car, ordered him to open the door and shut off the engine. He was then immediately taken out of the car, handcuffed, and arrested for reckless driving. Upon being arrested for reckless driving, the officer then noticed an odor of alcohol and marijuana from the defendant's breath, along with bloodshot eyes. A search incident to arrest led to the officer finding marijuana on the defendant. Later at the station, the defendant was asked to perform roadside tests to which he refused. The breath tech officer also noticed the defendant's speech to be thick tongued and the defendant displayed a "carefree" attitude." The police then added the charge of DUI. The defendant subsequently refused the breath test. The defendant was eventually charged by the State with DUI, possession of marijuana, and reckless driving.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of the evidence. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. The primary basis of our motion was that speed alone was not enough to arrest the defendant for reckless driving. At the hearing, the Judge had the opportunity to hear the officer's testimony, watch the video, and listen to argument from the attorneys. In the hearing, the officer testified that the defendant was swerving, taking turns fast, and could be seen at a close range of 600 feet doing the California roll. Not only was none of the alleged weaving and taking turns too fast not in the officer's reports, but no California roll through a red light could be seen on tape. There was no testimony that any cars were affected by the defendant's driving. The Judge Granted the motion throwing out all the evidence. The Judge determined that although the defendant was lawfully stopped, however, the officer had no probable cause to handcuff him and arrest him for reckless driving. The State then Dismissed the DUI, the possession of marijuana charge, and the reckless driving charge.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Nov 17, 2015	Case: 14-031740MU10A	Judge Diaz
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for screeching his tires and jerking his car out of his lane of travel almost off the roadway. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred/mumbled speech. The defendant pulled out his credit cards instead of his driver's license. The defendant then used the door for balance while exiting the car. During the conversation outside the car, none of the defendant's answers to the officer's questions made any sense. The defendant then performed the roadside tests. On the walk and turn test, the defendant stepped off the line numerous times, did not touch heel to toe, and lost his balance. During the one leg stand exercise, the defendant put his foot down 6 times and almost fell. The officer stopped the exercise for safety purposes. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Testimony was taken at the hearing from the stopping and arresting officers. The motion to suppress was Granted as the Judge found no probable cause justifying the stop. All the evidence was thrown out and the DUI was then Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Nov 13, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-002762AXXX	Judge CUNNINGHAM
Facts:	The defendant allegedly bumped another car at a McDonald's drive thru. It happened to be the defendant's neighbor who he has had problems with in the past. The defendant got scared and left. When officers caught the defendant, they observed him to have an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, and glazed eyes. The defendant told the police he had drank a half a bottle of wine with his girlfriend. The defendant showed signs of intoxication on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. After his arrest, he blew a .102 and .106 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton immediately got pictures of the defendant's car after he retained the firm. There was no damage at all. We then showed the pictures to the State and pointed out to them that there was no "accident" as defined by case law and this was a neighborly quarrel. Thus, we explained to the prosecutor that officers had no right to stop our client because there was no accident. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the Leaving the Scene of the Accident charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 9, 2015	Case: CTC-14A1MARLETWS (JURY TRIAL)	Judge Salton
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. When asked to produce his driver's license, the defendant fumbled while looking for it and then dropped it. According to the officer, the defendant was unsteady getting out of his car and swaying while walking to the spot to perform the field sobriety tests. The defendant then performed the roadside tests on video tape at the request of the officer. According to the officer, the defendant failed and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .089 and .087 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton proceeded to jury trial. After a three day trial, the jury was undecided. Specifically, five jurors voted not guilty and one voted for guilty. As a result, of the hung jury, the case was reset to be tried a second time. Prior to the new trial date, and after listening to the testimony of the witnesses during trial, the State agreed to drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 5, 2015	Case: 15-029049TC10A	Judge Brown
Facts:	Several officers responded to a crash scene in reference to a possible traffic homicide investigation. Upon their arrival it was determined that despite the severity of the accident, none of the parties involved died. After speaking with the independent witnesses, the officers went to the hospital to speak with the defendant. At the hospital, the lead officer asked the doctor whether an odor of alcohol was observed. The doctor responded by disclosing that the defendant's blood alcohol level was a .217. Subsequently, the State attempted to secure the defendant's medical records.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton objected to the State's request for medical records. At the motion, we explained to the Judge that the only thing the officer could have done with the information he received from the doctor was to request a "legal" blood draw. The Judge agreed and refused to permit the State from acquiring the medical records which contained the blood result. As a result, the State was prevented from filing the DUI charge.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Nov 3, 2015	Case: 13-014188MM10A	Judge Diaz
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting across the lane markers several times. Upon making contact with the defendant the officer observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. In addition, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet. She performed the field sobriety tests at the scene which were not on video. While the report indicated that the defendant's performance was poor, he failed to state with any degree of specificity what the defendant did wrong. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. At the breath alcohol testing facility, the defendant was placed on video. Despite some minor slurred speech, there was no unsteadiness throughout the entire video.
Defense:	Based on the conflict between the officer's report and the video, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to picking a jury the State dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 2, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-009108	Judge LEFLER
Facts:	The defendant was found by the police with a flat tire in a handicap parking space. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, she seemed confused, and had watery eyes. The defendant then admitted to drinking vodka cranberry cocktails that night. According to the officer, the defendant failed the videotaped roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .085 and .087 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton showed the State that the officer made up his mind to arrest the defendant even before the DUI investigation began. He stated on video that "he has zero tolerance for drinking and driving." It is not a crime to simply drink and drive. Furthermore, the defendant's video tape of her roadside tasks contradicted the written reports. Also, we pointed out that with the .02 margin of error on the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit a the time of driving.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Nov 2, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-010483	Judge LEFLER
Facts:	The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. There was hardly any damage, if any. When the officer arrived, he noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the officer. She performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand tests. She displayed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .125 and .136 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out that the defendant performed much better on the field sobriety tests on video than as described. Also, her speech appeared normal and she was not off balance or unsteady. The video clearly showed she may have been under the legal limit at the time of driving.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 26, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-012570AXXX-XX	Judge KOONS
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having an inoperable tag light. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to be fumbling around for his items. The officer also noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant would not get out of the car and had to be physically removed. He was then asked to perform roadside tasks to which he refused. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and resisting an officer without violence for refusing to get out of the car. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention that in one report, the officer wrote that the defendant had refused the roadside tasks. Yet, on another supplement, the same officer wrote that the defendant actually performed the tests and was arrested based on his performance. Also, the defendant's speech did not sound slurred on the videotape and when confronted about it, he stated "my speech is not slurred." The State dismissed the resisting charge and dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 23, 2015	Case: 14-016505MU10A	Judge LEVINE
Facts:	The officer said that he observed the defendant weaving in and out of the bicycle lane. At the same time, he stated that smoke was coming out of the front of the defendant's vehicle. After stopping the vehicle the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The defendant performed poorly on three sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. At the station, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test but performed the sobriety tests on video. The defendant had trouble answering basic questions including his social security number. On video, he failed each sobriety test. This was the defendant's Third DUI offense.
Defense:	Upon noticing the officer behind him, the defendant pulled out his phone and began to record the entire driving episode. The video was completely different from the description the officer provided. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. On the morning of the motion, the video was provided to the prosecutor for her review. Ultimately, the State conceded the issue of the invalid stop.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 22, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-015782AXXX	Judge SHEPHARD
Facts:	The defendant was found by the police sleeping in his car in a parking lot. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbling speech, and he was making illogical statements. The defendant was very argumentative. He was then asked to perform the roadside tasks. He refused and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle. One cannot have the "capability" to operate a motor vehicle while asleep.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 20, 2015	Case: 14-030349MU10A	Judge SOLOMON
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving as well as speeding. The officer stated that the defendant had difficulty retrieving his license and registration. During conversations the officer said that the defendant's speech was slurred. He noticed an odor of alcohol as well as bloodshot eyes and subsequently called for a DUI officer to conduct an investigation. The DUI officer arrived and stated that the defendant was off balance exiting the car. When asked how much he had to drink, the defendant stated "a flight and a pint." The defendant performed poorly on all three field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He subsequently blew a .132 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Upon receiving the evidence, it was clear that the video was inconsistent with many of the officers' conclusions. In addition, the defendant's breath test was not known at the time of driving. The two results demonstrated that his alcohol level was still rising rather than eliminating. As a result, the State would not be able to prove that the defendant was above a .08 while driving as required by law. As a result, the defense announced ready for trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 14, 2015	Case: 2015-CT-029698AXXX-XX	Judge GARAGOZLO
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for erratic driving and driving up on a curb. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed face, slurred speech, and blood shot eyes. The defendant stated he had a couple of beers. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests while he was still seated in his car. The defendant refused to perform them and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. Also, partially cold filled beers were found in the defendant's car.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred. Also, the defendant, when asked to get out of the car, was not off balance or unsteady. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform the roadside tests.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 8, 2015	Case: 1851-XGR	Judge DENARO
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to consuming 3 scotches. On the walk and turn and one leg stand tests, the defendant exhibited almost every single indicator of impairment. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to issues with the State having provided late discovery, they Dropped the DUI prior to trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI prior to trial.

Oct 7, 2015	Case: A1R1MAP	Judge WOLFSON
Facts:	The defendant and his passengers were stopped based on an anonymous call about the defendant and his passengers having drugs. Upon being stopped, the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car as well as the defendant's breath. The defendant told the police he had smoked about 10-15 minutes prior to the stop. The defendant also had very watery eyes. The defendant then performed the roadside tasks as the officer believed the defendant was impaired by marijuana. According to the officer, he failed them and was arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana. Back at the station, the defendant provided a urine sample which came back from the toxicology lab positive for marijuana.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out to them that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The reason was that the caller was "anonymous" which led to the traffic stop. The police, upon stopping the car, had no "corroboration" as required by the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts justifying the stop of the defendant's car. The State conceded that the stop was unlawful and all of the evidence would have been excluded.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Oct 6, 2015	Case: 2014-CT-015664	Judge BONAVITA
Facts:	The defendant was found by the police passed out at an intersection after a caller dialed 911 alerting them to his car. The officer who arrived, found the defendant passed out and he was blocking traffic. Upon awakening the defendant, he simply ignored the officer and drove off. The officer then got behind him and attempted to imitate a traffic stop. The defendant was captured on video weaving and driving on the opposite side of the road. The officer followed the defendant with her police lights flashing for several minutes until the defendant finally stopped. He was then ordered out of the car by several officers. A DUI officer then took over the investigation. That officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and poor coordination. The defendant swayed prior the roadside tasks and stated he had drank vodka and cranberry juice. 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:	Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out that on the DUI officer's video tape, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady. In addition, his speech was normal vs. what the officer had written in his report. We discussed with the State that the video of the defendant's roadsides showed he was not impaired. That evidence was contradictory to his video of the driving pattern. Due to the conflict in the evidence (i.e.. the two videos) the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.