Our Recent DUI Victories

The firm called into question the lawfulness of the initial contact. Other than the traffic infraction, there was no reasonable suspicion justifying ordering the defendant out of his car.

Parks & Braxton pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the police reports. For example, one officer stated they observed an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant, while the arresting officer stated there was no odor, Also, when one is under the influence of Xanax (a CNS depressant), officers would see HGN or VGN in the defendant eyes (i.e. nystagmus). Here, there was neither.

Due to the vagueness of the call and lack of driving pattern, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

The firm pointed out various inconsistencies between the video and police reports.

After pretrial discussions, the firm pointed out that the officer had no right to order the defendant out of the car without any corroborating evidence of impairment.

The firm pointed out to the State that the defendant couldn't be in "actual physical control "of a disabled (inoperable) vehicle.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers. In depo, they contradicted themselves numerous times and also each had a very vague recollection of the specific facts upon our questioning. After taking the depos, the State then Dismissed the Defendant's Felony Fourth DUI.

arrest him. The State agreed and the State Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, it was pointed out to the State that on tape the officer misinformed the defendant about the law relating to roadside tests. In addition, he never stumbled and actually appeared sober. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

For the State to prove a DUI under 316.193 (DUI Statute), the defendant must be impaired by alcohol and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, they could not prove that she was impaired by any specific substance.

Issues were raised by the defense as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

According to the police reports provided in discovery by the State, all the defendant's roadside tests were videotaped. However, that tape was never turned over to the state by the police. In order to avoid the defense from filing a motion to dismiss the case for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

Based on the written report and video tape evidence provided by the State in discovery, the defense raised issues as to the lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.

The initial call leading to the traffic stop was vague and only had a conclusory statement that the defendant appeared intoxicated. Without more details, the stop was not corroborated and unlawful.

There were numerous pretrial discussions with the state. Eventually the defense was able to convince the State to Drop the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion we alleged that the officer misled the defendant into taking the breath test. Specifically, we put forth that the officer led her to believe she could get a hardship license if she blew, versus, she could not if she refused. Thus, the officer went outside Implied Consent by discussing hardships. On the day of the motion, the State Dropped the DUI.

When the firm got the video (body worn camera) from the officer, it was missing all the field sobriety tests. The State, nor the police, could ever produce that evidence.

Every observation the officer wrote was either false or overly exaggerated. The DUI video completely contradicted everything that was on paper. In fact, the defendant actually performed very well on the tests.

To prove DUI, the State must prove that the defendant was impaired by alcohol and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Although, the defendant was clearly impaired, the State could not prove why what specifically.

After numerous conversations with the prosecutor about various issues and discrepancies in discovery uncovered by the defense, the State Dropped the DUI.

Due to a lack of reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation, simply based on odor and bloodshot eyes, the State Dropped the DUI.

The defendant admitted to having taken Ambien ten minutes before driving. The officers did not find nor smell any marijuana. The marijuana could have been in her system for 30 days. The lab didn't test for the Ambien for some unknown reason. Thus, the State couldn't prove by what specific chemical and/or controlled substance was impairing her as required by the DUI statute 316.193. The State Dropped the DUI and dismissed the Leaving the scene charge.

The State could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control because he had no capability to operate the car while sleeping.

Due to various contradictions between the video and the written reports pointed out by the firm, the State Dropped the DUI.

Issues were raised as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to the fact that the officer allegedly only visually estimated the defendant's speed and the "conditions" were not articulated in any detail.

Due to inconsistencies between the police reports and the video tape that were pointed out by the firm to the State, the State Dropped the DUI.

There as a lack of probable cause to arrest her due to the officer being unable to communicate with her at the hospital due to her medical condition.

Prior to trial, the defense pointed out to the State that the DRE was wrong. The officer called CNS depressants which has the opposite effect of a CNS simulant (methamphetamines). Also, the officers stated they smelled alcohol, but none was detected in his system. Their credibility was called into question. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. The leaving the scene charge was Dismissed.

The officer administering the roadside tests was reading the instructions off a card. This made following instructions very difficult. Based on the video, we also pointed out that he performed better than the officer wrote in his report. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI days before trial.

The firm pointed out that the defendant could not be in actual physical control as he had no "capability" to operate the vehicle while asleep.

An odor of alcohol alone is not enough to give an officer reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI) to lawfully request roadside tests. Thus, there was a high likelihood that the field sobriety tests would have been excluded from evidence.

The video of the defendant at the scene clearly contradicted many of the officer’s written observations which were highly exaggerated.

Issues were raised by the firm as to who was actually at fault in the crash. In addition, the defendant sustained head injuries when he fell off his motorcycle. This caused doubt as to whether impairment was due to alcohol or the crash itself.

There was no video or body worn camera. Since the roadsides were vaguely described, the state Dropped the DUI.

To be in actual physical control, a defendant must have the "capability" to operate a motor vehicle. Here, the defendant was sleeping, so he had no capability to operate the car. The State Dropped the DUI and dismissed the possession charge.

On tape, the defendant did not appear confused or lethargic. In fact, she was very attentive during the roadside tests. Her speech also seemed normal. Due to many contradictions between the video tape and the written reports, the State Dropped the DUI just short of trial.

The officer had a body worn camera. The defendant only appeared unsteady because the boat was rocking on the water. His eyes were watery because he was on the water and out in the sun all day. There were three others on the boat who stated he was not impaired. Many observations written by the officer were completely exaggerated as compared to the body camera. The State Dropped the BUI a few days before trial.

The firm pointed out to the State that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him based on the video tape evidence. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI a few days before trial. It should be noted, the firm got his last DUI Dropped as well.

Issues were raised as to whether the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower at the time of driving due to his performance on the roadside tests. Thus, the firm called into question whether he was over .08 at the time of driving.

There were a few cops on scene. It appeared on video as if it was training exercise to teach the trainee officer how to process a DUI. One cop was even asking about a refusal statute which didn't even apply. In addition, on tape he did not appear unsteady and his speech was normal. After speaking with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI a few days before trial.

The police report over exaggerated the level of impairment on the roadside tests as compared to the video tape evidence.

The firm raised probable cause to arrest issues which would have led to suppression of the breath test results.

On video, right before the walk and turn began, it started pouring rain. The officers made no attempt to take the defendant out of the rain and off the highway to give him the opportunity to perform the walk and turn, one leg stand, and any other tests. The officers could be heard saying "we got enough, let’s just go." This was brought the prosecutor's attention along with other issues on the tape.

Since the call was anonymous, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying ordering the defendant out of the car without any corroboration.

Many observations such as the defendant's speech and balance issues were contradicted by the officer's body worn camera.

Based on the evidence, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant.

Under Florida Statute 901.15, officers must observe every element of the crime. In a DUI, they must first observe the defendant to be either driving or in actual physical control. If they do not, the arrest is unlawful under 901.15. The only exception is if there is a crash, which here there was not. When officers arrived in this case, the defendant was standing outside his car. The firm filed a motion to suppress for an unlawful arrest. Just prior the motion hearing, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The firm filed a motion for statement of particulars. This was filed to find out the State's theory of prosecution, as to what drug they were trying to prove was impairing her. In order to prove DUI under Florida Statute 316.193, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol, and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here the State could not prove by what specific substance was impairing the defendant.

Prior to any trial, the firm brought issues up to the State about the severity of the crash and how it could make her look impaired versus alcohol.

An officer is required to advise a defendant of adverse consequences if they refuse roadside tests. In this case, that didn't happen, so the refusal to perform the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.

The defense was able to show that the defendant was not the driver at the time of the crash. It was his brother who was driving the car. Due to the reasonable doubt created, and the State not being able to prove who was the driver, the State Dismissed the DUI.

Without evidence of impairment, such as slurred speech or balance issues, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. DUI) justifying the request for roadside tests.

Upon viewing the video, the firm brought it to the State's attention that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant based on his performance on the roadside tests.

Prior to any trial date, the firm was able to point out many inconsistencies with the discovery to the State.

According to the police reports, there were body worn cameras worn by Florida Fish and Wildlife Police officers who were on scene along with the Sheriff's officer. Those videos were not turned over by the police department to the prosecutor.

Due to vagueness written in the specifics of the driving pattern, issues were raised as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop.

Prior to trial, the firm brought many inconsistencies in the discovery to the State's attention such as conflicts between the video and the police reports.

On video, there were about four officers trying to conduct the DUI investigation. One appeared to be training the other and two others had no clue what was going on. For example, during the HGN(eye test), while one officer was administering the test, the other one was taking notes of the observations. However, the one taking notes was off to the side and couldn't even see the defendant's eyes. While giving the instructions on the walk and turn, the officer was reading off a standard instruction sheet of paper which totally confused the defendant. After reviewing the tape, the State Agreed with the firm and Dropped the DUI.

Issues were raised as to a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. The defendant received no conviction on her record.

Since the officer didn't observe any type of driving pattern, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

Many of the observations written by the officers were over exaggerated as compared to what can be viewed from the body worn cameras worn by the officers.

Many observations written by the officer were contradicted by the video tape leading to credibility issues.

The lawfulness of the stop was called into question as the specifics of the driving pattern were vague and no traffic seemed to be affected.

Due to the lack of specificity written by the officer about the field sobriety tests, there was a lack of probable cause.

The legality of the traffic stop was called into question after a review of the video and police reports.

When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests the officer must advise the defendant of adverse consequences before the refusal may be admitted into evidence. In this case, the firm filed a motion to exclude the refusal because the officer did not follow the law. The Judge granted the motion and the State Dropped the DUI.

Prior to trial, the firm uncovered various documents on the particular breath machine that the defendant blew into. It showed that the officers never did the required inspections and the machine failed many times. A week prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.

Issues were raised by the firm regarding the lawfulness of the traffic stop such as whether the caller was anonymous, and the amount of corroboration visualized by the officer.

The defendant denied ever being the initial driver involved in the crash. Questions were then raised by the firm as to the accuracy of the eyewitness’s identification.

There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was impaired for simply crossing over the line 3 times within a quarter of a mile. It could have been something as innocent as changing the radio station or looking down at one's phone for a second.

After extensive negotiations and the firm pointing out some inconsistencies in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

The defendant was detained longer than necessary for the initial officer to write the traffic ticket. Thus, the issue was raised by the firm whether he was unlawfully detained too long for the DUI cop to arrive.

Officers had on body worn cameras. On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and she did not appear unsteady. They it made it seem like her performance on the field sobriety tests was worse on paper than what appeared on tape. The firm brought all this to the prosecutor's attention.

There was no dash camera or body worn camera. Since the reports were vaguely written, the State Dropped the DUI.

Since the caller only described an alleged traffic infraction, the officer had to have seen some type of erratic driving pattern or infraction to seize the defendant. Since he did not, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

The firm advised the prosecutor prior to any motions being filed that there was no probable cause to stop the defendant. The State Agreed and Dropped the DUI to a civil infraction and the defendant received no conviction or points on the civil infraction.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. There were numerous inconsistencies in the officer's reports, as well as the video. Also, with the .02 margin of error on the breath machine, we were able to place the defendant's breath alcohol results under the legal limit. On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

Under Florida law (Fla. Statute 316.193) to prove a DUI, the State must prove that a defendant be impaired by alcohol, and/or a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. Here, the State could not prove either of the above. One cannot just be impaired to be convicted of DUI.

The officers’ reports contradicted each other. In one report, he wrote that the defendant had mumbled speech, but in another one he wrote the defendant had good speech. Due to the fact that the defendant was not the cause of crash, no roadsides were conducted, and the officer's credibility was called into question, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

Many of the observations written by the officer were contradicted by the dash camera video tape.

The defendant stated he had major back issues which would have contributed to any unsteadiness. In addition, his speech was not slurred on tape.

The officer did not see any driving pattern upon stopping the defendant. Thus, he had no corroboration to legally justify the traffic stop. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

English is not the defendant's first language. Officers made no attempts to get an interpreter to assist in the DUI investigation so the defendant could properly understand.

Under Florida DUI statute 316.193, the State must prove that a defendant is impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance. One just can’t be impaired by something. The State could not prove the case and Dropped the DUI. The defendant received no criminal conviction.

Due to many inconsistencies in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

Many observations such as slurred speech and balance issues were contradicted by the defendant's video tape. This was brought to the State's attention by the firm. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.

When asking the defendant to perform roadside tests, the officer misstated the law by telling him that one consents to roadsides when they get their driver's license. Under Florida law, the only thing that pertains to one's consent when they get a driver's license is a breath, urine, or blood test.

On tape, officers had made statements to each other on the body cameras about whether the defendant was impaired by a mental illness or alcohol. This was not written in any police reports. Had the firm not watched the tapes, it never would have been discovered or brought to the prosecutor's attention. Thus, there was reasonable doubt as to whether she was impaired by alcohol or a mental illness.

On tape, the defendant's speech did not appear to sound slurred and he did not appear off balance or unsteady.

At the civil administrative DMV hearing, the officer testified under oath how the defendant was practically a falling down drunk. This testimony was contradicted by the video tape. The State Dropped her Second DUI and dismissed the refusal charge.

Due to a lack of specifies on the police reports as to the field sobriety tests, the State Dropped the DUI.

Many aspects of the video tape contradicted by the police reports.

The defendant's performance on video tape during the field sobriety test clearly showed that he was lower than .08 at the time of driving. Thus, he would have be absorbing alcohol when he blew into the machine.

The State could not prove how long the substances had been in his system. Thus, they couldn't prove he was actually impaired by those drugs.

Many observations of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were very vaguely written and hardly any specifics included.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that there was no probable cause to even arrest the defendant based on the video tape. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Due to inconsistencies in the reports pointed out by the defense, the State Dropped the DUI.

An officer can only request a breath and/or urine test after one has been arrested. Here, the officer read her implied consent and requested a urine test prior to arresting her which was unlawful. Thus, her refusal to provide a urine sample would have been excluded from evidence. In addition, the State could not prove by what specific chemical and/or or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by Florida DUI Statute 316.193. . The State Dropped the DUI to a civil careless infraction.

The observations both the arresting officer and the DRE officer made were inconsistent with someone being impaired by amphetamines. In fact, the DRE officer concluded that she was impaired by a CNS Depressant which was not only wrong, but on the opposite spectrum of amphetamines. Someone who is impaired by amphetamines will appear euphoric and excited and not slow and sluggish. In addition, someone who is impaired by amphetamines will not exhibit HGN (the eyes test), nor have equal pupil size, like the defendant did. In addition, when the officer administered the roadside tests, he covered his body worn camera with his forearm and clip board so one could not even see the defendant's performance.

Parks & Braxton got depositions granted of the two officers in question. Prior to the depos, in speaking to the officers, it was uncovered that when the officers found the defendant, he was sleeping in the bed of his truck. This information was not written in the police reports and would have never been uncovered if the firm did not attempt to take depos. The state could not prove that the defendant was in actual physical control of the truck.