Our Recent DUI Victories

Due to the margins of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to bring the defendant's breath alcohol under the .08 legal limit. The State Dropped the DUI.

The firm raised issues as to the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.

Under Florida law, an officer must explain that there are adverse consequences if you refuse to perform field sobriety tests. Here, the officer did not, so the refusal would have been excluded from evidence. The State Dropped the DUI.

Prior to trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the the defendant had medical issues, yet the officer still had him do the one leg stand versus non physical exercises. Also, many observations were contradicted by the video as the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance. The State Dropped the DUI.

Although the officer stated in his reports that the defendant was falling asleep, that was contradicted by the video where he seemed alert and awake. Also, the officer should have called for a DUI officer who specializes in detecting impairment by specific categories of drugs, called a DRE (drug recognition officer). That was not done. The State dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The video evidence contradicted a large majority of what as written in the reports. The State Dropped the DUI.

If an officer asks for a voluntary blood test outside of a hospital, the defendant must be informed that it is an alternative to a breath or urine test. Here, the officer did not inform the defendant of that. It was also unclear why the officer was even asking for blood versus taking him to jail to provide a breath test. Thus, the blood would have been suppressed from evidence. The State Dropped the DUI.

Bloodshot eyes can also have come from being on the water and in the sun, not just alcohol. Based on odor and bloodshot eyes, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. no impairment) to even request field sobriety tests to begin with. Also, when the officer did the eye test (HGN), he got an angle of onset in her eyes prior to 45 degrees. This meant that the defendant may been under the legal limit at the time of driving the boat. This is based on a theory called Tharp's Formula. The State dropped the BUI and the defendant received no conviction on her record.

Under Florida Statute 901.15, an officer must observed all elements off a misdemeanor crime, such as a DUI. In a DUI, the officer must see the defendant behind the wheel when there is no crash. Here, no officer observed the defendant behind the wheel as he was coming out of the ambulance when police arrived. Thus, the arrest was unlawful pursuant to the above mentioned statue. The State Dropped the DUI.

On video, the officer received a cell phone call during the DUI investigation. Prior to asking the defendant to do roadsides, the officer is heard telling the caller on the cell phone, referring to the defendant, that he was "gonna snatch his ass and read him implied consent.” In other words, he already had his mind made up he was going to arrest him prior to any investigation. This was brought to the State's attention who hadn't watched the video. The State Dropped the DUI.

In order to violate Florida's Statute by driving too slow, one must affect and/or impede other traffic. The firm provided case law to the State that the stop was unlawful. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

Rather than revoke the defendant's bond, the prosecutor agreed to drop the DUI on the first case. The second case is still pending.

First, the firm was able to prove that the drug was not hydrocodone and the officers were wrong. The felony was Dismissed. Also, to convict a defendant of DUI, one has to be impaired by alcohol and/or a chemical and/or a controlled substance. Here, the State could not prove what substance (i.e. not hydrocodone) was impairing the defendant. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

When the NHTSA manual on roadside tests was created, it stated that an officer should use caution or not even administer the walk and turn or one leg stand to to individuals 60 years old or older. Here, the officer administered those difficult physical tests to a defendant who was almost 70 years old. The State Dropped the DUI.

The officer's reports exaggerated the defendant's level of impairment as compared to the video tape. The firm pointed out all the specific details to the prosecutor. The State Dropped the DUI.

Only two breath samples are required in the State of Florida. Here, the machine was having issues and three were obtained. Two of them were outside the margin of error.

When officers arrived, the defendant was outside her car. Since there was no crash, the arrest was unlawful under Florida Statute 901.15 as no officer saw her behind the wheel.

Under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti, there must be substantial independent evidence of a crime, other than the defendant's statements. Here, the State could not prove that the defendant was the driver other than his statement admitting to rolling the car into the ditch. The State Dismissed the defendant's Third DUI and also the refusal charge.

Parks & Braxton retrieved a second video. The second video revealed a DUI investigation of the victim in the crash. The State acknowledged the lack of credibility of their wheel witness and dropped the DUI.

Parks and Braxton filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence. The first motion was that the defendant was never given any adverse consequences when she refused field sobriety tests. Also, under Florida law, a request for a breath test must be incident to lawful arrest. Here, the officer asked for a breath test on video tape prior to her arrest. The firm then filed a motion to exclude the refusal to provide breath sample. Prior to any motion hearings, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

There was no proof that the defendant had driven while under the influence of alcohol because time had passed while the vehicle was stuck in the ditch and it was not operable when the police arrived.

In the NHTSA manual on roadside tests, it states that the area where roadside tests are performed must be level. In the police reports, the officer wrote that the area was level where he had the defendant do the walk and turn and one leg stand. However, the defense pointed out to the State that the parking lot area where they were performed was on a big slope. This was captured on tape. Thus, the roadsides were conducted in violation of the manual. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The firm was able to show that the officer's video contradicted the officer's reports. Thus, the officer's credibility was called into question.

Under the theory of absorption and elimination of alcohol, called retrograde extrapolation, the firm was able to put the defendants breath alcohol level under a .08 at the time of driving.

The defendant suffers from ADHD, whereby many of the characteristics he exhibits mirror the effects of alcohol impairment. Despite the fact that the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were less than perfect, the defendant's medical history proved as a good explanation for the impairment. The State dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.

The video was inconsistent with the police reports and testimony of the officer. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.

Parks and Braxton pointed out to the State that the victim of the alleged crash stated that the truck was red in the 911 call. However, the truck the defendant was found sitting next to was blue. Thus, the caller's credibility about being able to actually ID the defendant as the driver was called into question. We also provided pictures to the State showing no damage. Thus, there was no "accident" as defined by case law. Therefore, the defendant could not have left the scene of an accident. If there was no actual crash initially as defined by the case law, the defendant was then being unlawfully detained by the police. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed all the other charges.

Parks & Braxton provided pictures to the State of the defendant's windshield after the crash, showing it had been shattered. The defendant's head had slammed into the windshield. Thus any impairment could have been as equally attributable to the crash versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.

The officer exaggerated the level of impairment in the roadside reports as compared to the video tape. The State dropped the DUI.

An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to request roadside tests. The officer must have specific facts that the defendant was impaired. A mere odor of alcohol is not enough with no erratic driving. Thus, all the roadside tests could have been excluded. The State Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer’s reports. The defendant did not appear unsteady and his speech appeared normal. The State Dropped the DUI.

The firm was able to show that the defendant's breath alcohol level was under the legal limit through a .02 margin of error. Also, the video contradicted the officer's reports as to the observations both before and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

To prove DUI, the state must prove that the defendant was impaired by alcohol, and/or a controlled and/or chemical substance. Here, the defense filed a motion for statement of particulars to pin the State down as to their theory of prosecution. They could not prove what substance was allegedly impairing the defendant and the Second DUI was Dismissed.

The defendant obtained the DUI video tape in discovery. For some unexplained reason, the officer did not place the defendant in front of the patrol car dash camera during the entire DUI investigation. However, we could hear the defendant speaking and his speech sounded normal, not slurred. Also, he denied that he ran the red light and said that the other driver ran the red. The State Dropped the DUI just prior to trial.

The firm pointed out to the State that the defendant was injured from the crash. Any impairment such as speech issues and unsteadiness were as equally attributable to the severity of the crash versus alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.

Officers saw her pull up and ordered her over to them. This was an unlawful command, because at that point, no DUI observations had been made. Thus, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI), justifying the initial command.

There was no video at the scene. There was a video at the BAT facility. The officer made the defendant out to be a falling down drunk at the scene. However, on tape later at the BAT, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and there was no slurred speech on tape. The State Dropped the defendant's Third DUI.

The facts surrounding the traffic stop were only vaguely described. Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and the firm is now working on getting the felony dropped too.

There was no video at the scene. The officer's reports made no sense, in that the defendant was practically almost falling down, yet the officer still had him perform the walk the line and one leg stand.

Per the NHTSA manual on roadside tests, field sobriety tests are supposed to be conducted in a well lit area. In this case, the officer had the defendant perform them in pitch black darkness. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

Per the NHTSA manual on roadside tests, field sobriety tests are supposed to be conducted in a well lit area. In this case, the officer had the defendant perform them in pitch black darkness. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

The officer never called for an in car camera to the scene even though one was available. The defendant's story contradicted the officers alleged observations it the reports.

On the video, the officer misstated the law when requesting the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. Also, on tape, she never stumbled or appeared incoherent. The defense was also able to show that it was the officers who were aggressive with her initially back at the station and she was simply defending herself. The State Dropped the DUI and the Felony was also Dropped to a misdemeanor battery whereby she received no conviction.

Through pre-trial discovery, Parks & Braxton discovered that the civilian 911 caller had stayed on scene and was filming the field sobriety tests. It should be noted that the officer did not have an in-car camera or a body worn camera. The firm requested that video because we alleged that it would show that the officer was exaggerating the defendant's level of impairment. The officer made no effort to get a copy from the witness and no effort was made by the State to get a copy. Due to the lack of videotape evidence in the case, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton was able to get the defendant's statements excluded. In addition, since the defendant's breath was over an hour later, the State could not prove that the defendant was over the legal limit at the time of driving. The State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction on her record.

There was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred, nor any reasonable suspicion of a crime that the defendant was an impaired driver justifying the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.

The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests on video tape clearly showed that he was still absorbing alcohol and his breath alcohol content may have been lower than .08 at the time of driving. It should be noted that the breath test as taken almost 90 minutes after the traffic stop.

Due to the defendant not performing the roadside tests, it was apparent on tape there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton showed that the defendant never ran the red light and that the officer never obtained the red light camera. From his vantage point, and traffic, there was no way he could have seen the defendant run a red light. Thus, the lawfulness of the stop was called into question and so was the officer's credibility.

Parks & Braxton provided evidence to the State regarding the defendant's car, showing the alignment and tires were messed up which would have caused it to swerve. Also we pointed out to the State that on tape there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. The State agreed and Dismissed the DUI.

The firm raised issues of the lawfulness of the traffic stop due to other traffic not being affected by his driving. The State Dropped the DUI and the possession charge was dismissed.

The video contradicted the majority of the officer's observations as written in the reports.

Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, he was not in actual physical control. He had no "capability" to operate the vehicle while sleeping.

For the police to order someone out of their car, the officers must have reasonable suspicion of crime. In other words, there must be some specific facts to point too that the defendant was impaired, and not just innocently sleeping. Here, there was none. Thus, the initial ordering of the defendant out of his car was unlawful and all the evidence could have been thrown out. The State Dropped the DUI.

On video, it appeared as if one officer was training the other. The trainee mixed up several parts of the instructions on the field sobriety tests in contradiction to the NHTSA manual on roadsides The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The arresting officer's own body worn camera contradicted his written reports. The defendant was not off balance, stumbling or unsteady. In addition, the officer misstated the law when asking for roadside tests by telling him that his license will be suspended. A license suspension only applies to a refusal to provide breath, blood, or urine. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction in his record. They also Dismissed the leaving the scene of the accident because the defendant simply pulled down the road to get away from the wires.

The officer misstated the law and coerced the defendant into taking a breath test. Thus, the breath test may have been excluded from evidence.

There was no video at the scene. The officer's reports were very vague as to the specifics of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. Also, the defendant was not administered the breath test for a few hours after her arrest. Thus, there was no way to extrapolate back as to whether she was above or below .08 at the time of driving.

Under Florida law, a breath test can only be requested after arrest. Here, the officer asked for a breath test prior to arrest. Thus, the defendant's refusal to provide a breath test would have been inadmissible. Also, the officer never gave the defendant any adverse consequences when she refused roadside tests. Thus, her refusal to perform field sobriety tests would have also been inadmissible. The state Dropped the defendant's second DUI.

Due to the video tape not being provided in a timely fashion, the firm was able to get the State to Drop the DUI.

The defendant was coerced into taking a breath test. Specifically, the officer told him that if he blew under a .08, he would only get a ticket. The defendant was led to believe that he could be released from custody if he agreed to blow in to the machine. An officer cannot dangle freedom when trying to obtain a breath test. One will not be unarrested once taken in to the jail after being arrested for DUI. Thus, the breath test results would have been excluded.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. Here, no traffic was affected by her slow driving and the leaving the road two times. She also did not endanger anyone with her driving. Thus, there was no probable cause to effect the traffic stop. The State Dropped the DUI.

In order to lawfully request a defendant to perform roadside tasks, there must reasonable suspicion of a crime. In other words, there must be some evidence that the defendant was impaired. Here, there was no erratic driving, no balance issues, and no speech issues. Thus, all the field sobriety test would have been inadmissible. The State Dropped the DUI and firm is working on trying to get the felony dismissed.

The officers’ reports were very vaguely written. The video of the defendant contradicted many of the observations on the reports. The week before trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Based on the margin of error built into the breath machine, the State was unable to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit of .08. The State Dropped the DUI.

The officer exaggerated the defendant's alleged impairment on the field sobriety tests. His video contradicted all the reports.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to compel the 911 call. It was later revealed that the 911 call was destroyed. Depositions were taken from both officers. In deposition, the officers agreed that they should have investigated the male who was parked behind the defendant. Parks and Braxton filed a motion to dismiss based on a necessity defense. Specifically, the defendant was legally entitled to commit a DUI in order to avoid the greater harm of being assaulted by the man who was following her. The Prosecutor agreed and subsequently dropped the DUI.

Although the defendant performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test), nothing was captured on video tape. All the officers had body worn cameras but not one roadside task was on tape. This lack of evidence was presented to the State and they Dropped the DUI.

There is a .02 and a .005 margin of the error with the breath machine. Here, the firm was able to place both of the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was not enough evidence to place in her in actual physical control. The officers yanked her out of the driver seat before she could gain control of the truck. The State agreed and Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

It was pointed out to the State by the firm that the defendant’s alleged performance on the roadside tasks, as written in the reports, was contradicted by her video tape. The tape clearly showed that she was absorbing alcohol and had a lower breath alcohol level at the time of driving.

There were inconsistencies between the reports and the videotapes. Thus, the credibility of the officers was called into question.

During discovery, the firm uncovered that the arresting officer had been terminated for falsification of records and untruthfulness. His credibility as to whether he lied in this case was now called into question. The DUI was Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to the trial date, the firm uncovered that the arresting officer had been terminated after having been arrested on felony charges. The State was also late in providing any discovery such as police reports and video tapes. The firm would not waive speedy trial and moved to compel further info about officer and all discovery. Just a few days prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully detained. We argued at the motion hearing that there must be more than a mere odor of alcohol in order to detain a defendant to perform to field sobriety tests. The Judge agreed and granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The DUI was then Dismissed.

According to the NHTSA manual on field sobriety tests, the officer is required to administer them on flat, level surface. Here, it was obvious on tape that the officer had the defendant perform the walk and turn on a downhill slope. Although the officer wrote that the defendant had no medical injuries preventing him from performing the one leg stand, that was contradicted by the video. On tape the defendant his heard telling the officer that he had hip issues. This was pointed out to the State and they Dropped the DUI.

Due to the fact that there were no balance problems or speech issues prior to the roadside tasks, there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to even request field sobriety tests. An odor of alcohol and bloodshot/glassy eyes are only indicators of the consumption of alcohol and not impairment.

There was a de facto arrest when the officers placed the defendant in handcuffs. Since all the DUI observations were made after being cuffed, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The State Dropped the DUI.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question due to a lack of specifics. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We pointed out to the State that the officer's reports were contradicted by the video. Not one of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.

Under Florida law, one must be under the influence of alcohol "at the time of driving" to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove that he was under the influence while driving because he could have drank while he was in his house.

The officer did not get an angle of onset (nystagmus) before 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes during the HGN test. An angle of onset prior to 45 degrees, under Tharpe's formula, would show that the defendant may have a breath alcohol level over the legal limit of .08. Here, there was none.

Since there was no substantial corroboration of the driving pattern that the 911 caller had described. Thus the lawfulness of the stop was called into question.

The defendant was not advised of any adverse consequences relating to her refusal to perform the roadside tasks as required by law.

Since the defendant did not sit through an entire light cycle, and there were no specifics of his alleged swerving. Thus the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question.

The observations that the officer wrote in his report were contradicted by the videotape. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dropped.

Parks & Braxton brought several contradictions between the arresting officer and the DRE officer to the attention of the prosecutor. For one, the officer at the scene got no nystagmus prior to 45 degrees on the HGN (eye test) versus the DRE officer at the station got nystagmus prior to the 45 degrees. This is important because the DRE officer concluded that the defendant was impaired by a CNS depressant, and NOT marijuana which is the substance he tested positive for at FDLE. An officer wont see nystagmus prior to 45 degrees if under the influence of marijuana. The DRE was wrong. The firm then requested the state to disclose which "specific" controlled substance the state was going to argue that the defendant was impaired by as required by law. They could not and the DUI was dismissed.

During the short distance and time frame that the officer followed the defendant, his alleged drifting did not affect other traffic and neither did his driving too slow for conditions. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction on his record.

The video contradicted the reports. For example, his speech was not mumbled and he wasn't moving slow. The State, after negotiations, Dropped the DUI short of going to trial.

The video contradicted the officer's reports and clearly showed that the defendant's level of impairment was consistent with someone who was lower than .141 at the time of driving. To prove DUI, one has to be "driving" with an unlawful breath alcohol level.

The lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question as the alleged weaving did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying pulling him over.

There was insufficient reasonable suspicion of a crime (i.e. not enough specific articulable facts other than odor and bloodshot eyes) to justify the initial detention of the defendant. Thus, if the initial detention was unlawful, all of the roadside tests and breath test would be excluded from evidence.

The officer made the defendant out to be more impaired in his reports than she appeared on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the possession of pot charge was dismissed.

The video of the defendant contradicted the officer's reports as to the extent of the alleged impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. The first alleged that the arrest was unlawful under 901.15 of the Florida Statutes. In short, it states that when there is no crash, the officer must observe all elements of the misdemeanor. Here, a DUI, the officer must have observed the defendant behind the wheel. An officer cannot rely on a civilian when there is no crash. Thus, the arrest was unlawful. The firm also filed a motion to exclude all of the defendant's statements about being the driver. Since the officer never got the witness's name, the person was anonymous. Thus, since there was no way to call him into court, his statements would be inadmissible hearsay and excluded from evidence. Under the doctrine of corpus delicti, the State must produce substantial evidence that the defendant was the driver other than his own admissions. Here, there was none. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

It was pointed out to he State that the defendant merely crossed the lane marker briefly to make a turn and the officer exaggerated the driving pattern in his reports. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no coviction in his record.

Although the officer described the defendant as a falling down drunk in his reports, he had a video camera in the patrol car. However, the firm discovered that the defendant's field sobriety tests were not captured on tape for unknown reasons. This was brought to the State's attention and they Dropped the DUI. The marijuana charge was Dismissed.

Since the defendant never got through the gate, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime justifying the detention of the defendant.

During depositions it was revealed that a civilian witness had taken a video of the defendant that the arresting officer was aware of, but failed to preserve. In addition, the officers failed to preserve a video that was taken in the holding cell. Finally, a deposition of a back-up officer revealed several inconsistencies with the arresting officer. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The case was dropped by the State on the morning of trial.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The video that was taken at the BAT facility contradicted the officer’s observations at the scene. For example on tape, her speech wasn't mumbled and she wasn't swaying. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and she received no conviction in her record.