Our Recent DUI Victories

The firm announced ready for trial. The firm pointed out to the State that the officers prematurely tased him as heard by the conversation in the video and then the screaming. The videotape was not facing the defendant or his car at any time. Also, the officers never even asked the defendant to perform field sobriety exercises nor did they conduct any type of actual DUI investigation. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received No conviction on the resisting charge.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial talks with the State, we pointed out how the defendant's first language was not English. It was clear on the video that she did not understand any of the instructions on the roadside tests that the officers were giving her. In addition, she did not understand the implied consent warnings prior to being offered a breath test.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer misled (coerced) the defendant into believing that if he took the breath test, he can continue to drive by obtaining a work permit, however, if he refused, he could not get one. That was a misstatement of the law. Prior to the motion hearing, the State agreed with our position after being provided all the applicable case law and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The officer had informed the defendant that if she refused the field sobriety tests, her license would be suspended. That was a misstatement of the law as one's license is only suspended for refusing a breath, blood, or urine test. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction at all.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Days before trial, after negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on the resting charge.

When the officers arrived, there was no damage to the vehicles, thus, by definition in the case law, there was no crash (accident). Since the defendant was outside her car when the police arrived, and there was no crash exception, she was unlawfully arrested pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15 as no officer observed her behind the wheel.

Parks & Braxton took pre trial depositions of the officers and civilians involved in the case. All of the officers' sworn testimony contradicted each other’s and also the testimony of the civilians involved in the crash. The firm announced ready for trial and on the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The firm announced ready for trial. Although the officer stated in her reports that the defendant refused the roadside tests, the video contradicted that allegation. In fact, after being placed in cuffs, the defendant asked several times to be allowed to take the tests. The officer's credibility was now being called into question as her reports were contradicted by the video tape. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

In order to conduct field sobriety tests, an officer must have "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (i.e. that the defendant was impaired) in order to administer roadside tests. Here, there was a lack of "reasonable suspicion" thus the roadsides would have been excluded from evidence.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the officer coerced the defendant into taking a breath test by advising the defendant that he can get a work permit and continue to drive if he took a breath test, however, if he refused, he would not be able to get a hardship license nor continue to drive. The Judge watched the video, read the applicable case law, heard argument of counsel, and then Granted the motion. The breath test results were then excluded from evidence. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction at all on his record.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of both the officer who stopped the defendant and the arresting officer. Subsequently, the firm filed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause to believe an infraction occurred. Under Florida law, it is not an infraction to squeal one's tires unless other people or vehicles are affected. At the motion hearing, although the officer testified that he thought maybe a robbery had just occurred, that explanation was not "reasonable" because in the same breath on cross examination he also testified maybe the defendant was having a medical emergency. It was obvious he was speculating and and had no rational basis for giving those opinions. In addition, at the motion hearing, the defense called the DUI officer as a witness. He testified that the stopping officer told him he that he only "heard" the squealing of the tires, not seeing it as he had testified. Thus, his credibility was now be called into question. The Judge Granted the motion, threw out all of the evidence, and the Defendant's Felony DUI was Dismissed.

The firm pointed out to the State that the video contradicted the officer's police reports. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. Yet on video, that was not the case. Also, he had written that the defendant was unsteady, however, he was not off balance or unsteady at all on tape. Since the officer's credibility was being called into question, the State Dropped the DUI just prior to the trial date.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place the defendant under the legal limit on both breath tests results.

After numerous negotiations with the prosecutor, the State agreed to drop the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial negotiations with the State prior to trial.

On video, the defendant was stating repeatedly that she had to "pee" really bad prior to and during the roadsides and it was an emergency. The officer would not let her urinate until after she performed the tests. The defense then pointed out to the State that she was "coerced" into doing them under duress. After reviewing the case law, it was clear the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.

The firm pointed out to the State prior to trial that on the video tape, the officer had told the defendant she would be arrested whether she did the field sobriety tests or not. Thus, he already had his mind made up whether she did them or not. This showed the officer's clear bias toward making an arrest vs. giving her a fair opportunity to avoid arrest.

On video, the officer, upon following the defendant, already had another person he had just arrested for DUI in the back seat. Prior to pulling the defendant over, he blurted out on tape "He's drunk" before even making any contact with the defendant. When he pulled the defendant over, he had the defendant perform the roadside tasks on a hill, not level ground. It starting becoming obvious that he was looking to make as many DUI arrests as he could. Once the defendant was arrested, the officer is then heard bragging about the number of DUI arrests he had made in the past week. Although the officer also said he smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath, the defendant blew triple 0's in the breath machine. The officer then asked for a urine sample. The defendant provided a sample which came back from the FDLE lab positive for Methamphetamine and Xanax. Due to the fact that the firm called the officer's credibility into question, the State Dropped the DUI short of trial. It should be noted that the firm also got the Defendant's first DUI Dropped as well.

The firm announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial the defense pointed out to the State that the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences as required by case law when he refused to perform the roadside tests. Thus the defendant's refusal would have been excluded from evidence. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

The State could not prove that the defendant was the driver of the car upon arriving at the crash scene. Without being able to prove that the defendant was either driving or in actual physical control, they could not prove the first element of a DUI charge.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Through pretrial investigation, it was learned that this particular officer and others were on a DUI saturation patrol that night simply looking to make DUI arrests. They had been watching the bar that the defendant had exited and then were pulling people over after they had left. It was also uncovered, that the defendant's neighbor had been arrested the same night by the the same officer. The firm got the testimony of the officer from that case and used it to attack his credibility in our case since many facts were similar. This was brought to the attention of the prosecutor. Also, in our case, the officer wrote a very vague report as he did not write any specific details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests and simply checked off boxes on his Alcohol Influence Report. After reviewing the case, the State Dropped the DUI.

Under Florida law, one’s drivers license can only be suspended for refusing to submit to a breath, blood, or urine tests. Here, the officer erroneously advised the defendant on the law by telling him he would lose his driver's license for refusing field sobriety tests. Also, on tape, the defendant never appeared off balance or unsteady as the officers had written in their reports.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State. Any unsteadiness exhibited by the defendant could have easily just have been attributed to getting hit with the airbags vs alcohol. Also, his vomiting a few times prior to the breath test and the police giving him water could have skewed his breath test results.

The defendant was misinformed by the officer that if he refused the breath test, he would be charged with a misdemeanor. That was a misstatement of the law as it's only a misdemeanor to refuse the breath test and an additional crime if it is a Second or subsequent refusal.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that all the signs observed by the officers did not point to the fact that the defendant was impaired by cocaine, a stimulant. In fact, on the other hand, all the observations were consistent with impairment by a depressant. Thus, the State would have been unable to prove that he was impaired by cocaine. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received No conviction the felony possession charge.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that the defendant had numerous medical issues such as a prior traumatic brain injury. This injury led to all his balance issues prior to and during the roadside tests, to which the officer totally ignored.

There was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's poor performance on the roadside tests was due to alcohol or his medical issues. He is on tape telling the officer about a bad back which affects his balance. The officer then is heard telling the defendant that his bad back won’t affect his performance on the walk and turn or one leg stand, which is false as both are physical exercises. The firm brought these medical issues to the attention of the State just prior to trial. Also, the officer is heard telling the defendant on tape that it is a crime to drink and drive. That statement is false and showed the officer did not even know the law. To be guilty of DUI, one must be either driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level and/or be driving under the influence to the extent that their normal faculties are impaired.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior trial, the defense brought to the attention of the State that the officer had administered a walk and turn and one leg stand test. Normally that would be ok, but here the defendant was over 65 years old. The NHTSA manual, which sets forth the parameters for administering the field sobriety tests, states in part that an officer should use caution in administering the those tests to people over 60 years old. Here, even though the defendant kept telling them he had back and neck issues due to his age, the officer still proceeded with the exercises. In addition, we pointed out that the defendant's speech sounded slurred because he had hearing issues and even wore a hearing aid.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the firm pointed out various conflicts within the arresting officer's own police reports.

Parks & Braxton raised several pretrial issues with the State regarding legality of the blood draw. After reviewing the applicable case law and officer's testimony, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State.

Under Florida Case Law, a defendant must be advised of the adverse consequences of refusing to perform the field sobriety tests or the refusal is inadmissible into evidence. Here the officer simply arrested the defendant without advising her of any adverse consequences.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the defendant's statements about drinking and taking pain medications. Our motion was premised under the legal doctrine of corpus delicti which states that there must be independent substantial proof of a crime other than the defendant's statements. Here, there was no such evidence that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the crash (i.e. driving). Prior to the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received NO conviction for the LSA charge.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, and after negotiations, we pointed out that the officer had several opportunities to have the defendant submit to non-physical roadside tests, but rather quickly arrested the defendant without even offering them to him.

During a pretrial investigation of the case, it was uncovered by the defense that the arresting officer was under a federal investigation for theft. This information was brought to the State's attention.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State numerous conflicts in the police reports versus the video tape. After pretrial discussions, the prosecutor Dropped the DUI and the defendant also received no convictions on his record for the drug charges.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of all the officers involved in the case. After cross examination of each officer, they all contradicted each other and their respective police reports. The State was then presented with all the transcripts. After reviewing them, the State realized every officer's credibility had been called into question.

Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's eyes were bloodshot due to the air bag being deployed in his face, and not from the alcohol. Also, HGN was conducted two times, but only one was documented in the police reports. Furthermore, the defendant was not advised of any adverse consequences regarding his refusal to perform any further roadsides as required by law. The firm announced ready for trial.

Under Florida law, a breath test must be impracticable or impossible in order to request a blood test. Here, there was no showing by the police that a breath test was impracticable or impossible. Thus, the defendant's blood draw was unlawful.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The defendant's roadsides were not video taped. After pretrial negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the lack of specificity in the officer's reports regarding the field sobriety tests, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations about the facts of the case with the prosecutor, the State agreed to drop the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Under Florida law, the State and police are required to turn over all discovery. Due to various discovery violations prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime and/or have a legitimate concern that a person is sick or injured before ordering them out of their car, which constitutes a seizure. In this case, the only evidence presented was that the defendant was simply sleeping in his car. Thus, when the officer ordered him out of the car, he was unlawfully seized.

On video, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's speech was not slurred and she was not off balance as was written in the officer's report. Also, the officer administering the roadside tests was a new officer and kept confusing the defendant as she was giving the instructions. The defendant kept trying to clarify what she was being asked to do over and over. The defendant even stated at one point prior the walk and turn, "this is not a normal thing to do." After numerous pretrial talks with the prosecutor, the State Dropped the DUI.

Through cross extermination, Parks & Braxton were able to establish that the State's witnesses all contradicted each other. For example, one EMS person testified the defendant appeared impaired while the other stated he didn't notice any signs of impairment. Furthermore, although the officer stated that he smelled an odor of alcohol, an EMS person who was with the defendant stated she never smelled anything. Also, though cross examination, the defense established that any shaking, slurred speech, and balance issues on the part of the defendant were just as reasonably due to the defendant's MS diagnosis versus alcohol or any drugs. After cross examination, and all of the State's witnesses were impeached. The State Dismissed the Felony DUI.

Parks & Braxton met with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that none of the roadside tests were specifically detailed. In fact, the reports were very vaguely written. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Under Florida law, a person can only be convicted of DUI if "while driving" they had a breath alcohol level of .08 of higher. Here, under the the theory of retrograde extrapolation (ie. going back in time to calculate the defendant's BAC level earlier), it was shown by the defense that she may have been under the legal limit at the time of the driving.

Under Florida law, the State is required to provide all discovery in their possession as well as in the possession of the police department. If all the evidence is not turned over to the defense in a timely fashion, the State would be prevented from using it against he defendant. Due to various discovery issues, the State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.

Under Florida law, a defendant who is agreeing to perform roadside tests cannot be coerced into doing them by a misstatement of the law. Here, the defendant relied upon misinformation from the officer about the potential consequences of performing them vs. not performing them. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. The two possession charges were also Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations, we pointed out various conflicts in the officer's reports versus what was on the video tape.

Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention documentation that the defendant suffered from serious mental health issues. This caused speech issues for the defendant as well as a lack of comprehension when he was being instructed on the field sobriety tests.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State on the day of the trial. We pointed out various contradictions within the officer's reports. Furthermore, there were contradictions in his reports versus what was captured on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the two possession charges.

Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped by the police. Pursuant to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts, in order to stop a defendant based on an anonymous tip, the officer must corroborate the tip. Here, the officer did not observe any reckless driving, nor any failure to maintain a lane of travel. In fact, the officer wrote in her report the defendant "crossed" over the white line of travel. However, on video, the defendant merely touched the lane marker. Prior to the motion hearing date, the state agreed to drop the DUI based on the case law.

In Florida, to be convicted of DUI, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol, a chemical and/or chemical controlled substance. Here the State could not prove by what substance the defendant was allegedly impaired by as there was no odor of alcohol noted.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. At the motion hearing, we argued the officer's belief that the defendant was following him did not rise to a "reasonable suspicion of a crime." Also, upon cross examination, the officers could not articulate any specific traffic infractions that were committed. Thus, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause to believe there were any any traffic infractions committed justifying the stop. Based on the testimony, case law provided, and legal argument, the Judge granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence.

The defense brought to the State's attention that although the first cop smelled an odor of alcohol, the DUI cop did not. Also, the first officer stated he did not observe balance issues, yet the DUI officer wrote she was off balance. Also, the DUI officer did not observe the angle of onset in the defendant's eyes prior to 45 degrees on the HGN test, which would be present if one was impaired by alcohol. Due to the numerous conflicts between the two officer's testimony, the DUI was dismissed.

Parks & Braxton had a jury trial over a year ago with the same officer. In that case, the defendant was found Not Guilty. In the current case, as was with our older case that went to trial, the officer did the same thing by exaggerating each defendant's impairment in his reports versus what was captured on tape. The firm then brought this to the attention of the State as this officer continually did not tell the truth in his reports even though he had a camera. The firm did an investigation and found out that just prior to our court date, the officer had been caught lying in his reports in another unrelated case by his department and punished.

The firm pointed out to the State that there was misinformation of the law provided by the officer to the defendant prior to him submitting to the breath test. Thus, the only reason the defendant provided the breath samples was because of the misstatement of the law. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no DUI conviction.

Under Florida Law, a defendant has to be brought to trial on a county court DUI within 90 days. Here, due to discovery violations by the State, the defense did not waive speedy trial. On the day of jury trial, the DUI was dismissed. This was now the third DUI in a row the firm won for this client.

Florida law states that in order for a person to be convicted of DUI, the defendant must have an unlawful breath alcohol level "at the time of driving." Here, the defense was able to show that the defendant was absorbing alcohol and that his breath alcohol level was actually under the legal limit at the time of driving.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer's observations in all of the police reports were contradicted by the video tape.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's speech was not slurred on video tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report. Also, the officer stated that the defendant showed several cues of impairment on the one leg stand test. However, it was clear on tape that the officer was causing the defendant to mess up by repeatedly interrupting him throughout the test.

Parks and Braxton filed a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was arrested unlawfully. Specifically, all elements of a DUI must be witnessed by a law enforcement officer in order to make a valid arrest. The exception to the rule is when an accident occurred. However, the civilian witness lost sight of the motorcycle. She could not testify whether there was an accident or whether the female passenger simply fell of the bike. The motion to suppress was granted and the breath test was excluded from evidence.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the defense pointed out that there were no specific indicators displayed by the defendant pointing to the fact that he was under the influence of marijuana per the actual DRE manual. Also, the officer's description of the defendant's roadside tests were contradicted by the video tape.

In order to request a defendant to roll down their window, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, the officer merely believed that the defendant was sleeping and was not sick or injured. Thus, his order for the defendant to roll his window down was unlawful. Since that initial contact with the defendant was unlawful, all evidence thereafter would have been excluded due to an unlawful seizure pursuant to the 4th amendment.

Under Florida law, an officer has to have "reasonable cause" that a defendant is under the influence of a chemical and/or a controlled substance to ask for a urine sample. Here, since the defendant made no statements about taking any drugs, the officer did not smell any pot, nor did he attempt to conduct a DRE (drug recognition exam), there was no reasonable cause to request a urine sample. Thus, it would have been thrown out of evidence.

The officer had the defendant perform the field sobriety tests on the side of the interstate highway. As she was performing the tasks, cars and trucks were driving by at high rates of speed very close to the testing area. It was very dark, loud, and the road appeared to be very slanted on the video tape. Thus, it was unclear if her performance on the roadside tests was due to alcohol versus the conditions under which the defendant performed the tests.

On video, the defendant's speech was not slurred versus what the officer had wrote in her report. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath test results could have been under the legal limit.

There were issues with the defendant's breath test as one of the control tests was reading high. Thus, his breath readings could have been skewed higher than what was actually in his system.

Since there is a .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two test results could have been under the legal limit.

Under Florida case law, a defendant cannot be detained longer than necessary for the officer to write a traffic citation when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, on video, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he didn't appear to be confused. There was no odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's person, nor any odor of alcohol. After doing the research, the case law was clear that the defendant was detained on video tape longer than necessary for the officer to have written the citation for an obscured tag. Also, there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime (ie. DUI) to justify detaining him as the video contradicted the officer's report. The officers never charged the defendant with possession of marijuana. Due to the unlawful detention, the DUI was Dismissed.

The officer's reports were contradicted by the video. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant had stepped off the line on the walk and turn test. However, on tape it appeared she never stepped off the line. The officer also wrote that she was unsteady. However, on tape, she appeared to be standing normally. In addition, the officer wrote that the defendant had an odor of alcohol, but he never even asked her for a breath test. These examples, plus many other contradictions, were brought to the State's attention a week before trial.

The defendant denied making those statements. In addition, he told the officer he had recent head trauma issues which would cause him to be off balance and fail any physical tests. This created doubt as to whether he was impaired by alcohol or his head trauma.

The officer gave the defendant misinformation about the penalties of refusing a breath test. Thus, by misstating the law, he coerced the defendant into taking the breath test.

The defendant stated on videotape that his legs were almost totally disabled from the military. Yet, the officer still had him perform the physical tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. The defendant did not perform well on tape , however, it was unclear from the video whether any impairment was due to alcohol vs. his disability. Due to the conflict in the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

On video, the defendant was not swaying and did not appear to be sleepy on video. She was responsive, coherent and answering all the officer's questions. Thus, the officer's reports were contradicted by the in car camera. The defense announced ready for trial and just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Under Florida law, a person has to be impaired by a alcohol, a specific chemical, and/or controlled substance to be convicted of DUI. Here, the State could not prove by what specific substance the defendant was impaired. After reviewing the discovery, the firm then pointed this out to the State and the DUI was dismissed.

The defendant was never paced clocked and no radar device was used to show that the defendant was driving over the speed limit. Also, the defendant never interfered with the safe operation of the officer's patrol car as required by Florida Statutes. Thus, the defendant did not violate any traffic laws and the issue of the defendant having being unlawfully stopped was brought to the State's attention. The State Dropped the DUI.

The firm conducted a pretrial investigation into this arresting officer's background. It was discovered that he had a history of incidents of misconduct, including incidents involving untruthfulness. This was brought to the State's attention and the DUI was Dismissed.

The arresting officer's report, which stated that the initial officer saw the defendant driving, was not true. That initial officer had stated that he heard the sound of a crash and then saw the defendant walking down the road. Thus, the two officers contradicted each other and no witness observed the defendant either driving or in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge.

On video, the officer is seen and heard reading the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant requested a lawyer, however, the officer then proceeds to tell the defendant that he is "still required" to perform the roadside tests under the law. That statement was misinformation and a misstatement of the law as roadside tasks voluntary. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Due to discovery violations committed by the State, Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the day of trial, there was a speedy trial violation due to those discovery issues and the DUI was Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton discovered several inconsistencies in the officer's police reports and brought them to the attention of the prosecutor. After discussing the case with the State, they Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no crimina

Parks & Braxton argued that despite being found in the driver's seat, the defendant did not have the capability to operate the motor vehicle at the time the officer arrived. As a result, the defendant was not in actual physical control of the motor vehicle in the presence of the officer.

Under the law, a defendant who refuses the field sobriety tests must be advised of the "adverse consequences" for refusing. Here, the defendant was never told of any consequences for refusing. Also, under Florida law, a defendant can only be asked to take a breath test "after" being lawfully arrested. In this case, the defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath "prior" to being arrested for DUI in violation of the law.

On video, the defendant told the officer prior to performing the walk and turn and one leg stand tasks, he had very bad knees and may have trouble doing them. The officer still proceeded the have the defendant do them. It was unclear on tape whether any alleged impairment cues observed by the officer were due to alcohol or his bad balance from having two bad knees. Those physical exercises were contradicted by his performance on the non-physical finger to nose exercise.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant's speech did not appear slurred which contradicted the officer's report. Also, the defendant was not told of the consequences for her refusal to perform the rest of the field sobriety tests which was in violation of Florida case law. Thus, her refusal would have been excluded as evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Parks & Braxton pointed out that with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit (ie. .095). Also, the officer's reports about the defendant's extreme level of impairment was inconsistent with her breath test results. There was no in car camera.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.