Our Recent DUI Victories

Parks & Braxton, learned through discovery, that the officer who stopped the defendant, conducted the DUI investigation, and made the arrest, was outside of his jurisdiction. He was supposedly part of a DUI saturation patrol pursuant to a mutual aid agreement. However, the mutual aid agreement was vague and did not specify whether an officer who was outside their jurisdiction had the right to conduct a DUI investigation, nonetheless arrest a suspect for DUI. The State agreed, Dropped the DUI, and the defendant received no criminal convictions. In addition, the refusal charge was dismissed.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the traffic stop was unlawful. We argued that under Florida law, there needs to be corroboration when the tip is anonymous. Here, not only was the defendant awake when the officer came into contact with her, but also there was no allegation of criminal activity. The Judge Granted the motion and threw out all the evidence. The State then Dismissed the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor prior to setting the case for trial. We pointed out that since there was no video tape of the DUI, we had to rely on the officer's reports. In this case, the officer wrote only a half page report with no supplements. He wrote only one brief vague line describing the defendant's performance on each of the tests. The officer did not write one specific detail pertaining to any of the exercises, only vague statements.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant’s performance on the roadside tests on video tape contradicted the level of impairment the officer allegedly stated he observed, which was not on camera. Also, the defendant 's speech was normal and clear on video versus the slurred speech that the officer wrote he noticed in his reports. On the day of jury trial the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State just prior to trial. On video, the defendant was not swaying and her speech was clear as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. We discussed with the State, that on video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred at all. Also, we pointed out that based on the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests, the defendant's breath alcohol level was lower than .08 at the time of driving.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle at the time of the crash, as required by Florida law.

Park & Braxton filed a motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the initial traffic stop was unlawful. Our legal basis for the motion was that under Florida case law, the officers must corroborate either a driving pattern or other facts indicating that the defendant may be intoxicated when the tip is anonymous. Here, there was none and the State agreed the stop was unlawful. The DUI was Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. Prior to trial, in pretrial talks with the prosecutor, we pointed out that the officer did not write or document any specific details of the defendant 's performance on the field sobriety tests. He wrote a very vague report and there was no on scene video tape. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant had to provide three breath samples instead of the legally required two. There were issues with the defendant's breath testing procedure. The State then Dropped the DUI after reviewing the breath materials.

Parks Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that since no traffic was affected by the defendant 's actions of not signaling, the stop was unlawful. The State agreed after reviewing the applicable case law and then Dropped the DUI on the day of the motion hearing.

Parks & Braxton pointed out that the initial contact (seizure) of the defendant was unlawful as the police could not corroborate any driving pattern as required by law.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. A week prior to the trial date, the defense pointed out to the State that the officer's written descriptions of her performance on the roadside tests was totally contradicted by the video tape. One major contradiction in the case was that although the officer arrested her and had told her that she failed the tests by not following his instructions (both physically and mentally), he then wrote in report that her ability to understand instructions was "good." On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed two pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of any crime. In the other motion, we alleged that the defendant was unlawfully arrested for loitering and prowling by the officer's actions of immediately handcuffing her, keeping her cuffed for a long period of time, and ordering her out of her car at gun point. At the motion hearing, the Officer could not remember any specifics of the alleged swerving such an the number of times she swerved, distance, or time frames. The judge Granted the illegal stop motion and threw out all the evidence. Thus, there was no need to ever argue the second motion. Without any evidence left, the State Dismissed the DUI.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the officers in the case. At the depositions, the officers contradicted each other's testimony. For example, one officer stated that the defendant's speech was slurred, while the other testified it was normal with no slur. Also, the officers couldn't remember numerous details of the defendant's performance on the roadside tasks as there was no video tape.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that the defendant was the one who actually called 911 about the crash. Thus, he was not trying to leave the scene at all and simply pulled his car a little further down the road to get to a safer place. Also, the officers never even inquired of the defendant as to why he had driven down the road. Furthermore, as for the DUI, the officers never attempted to conduct any type of DUI investigation such as asking the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The State Dismissed the DUI and leaving the scene of an accident charges. The defendant also received no criminal conviction at all for the possession of marijuana charge.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State prior to trial. The State then Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction for the leaving the scene of an accident charge.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer misstated the law as it related to performing field sobriety tests. Thus, the State agreed that based on the case law, all the roadside tests would have been excluded from evidence.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under the law, when there is an anonymous tip, the officers must corroborate that tip. Here, the caller stated the defendant was passed out and in distress. However, when the police arrived, the defendant was awake and alert. Thus, there was no corroboration and the initial contact was unlawful.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that when the officers arrived, the vehicle was actually "inoperable." There was no proof the defendant had ever driven the car to that location "while impaired" prior the car becoming inoperable, as required by Florida law.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged the defendant was never advised of any "adverse consequences" by the officer for refusing to perform the roadside tasks. The Judge granted the motion and excluded the refusal from evidence. Thereafter, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton was involved with pretrial litigation to exclude the breath test results. The Judge granted the motion to suppress and excluded the defendant's breath test results from evidence.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We discussed with them that the defendant did not state when she when she had last taken the drugs. Thus, without any time frames, there was no way for the State to prove she was under the influence of the drugs at the "time of driving" as required by law as they could have been in her system for a few days.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the alleged statement by the defendant about "not being able to do the field sobriety tests sober" was not captured on any video tape. Also, with the built in margins of error on the breath machine, both his test results could have been under the legal limit of .08.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the other individual who was hit, never saw the defendant behind the wheel due to the car bursting into flames and the subsequent chaos at the scene. Since the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel, they Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the officer was clearly a new officer in training. He was reading the field sobriety test instructions off some type of sheet, almost like a teleprompter. However, the officer kept saying contradictory things while giving the instructions causing clear confusion on behalf of the defendant. For example, he told the defendant he did not have to count out loud during the walk and turn and then told the defendant he was not counting out loud half way through the exercise. The defendant at one point even said, "do I count or not? " Also, with the margin of error in the breath machine, one of the defendant's breath test results could have been lower than the legal limit.

The investigating officer arrived on scene with his camera on. However, rather than place the defendant on video, the defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests away from the camera. In addition, the officer who was operating the camera never placed his microphone on, and therefore none of the conversation was recorded. With no erratic driving and an investigation that was never captured on video, the State agreed to drop the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant never stepped off the line on the walk and turn vs. what had been written in the report. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and he never swayed on video tape. In addition, there is a built in margin of error on the breath machine which could have put the defendant under the legal limit of .08.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. We pointed out to the State that on video, one could not even see whether the defendant was not touching heel to toe due to the position of the camera. Also, the defendant's speech was normal and clear on tape vs. what the officer wrote in his report about it being slurred. Just prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point did not contain the necessary criteria as set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in the case law. Also, we pointed out to the State, that on video tape, the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences of his refusal to perform the field sobriety tasks as required by law.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that what the officer had written about his observations of the defendant's eyes on the HGN (eye test), was not consistent as set forth in the DRE (drug recognition manual) for someone who is alleged to have been impaired by marijuana.

Parks & Braxton filed several motions to suppress based on an unlawful stop as well no reasonable suspicion to request roadside tests. At the motion to suppress, the officer who stopped the defendant completely contradicted the testimony of the arresting officer. In addition, despite the presence of a Spanish speaking officer, the investigating officer refused to allow him to interpret. Many of the problems that the defendant had during the roadside tests were equally attributable to the language barrier.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that marijuana can be in one's system for at least 30 days. Unable to prove that the defendant was impaired by the marijuana at the time of the driving as required by Florida law, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton requested the written set of road block guidelines for this particular check point from the State. Under Florida law, every individual roadblock must have a written set of guidelines. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, there must be specific criteria (factors) met by the police in each written set of guidelines or the entire roadblock becomes unlawful. In this particular case, the road block guidelines were defective in many areas pursuant to Florida case law. Prior to filing any motion to suppress the evidence based on the above, the State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We showed them that on the video tape, the defendants speech was not slurred and she was not off balance. Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to the setting any trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the margin of error of .02 in the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit. Also, the officer did not obtain and angle of onset on the HGN test before 45 degrees which indicated that the defendant may have also been under the legal limit at the time of driving pursuant to Tharpes formula. Also, the officer did not write one specific detail regarding the defendant's performance on the roadsides in his reports. The defendant received no criminal conviction at all on her record.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" as he had no "capability" to operate the motor vehicle while he was passed out.

Parks & Braxton had made several requests, along with the prosecutor, to obtain a video tape of the DUI investigation. Since the police were ignoring all requests, there was a potential discovery violation. Prior to any evidentiary hearings on the issue, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton took sworn pretrial depositions of the officers involved in the case. Based on the answers given in their depositions, the firm developed a motion to suppress the lawfulness of the arrest based on improper police procedure. The firm then met with State and they agreed with the issue based on case law provided to them.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that the defendant was from another country, had a foreign driver's license, and her English was not good. No interpreter was ever called to the scene or the station. Thus, the defendant did not understand any instructions on the roadside tests, nor did she understand "implied consent" being read to her prior taking the breath test on tape. The State dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction.

Parks & Braxton were involved in pretrial litigation to try to exclude the breath test results based on improper maintenance procedures conducted by FDLE on this particular machine. Prior to the motion being heard, the State agreed with the issue and Dropped the DUI. The defendant also received no criminal conviction for he marijuana charge.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant. The videotape of the DUI investigation at the scene contradicted what was written in the police reports regarding the defendant's level of impairment. Prior to the motion being heard, the State watched the videotape and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State prior to trial. We pointed out that the air bags had deployed and hit the defendant in the face. Thus, any impairment could have been as easily attributed to the injuries from the airbag versus alcohol. Also, there is margin of error on the breath machine in which we were able to place the defendant under the legal limit.

Because of the inconsistency between the reports and the video, the State was unable to proceed.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that on tape, the officer followed her as she was driving without head lights for over a mile without stopping her on a residential street. The officer let the defendant drive onto the highway with no head lights. Furthermore, although the officer could have stopped her and done roadsides on a residential street, he chose to have her do them ten feet from cars and trucks on an interstate highway. We pointed out that this, her fear of being killed by a car or truck, could have contributed to her alleged poor performance. The State agreed after watching the whole video tape.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the DUI officer did not write one detail about the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. All he did was check off the boxes on the DUI test report. Upon questioning the officer prior to trial, he could not remember one specific. The State then Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an improper stop. Specifically, screeching tires is not a violation of law. In addition, failure to maintain a single lane is only a violation if other traffic is affected. The officer testified that traffic could have been affected but could not recall if it was. In addition, he could not articulate how far the defendant veered or how many tires actually crossed over the line. The motion was granted and all of the evidence including the breath test was excluded.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on tape, the defendant's performance on the roadside tests were much better than as described in the police reports. Also, the defendant's breath test level was contradicted by his performance on the field sobriety tests, thus, it was clear his breath alcohol level may have been lower at the time of driving.

Upon a review of the video, the defendant's performance contradicted the investing officer's police report. Specifically, on the one leg stand the defendant was able to maintain her balance for 52 seconds. On the walk and turn test despite a stumble on the turn, she was able to walk in a straight line. As such, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The DUI was dropped and the defendant was not convicted of any charges.

Parks & Braxton had gotten a cell phone video from the client of the incident at the car. This cell phone video showed the cops at the defendant's car trying to get him out of the car. It also showed they never mentioned any DUI investigation, versus what was in the reports. Also, once they got him out of the car he was immediately cuffed. No roadside tests were ever even offered to the defendant on scene or at the station. The officers were aware the defendant was filming them. The firm turned the cell phone video over the prosecutor to prove there was no DUI investigation ever even attempted. Thus, there was a lack of evidence of impairment and contradictions between the officer's written version and cell phone video. The State watched the cell phone video and Dismissed the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State Attorney's Office over several months regarding issues about the case.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the prosecutor. We not only pointed out how poorly written and vague the police reports were, but also that there were numerous contradictory statements throughout the reports. With no video tape, the officers' credibility was called into serious question prior to trial.

Parks & Braxton took depositions (sworn statements) of all of the officers involved. The arresting officer acknowledged that he would have to rely on his report and was unable to recall specific details concerning the circumstances surrounding the investigation. We filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the arresting officer based on a lack of any independent recollection of the investigation. In addition, a motion to suppress the arrest for lack of probable cause was filed. The State conceded the motion and dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was an error on the breath test print out sheet with the defendant's results due to a control test being out of the accepted range. The officers are on video tape telling the defendant he needed to blow again due to an error, but would not tell him what the error was on the machine. The defendant can be heard over and over asking for an explanation. The defendant then refused to give any more samples in that same machine. The State, after watching the video at the station and hearing the conversation between the officers and the defendant, agreed to Drop the DUI just prior to trial.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the firm had the opportunity to talk to the arresting officer. The officer contradicted himself not only by stating opposite facts as to what was written in his report, but also by adding several facts to the case that were not written in his very vague reports. Based on that pretrial conversation, the State Dropped the DUI due to the officer's credibility being called into question.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence for an unlawful traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to believe the defendant committed any traffic infractions, nor was there any reasonable suspicion of a crime as he was "coming out of the area," not driving into the enclosed area in disregard of any signs. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had questioned the officers prior to a trial date being set. The officers who were on scene contradicted themselves. Since there was no video at the scene, their credibility was called into question. Also, the defendant appeared sober on video at the breath testing facility which contradicted the officers account of what happened at the scene of the arrest.

Parks & Braxton took a deposition (sworn statement) of the arresting officer. The officer acknowledged that with the exception of the odor of alcohol, all of the other characteristics of impairment could just as easily be linked to a person who was in an accident resulting in injuries. This testimony was brought to the attention of the Supervising Prosecutor who ultimately dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the breath machine has built in margins of error which could have put the defendant's breath alcohol level lower than the legal limit of .08. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI. Also, the possession of marijuana charge was dismissed.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that under Florida Law, a defendant has to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving. In this case, since the initial officer never smelled any alcohol while the defendant was in his car at the crash scene, there was no way to prove that the defendant had been "driving" while under the influence of alcohol. It was not until 20 minutes later while the defendant had already been in his house did anyone smell any alcohol.

Parks & Braxton took a deposition of each of the witnesses. Subsequently, the firm argued a motion to suppress alleging that the defendant was pulled over unlawfully in violation of his fourth amendment rights. After testimony and argument, Judge Gottleib granted the motion and excluded all of the State's evidence.

Parks & Braxton got a copy of the written roadblock guidelines and procedures for this specific checkpoint. Prior filing a motion to suppress, the firm pointed out to the State that the written procedures in this case gave the officers on scene too much "discretion" at the checkpoint in violation of Florida Law. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was doing the right thing by sleeping on the side of the road versus driving around intoxicated. Also, the defendant was legally not in "actual physical control" of the car as he had no capability to operate the car while he was sleeping.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on video, the defendant did not appear off balance or unsteady. Also, on tape, the officer never asked her to repeat herself. Furthermore, the defendant was able to properly perform the walk and turn which contradicted her poor performance on the one leg stand.

Parks & Braxton filed pretrial motions to suppress. In one motion, we moved to suppress the refusal to perform roadside tests. We alleged that when the defendant refused to perform the tests, she was never advised of any adverse consequences for refusing. In our other motion, we moved to suppress the refusal to provide a breath sample as the defendant was improperly read implied consent prior to being arrested for DUI. Prior to even setting a hearing date on the motions, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. The week before trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although the officer had a dash cam video, no one could even the see the HGN being conducted. Also, the defendant was never even placed in front of the camera until he was actually arrested for DUI. At the station on video, the defendant appeared sober which contradicted the officer's reports about his level of intoxication at the scene.

Parks & Braxton pointed out many discrepancies in the officer's reports. First, he wrote there was a video tape and there ended up being none. Also, he wrote the defendant's speech was incoherent, on the other hand, he wrote her ability to understand instructions was good. Furthermore, he did not write any specifics as it related to her performance on the roadside tests and only wrote vague statements.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, since no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel, and there was no crash exception, the officer did not observe an essential element of the DUI (ie. the defendant either driving or in actual physical control). Thus, the State, after being provided case law, Dropped the DUI. Furthermore, the defendant did Not receive any felony conviction for the felony charge. Therefore, she will Not be a convicted felon.

Parks & Braxton were involved in pretrial litigation to exclude the breath results. The Judge granted the motions pertaining to our client and other defendant's and excluded all breath test results from evidence. The defense announced ready for trial. On the day of the trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton spoke to the State. We pointed out that the defendant's breath test results could have been reading falsely high. The reason is that the control test solutions were reading higher on the day he blew and also on the maintenance on the machine. Furthermore, the video contradicted the written reports of the officer as it related to the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests.

Parks & Braxton called the prosecutor early on in the case. We pointed out that under Florida law, if alcohol is not involved, then the State must prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant. Here, there was no specific evidence of either. A person cannot just be alleged to have been impaired by "anything." The State agreed and Dismissed the DUI.

Because the defendant was not provided with any adverse consequences, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the refusal to submit to testing. In addition, after taking testimony from the officers, they all agreed that the defendant was not trying to flee the scene. Because of the lack of evidence, Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial.

Parks & Braxton convinced the prosecution that based on the defendant's medical conditions, the DUI should be Dropped.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, the defense pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant kept telling the officer she had back and equilibrium issues. Yet, the officer insisted that she perform the physical tests like the one leg stand and walk and turn even though she kept telling him she could not do them. Also, the defendant was the one who was hit and not the cause of the crash. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on the roadside video, the officer was using language during the DUI investigation, that made it clear he was going to arrest the defendant no matter whether he did the roadside or not. This clearly showed the officer had no intent on letting the defendant try to show him, via the roadsides, that he was not impaired. The defendant even stated at one point, "whether I do them or not, your taking me to jail anyway" and the officer arrested him within seconds. Just prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the airbags had hit the defendant in the face, chest, and arms after a severe crash. Thus, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired by alcohol or injuries sustained in the crash.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that since there was no sound on video tape, one could not hear whether the defendant's speech was actually slurred, nor could anyone hear any conversation between the officer and the defendant. Furthermore, upon a close viewing of the tape, there was a span of 6 minutes missing. The allegation that the defendant stumbled and that the HGN was performed was missing from the tape. The State reviewed the tape and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The officer's observations of the defendant, as written in his report, were contradicted by the body camera. We pointed out that the defendant never swayed and his speech was normal. Also, the defendant had two passengers in the truck. Thus, there was no way to prove that the beers were the defendant's. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial, we pointed out to the State that upon looking at the breath results paper that prints out from the machine, it displayed an initial "purge fail" prior to the defendant providing the two breath results. No officers could explain why that happened on the machine or most importantly if that "purge fail" affected the defendant's breath readings in any way.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest of the defendant was unlawful because no police officer observed the defendant behind the wheel. Under Florida law, unless there is a crash and/or crash investigation, the officer must see all elements of the crime. (ie. for DUI, the first element of the crime, that the defendant was driving or in actual physical control). The State Dropped the DUI and Dismissed the refusal charge. The defendant received no criminal convictions.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that there was no indication that the defendant was driving recklessly which caused the crash. We also told the State than any slurred speech could have been caused by hitting her head during the crash. There was also no video at the scene of the DUI.

Parks & Braxton was ready for trial. Prior to trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton researched the past history of the breath machine the defendant had blown into on the night of her arrest. We then pointed out to the State there had been previous maintenance problems with the specific breath machine in question.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In our motion, we alleged that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The basis of our motion was that the defendant was driving a car with a "dealer tag" and it was a car off the lot where he works at. There was no probable cause justifying the initial stop of the defendant's car. The defense provided the actual plate to the State along with the registration to the car. Prior to the motion being heard, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on the fact that a breath test was not impractical or impossible. Based on the above circumstances, Florida law only permits a blood draw when a breath test is either impractical or impossible. At the motion, the officer was unable to testify that the defendant had injuries that would prevent her from providing a breath test. In addition, the officer failed to speak with any medical personnel to determine when the defendant was going to be released from the hospital. The motion to exclude the blood test was granted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.