Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense

ALSO SERVING ST. JOHNS, CLAY, FLAGLER, NASSAU COUNTIES
904.450.5220
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
Free Consultations
ALSO SERVING ST. JOHNS, CLAY, FLAGLER, NASSAU COUNTIES
904.450.5220
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
Free Consultations
Call
Email
Map

RESULTS

OUR RECENT VICTORIES

Jan 28, 2020 Case: 19-CT-502728 Judge Hayward
Facts: The defendant crashed his car into a ditch. When officers arrived, they observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glossy eyes. He also swayed while he stood and appeared off balance. He told the officers under oath that a few individuals tried to rob him and there was a struggle which caused him to roll the car into the ditch. The defendant refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's third DUI and second refusal charge.
Defense: 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.
Result: The DUI was dismissed.
Jan 28, 2020 Case: 19-021238MU10A Judge Levy
Facts: The defendant was speeding and was the at fault drier in a head on collision. Upon arrival, officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness. On video, the defendant dropped his paperwork multiple times. The defendant complained of chest injuries and was taken to the hospital. At the hospital, a DUI officer conducted an investigation and through the interview process the defendant acknowledged to drinking 4 beers. He later refused a blood test and admitted he might he might be over the legal limit. He was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second offense.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 27, 2020 Case: 19-CT-035684 Judge Ingram
Facts: An anonymous person told the police that the defendant was passing in out of consciousness at a red light. The officer made contact with her and smelled an odor of alcohol. He also observed glassy eyes, slurred/mumbled speech, and she swayed as she stood. She refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 24, 2020 Case: 19-CT-039783 Judge Jacobus
Facts: Officers saw the defendant as his car was stuck in a grassy drainage ditch. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he was staggering. The defendant's movements were slow, lethargic, and he also stated he had drank three beers and two shots. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 24, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-017464 Judge Bonavita
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He also had an orbital sway. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests, and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 22, 2020 Case: 19-CT-010416 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving without his headlights activated. The defendant had an odor of alcohol, lethargic movements, and glassy eyes. After performing poorly on roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .180 and a .176 in the breath machine.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 22, 2020 Case: 19-CT-013937 Judge Myers
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights and no taillights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. After performing the roadside tasks, she was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .123 and a .117 in the breath machine.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 20, 2020 Case: 18-036103MU10A Judge Solomon
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding, running a red light, and running a stop sign. Officers smelled an odor of alcohol as well as an odor of marijuana. They observed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He performed very poorly on the video taped roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath and urine tests.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 14, 2020 Case: 19-021210MU10A Judge Pole
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and red/glassy eyes. He also noticed the defendant swaying. The defendant had a flushed face and difficulty locating his registration, which was in his hand. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video was inconsistent with the police reports and testimony of the officer. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 10, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-011168 Judge Harper for Cunningham
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash at a fast food restaurant parking lot. He fled the scene and went back to his neighborhood. The tag on his vehicle was run after police were called and they tracked him down. He was sitting on the ground next to the vehicle in question. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, extremely slurred/not understandable speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was unsteady, lethargic, and very argumentative. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident and willfully refusing to sign the DUI citation.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 8, 2020 Case: 19-CT-007318 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver whereby he hit two parked cars. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He swayed as he stood and was not making any sense in his statements to police. He refused to do roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-003125 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and he admitted to having drank two cocktails. He then performed the field sobriety tests such as the one leg stand and walk and turn. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 2019-CT-013350 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. His face was flushed, his dexterity poor, and he kept wetting his lips. He also had a flushed face and was unsteady. He refused to perform the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense: The video contradicted the officer’s reports. The defendant did not appear unsteady and his speech appeared normal. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 19-CT-002237 Judge Gutman
Facts: The defendant failed to yield the right of way and was the at fault driver in a traffic crash. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He was slow and lethargic, and he also swayed back and forth. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .090 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI within five years.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jan 7, 2020 Case: 19-CT-013229 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was stopped after an officer said the defendant cut him off. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: The officer exaggerated the level of impairment in the roadside reports as compared to the video tape. The State dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-503372 Judge Gonzalez
Facts: The defendant was stopped for weaving all over the road and driving east bound in the west bound lanes. The officer did not smell any alcohol but observed slurred speech. Believing she was impaired, she was then asked to perform field sobriety tests. For example, on the walk and turn, she did not walk heel to toe, stepped off the line multiple times, and was unsteady. On the one leg stand, she failed to count, used her arms for balance, and failed to keep her toe elevated. She was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: 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.
Result: The DUI was dismissed
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-011579 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant was involved in a crash in an intersection with another vehicle. The police alleged he ran a red light and the other vehicle had the right of way. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests to which he refused. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 30, 2019 Case: 2019-CT-010703 Judge Farr
Facts: The defendant crashed and rolled over his vehicle in the rain trying to avoid an object in the road. Police helped the defendant get out of the vehicle as it was upside down. They observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He swayed, appeared unsteady, and staggered. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 20, 2019 Case: 19-CT-001163 Judge Bell
Facts: The defendant drove up to the scene where her boyfriend was being stopped by police. Officers noticed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. She also had watery eyes and admitted to having drank beer. She performed field sobriety tests on video tape and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .178 and a .177 in the breath machine.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Dec 17, 2019 Case: 18-034710MU10A Judge Evans
Facts: The defendant was the at fault driver in a crash whereby he failed to yield the right of way. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The defendant stated he had drank alcohol, but would not state how much. The defendant was very off balance. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense: 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.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Offices Located Throughout the State of Florida