Our Recent Victories

The officer's reports were vaguely written as to any specifics of the field sobriety tests. Since there was no video tape, it was difficult to discern how the defendant actually performed on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI and he received No criminal conviction on his record.

During the HGN (eye test), the officer did not observe an angle of onset prior to 45 degrees in the defendant's eyes. Under Tharpe's formula, this would indicate his breath alcohol level was under the legal limit at the time of driving.

Parks and Braxton filed several motions to suppress. First, the firm filed a motion to exclude the field sobriety tests based on a lack of reasonable suspicion. Next, the firm filed a motion to suppress the refusal to submit to a breath test based on a lack of probable cause to believe the defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Finally, the firm filed a motion for statement of particulars requiring the state to name what substance the defendant was impaired by. Prior to the motions, the firm took sworn testimony from the officers in order to set up the motions. The state ultimately conceded the motion and the charges were dropped.

Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, the State could not prove he had the "capability" to operate the motor vehicle as required by the actual physical control definition in the DUI jury instruction.

On video, there was no sound. Thus, it was not clear if the officer misstated the law in obtaining the breath test. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer at the station, who also wrote a report, had numerous contradictory observations of the defendant as compared to the arresting officer. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. Through our questioning of the officer, the firm was able to establish that the officer unlawfully obtained the defendant's blood through coercion. In addition, it was also unlawfully obtained on another ground since a breath test was not impractical or impossible. After the State read the depo and applicable case law, they Dropped the DUI.

Since the defendant was sleeping, he had no capability to operate the motor vehicle. Thus, the State could not prove he was in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI. The felony is still pending.

It was pointed out to the State that the officer concluded the defendant was DUI even before he performed the roadsides, based on his off camera comments to another officer. Thus, his credibility was called into question.

In order to request field sobriety tests, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was impaired to lawfully request roadsides. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath results could have been under the legal limit. The defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.

The officer's body-worn camera, which captured the field sobriety tests, contradicted the officer's written reports as to the level of alleged impairment.

Every time the officer was seen instructing the defendant how to perform each field sobriety test on his body camera, the video then would cut out while he was actually performing each exercise. We put forth to the State that this was intentionally done. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.

Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to point out that one of the defendant's breath alcohol results could have been under the legal limit. Also, the videotape contradicted the officer's reports as to many things. For example, the defendant never tripped or stumbled and his speech was not slurred. Also, the extent of alleged impairment on the field sobriety tests as written in the reports was contracted by the tape.

Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that on tape the officer had already made up his mind that the defendant was impaired. This was based on his statements to the other officer on scene prior to even coming in contact with the defendant. Also, the officer never even brought the defendant in front of the camera so one could hear him or see him.

The video tape of the roadside tests contradicted the police reports.

Under Florida law (Statute 316.193), the State must prove which "specific" chemical and/or controlled substance was impairing the defendant. Here, after we filed a motion for statement of particulars, the State could not give a response. On the day of trial, the DUI was Dismissed.

It was clear from the tapes that the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests was as easily attributable to his weight and physical ailments versus alcohol. This was discussed with the State prior to trial.

Parks and Braxton raised the issue of a 316.645 violation. Specifically, the procedures surrounding a crash followed by a DUI arrest were not in compliance.

It was evident from the discovery that the only reason the defendant was arrested for DUI was because he was refusing to perform roadside tests and cooperate, not because the police had probable cause. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no convictions for the possession of pot and paraphernalia charges.

In order to arrest someone for DUI, there must be probable cause. Here, the investigating officer didn't make any personal observations and relied on another officer's upon arriving. He then immediately went up to the defendant within seconds and asked him to perform the roadside tasks. When the defendant initially said no, he was immediately cuffed and told he was under arrest. He then stated he would do them and was subsequently uncuffed. However, due to the initial illegality of cuffing the defendant without probable cause, all the evidence would have been thrown out including the field sobriety tests, observations, and statements. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.

The firm brought information forward that the tail light was not defective. We argued that if the traffic stop was unlawful, all the evidence would have been thrown out.

It was apparent that the description the officers wrote about the defendant's level of impairment was contradicted by the video tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No Conviction at all on her record.

Upon receipt of the evidence, it was clear that there was a malfunction regarding the video equipment. Counsel argued that any evidence that would have been captured on video should be excluded.

Officers had no reasonable suspicion of a crime to order the defendant to roll down his windows prior to making any DUI observations. Thus, all of the evidence that was gathered after he was ordered to roll down his windows was illegally obtained.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Given the fact that the defendant was sleeping behind the wheel of the vehicle, there was a question as to whether the defendant was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. On the day of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

On tape, the officer misstated the law and coerced the defendant into performing field sobriety tests. The firm then pulled the applicable case law and filed a motion to suppress the roadside tests. Prior to any motion hearing being held, the State Dropped the DUI.

The firm had discussions with the State whereby we pointed out them that the defendant's "normal faculties" were not impaired as required by Florida law.

Prior to trial, the firm sent the State pictures of the totaled car, the airbags deployed in the car, and photos of the defendant's injuries after the crash. It was obvious that the alleged impairment could have been as easily to do with the severity of the crash versus alcohol. Yet, the officer still had her doing a walk and turn and one leg stand tests versus non-physical exercises like the alphabet and finger to nose tests.

Under Florida law, a person can only be convicted of DUI if they are impaired by a specific chemical and/or controlled substance, other than alcohol of course. The defendant admitted to taking various pills for different conditions and sleeping meds, but did not specify which ones. Although he was impaired, the State could not prove by which chemical and/or controlled substance specifically was impairing him as required by Florida Statute 316.193 (the DUI Statute).

There were no body cameras or an in-car camera on scene. Officers believed the defendant was impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance. Since the defendant never submitted to a DRE (drug recognition exam), the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.

There was no video and the officer only wrote in generalities in his reports. For example, he wrote she was "unsteady" but failed to articulate what facts led him to believe that. The firm pointed this out to the State prior to trial and they Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. There was no video tape and the officer did not describe the roadsides in any detail in his reports. Due the lack of specificity, the State Dropped the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, the defendant's speech did not appear to be slurred on tape and she was not off balance or unsteady. This was discussed with the prosecutor who then Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior to trial, in discussions with the State, we pointed out that the video totally contradicted what was written in the police reports. Many of the officer's written observations of the specifics of the roadside tests were contradicted by the tape. On the day of jury trial, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The video tape in the case contradicted the officer's written reports as to the alleged level of impairment prior to and during the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.

The firm took a lengthy pretrial sworn deposition of the arresting officer. During questioning, the officer contradicted her police reports and could not remember many important details about the facts of the case. After the State read the depo and realized that their officer's credibility was called into question, they Dropped the DUI.

A breath test can only be offered after one is arrested for DUI. In this case, the officer asked the defendant for a breath test prior to placing him under arrest. Thus, his refusal to take a breath test was inadmissible under law. This was brought to the State's attention. They agreed and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton provided documentation to the prosecutor showing that the defendant's both breath test results were under the .08 legal limit at the time of driving as required by Florida law. This is called retrograde extrapolation. We also pointed out that due to the .02 margin of error in the machine, the .099 could have also been as low as a .079 (under the legal limit).

Prior to trial, the defense attempted to obtain the in-car video camera of the incident. It was learned that there was an alleged problem with the upload of the video and it could not be retrieved. The defendant had stated that if that video had been retrieved, it would contradict all of the officer's observations and allegations in the police reports. Due to that evidence being exculpatory (meaning favorable to the defendant), the firm contacted the State about the destruction of that critical piece of evidence. Prior to filing any motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress all the evidence. In our motion, we alleged that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime for the police to conduct the traffic stop. At the motion, the firm argued that a "mere odor of alcohol" was not enough to evidence to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. After reviewing the case law, hearing testimony, and hearing argument of counsel, the Judge Granted the motion and threw out all of the evidence. The State then Dismissed all charges.

When an anonymous person provides information, the tip must be corroborated by the stopping officer. In this case, while the defendant was driving on a rim, the evidence was clear that there were no sparks. Absent the sparks, the state could not prove that the defendant was stopped lawfully.

When the defendant was kicked out the hotel, he had nowhere else to go. If he stayed on the property, he would have been arrested for trespassing. If he walked down the road and left his car, he could have been arrested for public intoxication and had his car towed. He did the smartest and safest thing to do, not drive and sleep in his car. Legally, the State couldn't prove he ever drove, nor that he was he in "actual physical control" as he had "no capability" of operating the car since he was sleeping. Also, the officer did not advise the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusal to perform the field sobriety tests.

Here, the defendant was the one who got rear ended. He called the police to do the right thing yet he got arrested. After discussions with the prosecutor, they agreed to Drop the DUI.

The firm called into question the lawfulness of the traffic stop. We pointed out that there are no specifics of how the defendant failed to maintain a single lane. For example, lack of specificity about the distance of swerving, how many times, and time frame. Due to the stop being potentially unlawful and the State losing all the evidence, the State dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, the defendant provided documents to the firm that he had called for roadside maintenance to fix his tire at the gas station where he was found. A service tech was sent out to fix his tire. The defendant did not tip him which made him angry. Through the documents provided by the defendant, the firm was able to establish a timeline which positively showed that when the 911 call was made, the defendant was actually at the gas station sleeping, and was not driving. We were also able to establish, after some phone calls to the tire service company, that it was actually the service tech who called 911 on the defendant after not getting tipped. Thus, the 911 call tip was deemed unreliable and a lie. Without that call, the defendant would never have been found, nonetheless arrested. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and he received No criminal conviction at all on his record.

During pretrial negotiations, the firm pointed out to the State that DUI video tape contradicted the officer's reports. For example, on tape his speech was not slurred and he never staggered. Also, when the defendant disputed the reason for the traffic stop, the arresting officer told him that the stopping officer had a camera. That was not true. Thus, his credibility was now called into question.

After numerous pretrial talks over an extended period of time, the State Dropped the DUI.

A review of the video tape by the firm revealed that it contradicted many observations that were written in the police reports regarding the field sobriety tests. The firm announced ready for trial and on the day of trial the State dropped the DUI.

Prior to trial, the firm took pretrial sworn depositions of the three officers involved in the case. Upon questioning by the firm, each officer contradicted each other's testimony and their respective reports. The depositions were shown to the State and each officer's credibility was severely damaged. On the day of trial the State Dropped the DUI.

In order to conduct a traffic stop for welfare check, also known as the community caretaker exception, there must a reason to ensure the safety and welfare of the citizens at large. Here, none existed, so the defense provided case law to the State to show that the traffic stop was unlawful. The State agreed and Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.

The defendant told the officer prior to roadside tests that he had a traumatic brain injury. Yet the officer still administered the physical field sobriety tests. We pointed out to the State than any impairment could have easily been attributed to a prior head and brain injury versus alcohol.

The defense prevented the State from filing a DUI charge as they could not prove specifically by what chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law. After the DUI was dismissed, the State then took it one step further and filed it as a reckless driving. After pointing out all the facts that it was no reckless driving (ie. driving in a willful and wanton manner), the State dismissed that charge too.

The officer's police reports were contradicted by the video tape as it related to the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction on the possession charge.

Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. Specifically, the firm argued that there was no damage to either vehicle and therefore the officer was not legally entitled to pull the defendant over. The officer testified that he later observed no damage but was unaware at the time of the stop. The Judge granted the motion based on the fact that the officer failed to observe any damage prior to activating his lights and pulling over the defendant. All of the evidence was excluded.

Upon cross examination under oath at the civil administrative hearing, the officer testified that he did not smell an odor of alcohol and concluded that the defendant was impaired by something, but could not state by what chemical or controlled substance as required by Florida law. The officer's credibility was now called into serious question because of his conflicting statements under oath about an odor of alcohol in his police report versus his administrative hearing testimony. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction at all on his record.

The firm announced ready for trial. During pretrial negotiations, the defense pointed out that on tape the defendant's speech was not slurred, he answered the officer's questions, and he was not leaning against the car for balance. The State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton, along with co-counsel, announced ready for Jury trial. At jury trial, the firm attacked the two officers' credibility as much of the their testimony contradicted the video tape and each other. Also, the defendant testified that he was not impaired, that the officers were exaggerating his level of impairment, and lying about the extent of his weaving. We also argued that the officers were lying about the beer cans in the car as nothing was placed into evidence and no pictures were taken of them. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty. It should be noted, the firm represented this same defendant on his last DUI a few years back and that DUI was Dismissed. Otherwise, this would have been his Fourth DUI, not his Third.

Parks & Braxton took the deposition of all 15 witnesses. Despite the lack of photographs, an independent investigation in conjunction with the officers testimony in deposition revealed skid marks. Ultimately, the defense was able to prove that the defendant was not the cause or contributing factor of the accident. As a result, the State dismissed both the felony DUI serious bodily injury count as well as the DUI causing property damage count. The defendant went to veteran's court on the felony leaving the scene of a crash causing serious bodily injury which will result in a dismissal and will ultimately do probation for a second degree misdemeanor.

Despite the fact that the defendant had consumed both cocaine as well as alcohol, it was still incumbent on the part of the prosecutor to prove that his normal faculties were impaired. The video contradicted a fair amount of the officer's sworn affidavit.

Prior to trial, we pointed out out to the State, that it was clear on video tape that the defendant was the proverbial "guinea pig" so a new officer in training can learn how to do a DUI. The State Dropped the DUI.

On video, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests contradicted the officer's description in the police reports. Prior to trial, and after negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.

An officer must have probable cause to believe that a defendant was "impaired" in order to arrest a defendant for DUI. Under the case law, and under the facts of this case, we pointed out to the State in pretrial talks that there was no probable cause.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the blood was illegally drawn by the officer. First, the officer who requested blood was outside his jurisdiction. Thus he had no authority to even order a blood draw. Additionally, the officer unlawfully coerced her into consenting to provided a blood sample by telling her that her driver's license will be suspended. Finally, the officer used the wrong documents required by FDLE when conducting a blood draw.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to sever the DUI charge from the Possession charge. During discussions prior the motion, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer's reports exaggerated the defendant's alleged impairment on his performance on the field sobriety tests versus what was depicted on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No conviction on the possession charge.

Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention the case law on illegal traffic stops when someone is simply behind a closed business late at night. In order to stop someone, there must either be probable cause that the defendant committed a traffic infraction and/or there must reasonable suspicion of crime. Here there was neither. Thus, the traffic stop was unlawful. The DUI was Dismissed.

After numerous pretrial discussions, the State Dropped the DUI. We pointed out to the State that in the area that the defendant allegedly went over the stop bar, he did so out of "necessity," as one cannot see oncoming traffic without having to cross over it.

Pretrial, the firm pointed out to the State that there was no probable cause to lawfully stop the defendant as his brake light was working and the reason the officer provided did not meet the requirements of the inoperable brake light statute.

After pretrial talks, the State Dropped the DUI.

In order to get the blood results into evidence, a proper FDLE implied consent predicate must be laid in court. Prior to trial, the firm pointed out numerous mistakes made by the officer in his DUI blood paperwork packet used in this case. After review, the State agreed that the blood would not be admitted into evidence. Without the blood result, any impairment observed could have been as easily been attributed to the airbags hitting the defendant versus alcohol. The DUI was Dismissed

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample. The basis of our motion was that there was no probable cause to request a breath test since there was no odor of alcohol nor any indication of consumption of alcohol on the day in question. The Judge granted that motion. The firm then filed a motion for statement of particulars in an attempt to pin the state down as to what specific chemical and/or controlled substance was allegedly impairing the defendant as required by Florida Statutes. They were unable to do so at the motion hearing and then were forced to Dismiss the DUI.

The video contradicted the officer's reports as they related to her alleged swaying, unsteadiness, and also her performance on the field sobriety exercises. The Sate Dropped the DUI short of trial.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests. The basis of our motion was that the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for refusing. The Judge granted the motion. The State then took an appeal. On appeal, the firm, in our reply brief, cited all the applicable case law to defend the judge's initial correct legal ruling. In its appellate ruling, the circuit court ruled in our favor and this has now become one of the lead opinions on this issue. The State then Dismissed the defendant's Second DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. A few days before trial after pretrial talks, the State Dropped the DUI.

After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.

In pretrial depositions, it was discovered that there was another officer on scene. The arresting officer testified that the other officer was on scene during the field sobriety tests and would be able to corroborate the poor performance on the roadside tests. The second officer testified that he did not arrive until the defendant was placed in cuffs. There was no video to confirm the arresting officers story.

The officer's reports contradicted what was on video tape. For example, she had no slurred speech and was not off balance. Also, her roadside tests were much better than what was detailed in the police reports.

When the defendant approached the one way street, he had no choice but to turn because he could not go straight as required. During a pretrial investigation by the firm, it was determined there was a sign straight ahead at the intersection indicating that the interstate was blocked. Thus, the defendant had no choice but to turn down the one street out of "necessity." This was brought to the State's attention that the defendant may have been unlawfully stopped as he acted under "necessity."

There were clear inconsistencies between the video and the officer's reports.

After pretrial talks with the State, they Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton brought numerous things to the State’s attention prior to trial. On tape, the officer was screaming at the defendant while approaching her car about drinking and driving prior to even having contact with her. Thus, he had already formed his conclusions that she was intoxicated before even conducting a DUI investigation. Also, the officer did not even demonstrate the walk and turn exercise prior to having the defendant perform it as mandated by the NHSTA manual on field sobriety tests. In addition, the officer had no clue how to position his in car camera as no one could even see the defendant's feet the majority of the time while she was performing the tests.

Parks & Braxton pointed out that officer had exaggerated the level of impairment on the field sobriety tests vs. his actual performance on videotape. The State then dropped the DUI.

The firm pointed out that the defendant was not in actual physical control of the motor vehicle as he had no capability to operate the car while sleeping as required by Florida's jury instructions. The State Dropped this DUI and the defendant was also reinstated on his previous DUI probation.

After a pretrial investigation by the firm, we brought to the State's attention that the defendant left the scene of the crash out of "necessity" because the victims in the accident had beaten him with a baseball bat. That was why his face was swollen and bloody. Those alleged victims were charged with beating him. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI and the defendant received No conviction and No penalties. Also, the State dismissed the leaving the scene of an accident charge and also dismissed the refusal charge.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The day before trial, we pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in actual physical control under the jury instruction as he had no capability to operate the truck while he was sleeping. In addition, and even as important, he was doing the right thing by sleeping it off in the parking lot.

After pretrial discussions, the State Dropped the DUI.

The firm pointed out to the State that there were many problems with the defendant's breath test results. For example, there was RFI (radio frequency interference) and also there was SNL (slope not level) issue. The defendant had blown into the machine numerous times causing the machine to print out a few breath cards. Thus, the both the accuracy of the machine and the defendant's breath samples were called into question.

After pretrial talks with the State, they Dropped the DUI and the defendant received No felony conviction on the possession of cocaine charge.

Prior to trial, the firm had discussions with prosecutor and they Dropped the DUI.

After negotiations with the State, we pointed out that the defendant's air bags deployed. Any impairment observed by the officer was due to the accident, and not alcohol. The State Dropped the DUI.

Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, both results could have been under the legal limit. Also, during the HGN (eyes test), the officer did not obtain an angle of onset prior to 45 degrees. Under Tharpe's formula, that could mean that the defendant had a breath alcohol level under the legal limit at the time of driving when the test was administered.

Prior to the trial date, the firm filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. In our motion, we alleged that the breath tests were not in "substantial compliance" with the FDLE rules since one of the two required control tests were out of the acceptable range. Prior to even arguing the motion, and on the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no conviction on his record.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State short of trial. The State Dropped the DUI and she received No criminal conviction at all on her record.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that although he was under the influence of Marijuana, his "normal faculties" were not impaired as the State would need to prove. After many discussions, the State Dismissed the DUI and the defendant received no conviction in his record for the pot charge.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial negotiations with the State. They then agreed to Drop the DUI.

Soon after the defendant's arrest, the firm got the defendant's video tape. We pointed out to the State that the officer did not utilize his camera properly and none of the roadside tests were captured on tape. The State agreed to Drop the DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform roadside tests because the officer did not advise him of any adverse consequences. The Judge granted the motion and the State later Dropped the DUI. The firm also took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer whereby his deposition testimony contradicted his police reports. Thus, his credibility was also called into question.

Parks & Braxton took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. After taking his sworn testimony, the firm filed an pretrial motion to suppress for an unlawful stop. Also, the firm filed another motion to suppress, alleging in our motion that the defendant was unlawfully ordered out of her car and unlawfully detained at gun point. The firm won the motions and and all of the evidence was thrown out. The DUI was then Dismissed.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial depositions of the two officers. Each officer gave conflicting sworn statements about their observations. Thus, both of the officers’ credibility were now called into question. In addition, the firm filed a motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform the field sobriety tests because the officer did not to advise him of any adverse consequences for refusing. The Judge then excluded the refusal based on the case law provided by the defense. After reading the two depositions and knowing that the refusal was excluded, the State then Dropped the Defendant's Seventh DUI.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. In our motion we alleged that under Florida Statute 910.15, when there is no crash, an officer must observe every element of a misdemeanor crime for the arrest to be lawful. Here, the Tampa officer was outside his jurisdiction, thus he was considered a civilian. The Clearwater officer never saw the defendant behind the wheel. Therefore, the DUI arrest was unlawful. Prior to the motion hearing, the State dropped the DUI.