Our Recent Victories

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.

Parks & Braxton showed the State that the officer made up his mind to arrest the defendant even before the DUI investigation began. He stated on video that "he has zero tolerance for drinking and driving." It is not a crime to simply drink and drive. Furthermore, the defendant's video tape of her roadside tasks contradicted the written reports. Also, we pointed out that with the .02 margin of error on the breath machine, the defendant could have been under the legal limit a the time of driving.

Parks & Braxton brought to the State's attention that in one report, the officer wrote that the defendant had refused the roadside tasks. Yet, on another supplement, the same officer wrote that the defendant actually performed the tests and was arrested based on his performance. Also, the defendant's speech did not sound slurred on the videotape and when confronted about it, he stated "my speech is not slurred." The State dismissed the resisting charge and dropped the DUI.

Upon noticing the officer behind him, the defendant pulled out his phone and began to record the entire driving episode. The video was completely different from the description the officer provided. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. On the morning of the motion, the video was provided to the prosecutor for her review. Ultimately, the State conceded the issue of the invalid stop.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the defendant was not in "actual physical control" of the motor vehicle. One cannot have the "capability" to operate a motor vehicle while asleep.

Upon receiving the evidence, it was clear that the video was inconsistent with many of the officers' conclusions. In addition, the defendant's breath test was not known at the time of driving. The two results demonstrated that his alcohol level was still rising rather than eliminating. As a result, the State would not be able to prove that the defendant was above a .08 while driving as required by law. As a result, the defense announced ready for trial.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred. Also, the defendant, when asked to get out of the car, was not off balance or unsteady. Finally, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences when he refused to perform the roadside tests.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Due to issues with the State having provided late discovery, they Dropped the DUI prior to trial.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out to them that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. The reason was that the caller was "anonymous" which led to the traffic stop. The police, upon stopping the car, had no "corroboration" as required by the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts justifying the stop of the defendant's car. The State conceded that the stop was unlawful and all of the evidence would have been excluded.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that with the .02 margin of error with breath test results, the defendant may have been under the legal limit. Also, the defendant performed better on the field sobriety tests on tape than as described on the written police reports.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the prosecutor that the DUI officer's report was so vague in that he did not go into any details or specifics of the defendant's performance on the the roadside tests. There was no video at the scene. There was a video at the station whereby the defendant was speaking normally, not off balance or unsteady, responsive and coherent.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out that on the DUI officer's video tape, the defendant was not off balance or unsteady. In addition, his speech was normal vs. what the officer had written in his report. We discussed with the State that the video of the defendant's roadsides showed he was not impaired. That evidence was contradictory to his video of the driving pattern. Due to the conflict in the evidence (i.e.. the two videos) the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State could not place the defendant behind the wheel of the motor vehicle at the time of the crash. The defendant was standing around outside his car when police arrived on scene.

Parks & Braxton challenged the validity of the breath test based on police misconduct by the breath tech operator. The State conceded the issue and they Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out that the video of the field sobriety tests was not turned over in a timely fashion by the State in order to give the defense enough time to prepare for trial.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress, challenging the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged there was no probable cause to believe the defendant committed any traffic infractions justifying the stop of his vehicle. We argued in our motion that no traffic or pedestrians were affected by the squealing of the tires as required by case law. Also, the officers were not able to provide any evidence the defendant was traveling over the posted speed limit in that area. On the day the motion was going be argued, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton argued that the State did not provide the urine report in a timely fashion as previously ordered by the court prior to trial.

Parks and Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out that the defendant's speech was not slurred on tape as she had a very thick accent. Also, she was not unsteady on her feet on video tape. Furthermore, the defendant told the officer upon being stopped that she was lost and was on the phone trying get directions home. Also, the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests on tape contradicted the description given in the officer's report.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State. We pointed out that the police reports did not adequately describe the details of the roadside tasks. There was no video tape in the case. Also, the control tests were reading high on the breath test result print out which could have led to falsely high breath test results.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video contradicted the officer's police reports. The video showed the defendant did much better on the roadside tests than the officer described in his written reports. Also, we pointed out that the the defendant was clearly absorbing alcohol and his breath alcohol level was lower than the legal limit at the time of driving based on the video tape.

Parks & Braxton had discussions with the State. We pointed out that pursuant to case law, the defendant may have been unlawfully stopped based on the alleged shade of tint he had on his windows.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the blood was unlawfully taken by the officer. We indicated to the State, that based on the reports, a breath test was not impractical or impossible as required by Florida law.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. First, the defense pointed out to the State that there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime to even conduct any type of DUI investigation. Also, we pointed out that there was no "reasonable cause" to even ask for urine test on these facts pursuant to Florida case law and the Florida Statutes. Finally, the State never provided the urine results in a timely fashion per court orders. Thus the State was prohibited from using any test results. On the morning of jury trial, the State Dismissed the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape, the defendant's speech was normal and he was not off balance or unsteady. The video also showed the defendant walking normally. The State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction at all on his record.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. On the morning of trial, the officer who stopped the defendant was asked numerous questions by the defense before trial got started. There were several things the officer added to the alleged driving pattern that were not written his report. For example, he stated the defendant almost rear ended him and was driving on the lane marker for a mile. The DUI officer also wrote a very vague report without including any specifics about the roadside tests. Prior to picking a jury, the State dismissed the reckless driving charge and Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on tape, the defendant’s speech was not slurred and he was not off balance or unsteady like the officer made him out be in the reports. Also, the description of the field sobriety tests in the police reports making the defendant out to be highly intoxicated was contradicted by the video tape.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the initial seizure of the defendant by ordering him off his bike was unlawful. Pursuant to Florida case law, since no one standing around watching was affected by the defendant's acts of doing burn outs (i.e.. spinning his tires), there was no probable cause to believe any traffic infraction occurred.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial. The week before trial, the firm pointed out to the State that the officer’s reports were totally contradicted by the defendant's video tape. For example, the officer wrote that the defendant was swaying, yet he was never off balance on tape. Also, the defendant's cousin was in the car and was prepared to testify that it was his beer can.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the traffic stop. In our motion, we alleged that there was no probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify the stop of the defendant's car. At the motion hearing, the Judge watched the video, listened to the officer's testimony, and heard argument of counsel. The Judge determined based on the officer's testimony that the officer did not consider the "S" driving pattern in his decision to stop the defendant's vehicle and that he did not even write it in his report. The officer also did not note any damage in his reports nor did he testify to any damage. The Judge concluded that the officer only made the stop because of the contact with the barrel. The Judge, in his legal conclusion, found that making contact with an improperly placed traffic barrel in the middle of the roadway did not amount to any legal basis for stopping the defendant. He went on to state that any reasonable person might have hit that barrel. In fact, on video, the officer himself had to actually slow down to avoid the barrel. The Judge granted the motion to suppress, finding no probable cause of any traffic infractions, nor reasonable suspicion of any crime. All the evidence was then excluded.

Medical records involve an issue of privacy. In order to acquire the records, as well as the blood results, the State Attorney's Office must first provide the defendant with written notice. Upon receipt of such notice, the defendant through his lawyer has the opportunity to object upon which a hearing is held. Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the medical records including the blood results for failure to provide notice. Days before the hearing, the prosecutor sent over a copy of the notice that they say was sent prior to acquiring the medical records. At the motion, Parks & Braxton argued that the prosecutor's office was manufacturing evidence that never existed. Specifically, that the notice was created after they acquired the blood results. The State's investigator took the stand and admitted that the prosecutor never signed the notice, but rather it was a computer generated signature. More important, the investigator testified on cross examination that the notice was sent out on March 15, 2015 However, the accident didn't occur until March 19, 2015.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that was no reasonable suspicion of a crime based on odor alone to even ask the defendant for blood pursuant to Florida Statutes and case law.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the in-car camera utilized by the officer to tape the roadside tests was completely blurry. Thus, one could not see the defendant's actual performance. Also, the defense was to exclude the breath test results because FDLE did not follow their own procedures relating to breath testing.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that when the DUI officer turned on his video camera, you could only see the defendant for a short period of time. The officer kept the defendant off camera for almost the entire investigation. Also on video, the defendant's speech was normal as compared to what the officer wrote in his reports about it being slurred. Furthermore, the defendant did not appear unsteady when he was visible on camera.

Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. On the morning of trial, the State dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that they could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance allegedly impaired the defendant as required by Florida law.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the stopping officer never wrote a report detailing his alleged DUI observations. Also, the video contradicted the officer's reports as it related to the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. Finally, the officer improperly explained the instructions on the one leg stand which caused confusion on the defendant's behalf.

Parks & Braxton spoke to the State prior to trial.

Parks & Braxton conducted talks with the State prior to setting the case for trial.

PARKS & BRAXTON HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STATE TO GET THEM TO DROP THE DUI.

PARKS & BRAXTON HAD PRETRIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO SETTING A TRIAL DATE.

ordering him to pull over and get out of his car. We argued that the defendant was unlawfully seized by the officer's actions as there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, nor probable cause that any traffic infraction occurred. On the day of the motion hearing, the State Dropped the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the officer's description of the defendant's performance on the roadside tests was contradicted by the video tape. The State not only dropped the DUI, but also dismissed the possession of marijuana charge.

Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety exercises due to the officer not giving the defendant any adverse consequences. Also, the officer would not let the defendant go to the bathroom unless he agreed to take a breath test. Thus, we pointed out to the State that the defendant never actually refused to take the breath test on video tape and simply was begging to use the restroom.

Parks & Braxton took pretrial sworn depositions of the both the officer who stopped the defendant and the DUI officer who arrested the defendant. Both officers contradicted each other on almost every fact in the case. The firm showed the depositions to the State prior to trial in an attempt to get them to drop this Third DUI. After reading the transcripts, the State realized that the credibility of the officers was compromised.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State, that on video, the defendant was not swaying at all as the officer wrote in his reports. Furthermore, the officer did not turn the sound on on his microphone so nothing could be heard on tape. In addition, the officer never advised the defendant of any adverse consequences for his refusing the roadside tests.

Parks & Braxton presented a detailed medical history of the defendant's injuries and disabilities. The firm also showed the State x-rays of the defendant's foot which had numerous screws. Subsequently, the State recognized based on those injuries and the defendant's physical limitations, they could not prove that he failed the roadside tests due to alcohol impairment versus his numerous medical conditions.

Parks & Braxton had several negotiations with the State regarding recent issues that have arisen regarding the breath test.

Parks & Braxton had several pretrial talks with the prosecution. We pointed out that any alleged impairment seen on tape was not due to alcohol, but from the severity of the crash. On tape, the defendant had no shirt on and was barefoot because he had been covered in glass from the driver's side window shattering all over him. We gave the State several pictures of the defendant's mangled car. The officer even had the defendant perform the walk and turn and one leg stand tests while barefoot on concrete after he had just taken off his socks that had glass in them. We also pointed out how on tape the defendant kept telling the officer how upset and shaken up he was from the crash.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the State.

Parks & Braxton had pretrial talks with the prosecutor. We pointed out to them that neither the officers, nor the civilian witness, smelled any alcohol on the defendant's breath at the time of the crash or shortly thereafter. Thus, they could prove he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash (while driving) as required by law. The State dismissed the second refusal charge and the DUI was Dropped.

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

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the DUI video contradicted the officer's reports. For example, there was no slurred speech and the defendant was not unsteady. Furthermore, we pointed out to the prosecutor that after the first breath test results were obtained, the breath card indicated a problem with the machine. However, the proper steps were not taken, nor documented, by the breath test operator as to how the machine allowed two more samples of the defendant's breath.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that someone who is sleeping in their car has no capability of operating the vehicle. Thus, they would not be able prove actual physical control.

Parks and Braxton questioned the arresting officer at the civil administrative driver's license hearing soon after the defendant's arrest. The firm then ordered the transcript and provided it to the State. In the hearing, the officer misstated the law and also contradicted herself. This led not only to the defendant getting his driving privileges fully restored but also the State dropping the DUI in court.

Parks & Braxton had numerous pretrial discussions with the State from the beginning of the case and then a couple of weeks before the trial date to try to get them to drop the DUI.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State early on after the defendant's arrest that the defendant did not make any statements about taking any chemical or controlled substances. Thus, the State could not prove by which specific drug was alleged impairing the defendant as the officer concluded based on some blue coating.

Parks & Braxton made several requests for discovery items from the State, including various police reports. After the third time requesting them, the State dismissed the DUI due to the police not turning over the documents to them. Thus, they could not turn them over to the defense.

Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the video tape clearly showed that the roadside tests were conducted off to the side of the road in a sloped ditch. The defendant even stated to the officer on tape that she did not believe the ground was level. However, the officer did not move her to the side where the ground was level and had her do them on uneven ground. Furthermore, the defendant's speech sounded normal on video. The firm announced ready for jury trial.