Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays Free Consultations
The defendant was stopped for speeding in a work zone. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and she was very off balance. She refused to participate in field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Parks & Braxton conducted a pre-trial investigation gathering evidence from the jail booking area which showed the defendant being tased for no reason, strapped into a chair, and thrown into a locked room. This corroborated her story that the officers were very aggressive towards her during the entire DUI investigation. We showed this to the State the before the trial date along with pictures of the defendant's injuries caused by being tased.
On the morning of Jury Trial, the State dropped the DUI.
<p>The defendant pulled up to a flashing red light. The officer pulled in behind the defendant and another vehicle. The defendant's car failed to proceed through the flashing red light in a timely fashion according to the officer. The officer activated her emergency lights and pulled up next to the defendant's car in order to determine why the defendant was not proceeding through the light. The defendant rolled down his window and the officer noticed the defendant's movements were lethargic and speech was extremely slurred. Based on the officer's initial observations, she thought the defendant was impaired. The officer then went up to the car and observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. He handed a credit card to the officer instead of his driver's license. The defendant refused the roadside tests. Also, the defendant admitted that on a scale of 1-10 (ten being the most impaired) he was a seven and that he drank a lot. He was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.</p>
<p>Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress the initial contact between the officer and the defendant. In our our motion, we alleged that the officer's initial use of her emergency lights constituted an unlawful seizure.</p>
<p>Based upon the motion, the State Dropped the DUI.</p>
The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle in a bank parking lot by police. The keys were in the ignition and the engine was running. It took several attempts for two officers to wake the defendant up. Once awoken, the officers observed the defendant to have strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and he was disoriented. He then performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .177 and .161 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks and Braxton were prepared and were ready for trial. The firm pointed out to the State prior to trial that the defendant had no "capabilty" of operating the vehicle.
On the morning of jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car crash. Upon the officer's arrival, the defendant was already outside the car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and she was unsteady on her feet. The defendant refused the roadside tests and then was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State in a pre-trial investigation that they could not place the defendant in actual physical control of the car at the time of the crash as required by Florida law.
Due to the above fact and speedy trial expiring, the DUI was Dismissed. It should be noted, this is the Second DUI a member of the firm has obtained a dismissal for this client on a DUI charge.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, and a sarcastic attitude. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped. She was then was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared and were ready for Trial.
On the morning of Jury Trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was found passed out in his car by the police outside a bar. The headlights were on and the engine was running. The officer noticed the defendant in the car to be drooling and unresponsive. It took the officer almost five minutes to awaken the defendant. He eventually noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes upon awakening him. The defendant stated he was at happy hour earlier. He was also argumentative and unable to follow instructions. He performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI.
Parks & Braxton took a pre-trial deposition of the arresting officer. At the deposition, we established the defendant had no "capability" of operating the motor vehicle while sleeping.
The State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a two car traffic crash. The officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant failed the roadside tests which were video taped and then was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI.
Parks & Braxton took a pre-trial deposition of the arresting officer. In that deposition, we established through detailed questioning that the impairment the defendant exhibited could have been due to the crash along with her numerous prior injuries versus alcohol. She told the police on tape about numerous back injuries she suffered from prior the officer administering the tests.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. He also was unsteady, staggering, swaying, and clumsy on his feet per the officer. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped. He was then arrested for DUI.
Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton obtained medical records from the defendant and presented them to the State. The records indicated that the defendant's impairment was due to a medical condition versus alcohol.
The State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and almost lost his balance upon exiting the car. According to the officer, he failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .087 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for jury trial.
On the morning of trial the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was pulled over for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant exhibited slow and lethargic movements and could not seem to put the car in park. The defendant was asked to exit the car for purposes of a DUI investigation. The defendant stated over and over "I do not want to do this" and refused the roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
The defendant was involved in a hit and run crash. He was stopped by the alleged victim and several other civilians were standing around him so he could not leave. Upon contact with the police when they arrived, the officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. He failed the HGN (eye test) and refused the rest of the tests. He was then arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
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. The State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for significant and continuous weaving in and out in his lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech along with a heavy eastern European accent. The defendant explained the way he was driving to the officer in that he was arguing with his wife over directions and using the GPS. The defendant was asked to perform roadside tasks on video tape which he refused and then was arrested or DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared and were ready for jury trial. The firm pointed out to the State that the video tape was in conflict with officer's observations in his reports. We told the State that the alleged indicators of impairment used in the officer's decision to arrest our client were clearly based upon the client's accent, inability to understand English, and communicate properly with the officer.
On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was confronted by the police when his vehicle was stopped in the middle of the roadway. The officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face, and bloodshot/glassy eyes. He was also observed to be unsteady on his feet. He refused to perform field sobriety exercises requested by the officers and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial and also pointed out to the State that almost none of the DUI investigation was captured on the in-car video camera at the scene.
The defendant was the at fault driver as she drove up on a curb and hit a stop sign. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and watery eyes. According to the officers, she performed poorly on the roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn test, she took an incorrect number of steps, used her arms for balance, and lost her balance during the instructions. On the one leg stand, she used her arms for balance, hopped, and put her foot down. She was then arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial.
The defendant was the at fault driver as he hit a parked car. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, rapid speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes. The defendant admitted to being involved in the crash and coming from a party. The defendant was asked to conduct roadside tests but refused stating "it is your word against mine." He was then arrested for DUI Causing Property Damage and then he refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared and filed motions to suppress. In one motion, we argued all the defendant's statements at the crash scene should be suppressed as they were obtained in violation of the accident report privilege. We also filed another motion to exclude the defendant's refusal to take the roadside tests.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes and he admitted to drinking a "few". The defendant used the car door for leverage and was unsteady. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped and then he was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired on the video tape.
The DUI was Dismissed.
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant was unsteady and staggering according to the officer. He performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer which were video taped. According to the officer, he performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that almost every observation that the officer made in his written reports were contradicted by the video tape.
The defendant was detained by the police at the airport exit for failing to pay for parking. The officers observed an odor of alcohol, inconsistent responses upon questioning by the police, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness upon exiting the vehicle. The defendant refused the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. The officers considered her to be impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance versus alcohol due to her actions.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. The State could not prove which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida Law.
The defendant was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road on a highway. The defendant was going southbound in the northbound lanes. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol, watery eyes as well as slurred speech. The defendant stated that she knew she was wrong and was coming home from a restaurant. She then stated that she had two captain and cokes. The defendant was allegedly off balance as she exited the car. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests. After performing the walk and turn, one leg stand and HGN (eye test), she was arrested for DUI. She subsequently refused to provide a breath test. This was the defendant's 3rd DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on coercion to perform the field sobriety tests. Specifically, the defense alleged that the Trooper made an improper statement while requesting the defendant to perform field sobriety tests.
The State conceded the motion to suppress and dropped the DUI.
The defendant was seen by a police officer standing outside his car talking on a cell phone stumbling around. Both tires were flat on the car and the officer wanted to see if the defendant was okay. He then observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. He was requested to perform field sobriety tests and after refusing to do them and being very argumentative, he was arrested for DUI. The defendant was also almost falling over while talking to the officer.
Prior to court, Parks & Braxton spoke to the prosecutors and pointed out that there was no witness who placed the defendant in actual physical control of the motor vehicle. Thus, pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15, the arrest for DUI was unlawful.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. He performed the roadside tasks at the request of the officer and they were video taped. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI.
Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that on the video tape none of the defendant's "normal faculties" were impaired.
The defendant was stopped by police after allegedly being involved in a hit and run traffic crash. The officers noticed damage to the defendant's car. He had an odor of alcohol upon his breath, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and he walked in a "zig zag" pattern once out of the car. They also saw the defendant stumble. There was no video tape of the DUI investigation at the scene. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
The defendant was stopped for having illegal tint on his car windows. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and red/watery eyes. The defendant also admitted to drinking beer. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped. He was then arrested for DUI and refused the breath test.
The defendant was found passed out in his vehicle at an intersection by the police. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, a dazed look, and unsteadiness. The defendant refused the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, lethargic movements, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the roadside tasks which were video taped. She was then arrested for DUI. After her arrest for DUI, she blew a .117 and .115 in the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Upon initial questioning the defendant admitted to drinking that evening. The defendant consented to perform field sobriety exercises which were video taped. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn as well as the one leg stand test. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI.
Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton pointed out to the State that the results of the field sobriety tests were administered improperly. For example, on video you can clearly see a distinct pitch on the roadway where the defendant was asked to perform the walk and turn test.
On the morning of Jury trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery/glassy eyes, "fumbling" fingers, and slurred speech. They also noticed she was unsteady on her feet upon exiting the vehicle. The defendant performed the roadside tests at the request of the DUI officer which were video taped. For example, on the one leg stand, she put her foot down, swayed, and used her arms for balance. On the finger to nose, she did not touch the tip of her nose with her index finger and used the wrong hand. The defendant was arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the Defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton were ready for a jury trial.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and difficulty finding his registration. The officer observed unsteadiness as the defendant exited the car. He was asked to perform roadside sobriety exercises. The defendant performed poorly on the first test and then he refused to continue with the rest of the tests. The defendant said "just talk me to jail" and he was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton were ready for jury trial.
The defendant was involved in a single car crash whereby he allegedly struck a tree off the roadway. The defendant made several statements to the officer about being involved in the crash and how it happened. The officer made contact with the the defendant while he was in the ambulance. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and unsteadiness upon exiting the ambulance. He was asked to perform roadside tasks which he performed very very poorly on video tape. He was then arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Parks & Braxton filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all of the defendant's statements to the police. We alleged in our motion all statements were obtained in violation of the accident report privilege. The State conceded the motion. Without the statements, the State could not prove the defendant was driving or in actual physical control the motor vehicle at the time of the of crash.
The defendant was stopped for continually swerving and weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and watery eyes. She stated she drank two beers. She performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton discovered during a pre-trial discovery investigation that the roadside video tape had been lost, destroyed, and/or corrupted. No one at the police department could answer our questions as to the whereabouts of the tape which was material evidence in the case.
Prior to filing any motions to dismiss for destruction of material evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped and was arrested for DUI. The officer suspected he was impaired not by alcohol, but rather by a chemical and/or controlled substance.
Parks & Braxton conducted a pre-trial investigation prior to the filing of the charges.
The State could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida Statutes. The DUI was Dismissed.
The defendant was involved in a one car crash whereby she was ran over several rocks and ended up in a flower bed. No one witnessed the crash, and when the police officer arrived, the defendant was outside the car. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and unsteadiness. The defendant admitted to being involved in the crash. She performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .192 and .177.
Parks & Braxton prepared and filed a pre-trial motion to exclude the defendant's statements about her involvement in the crash. In our motion, we alleged the statements were obtained in violation of the accident report privilege. The State conceded the motion and all statements were excluded. Thus, the State could not place the defendant in actual physical control at the time of the crash.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, thick tongued speech, and unsteadiness. The defendant was wearing a wristband from a bar. The defendant admitted to drinking one shot, one drink, and was not stone sober. The defendant also admitted to taking a controlled/prescribed medication that day. According to the officer he performed poorly to the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. This was the defendant's second DUI arrest within a couple of years.
Parks & Braxton showed the State numerous medical records reflecting that the defendant's performance on the roadside tests was not due to impairment by alcohol or medication, but was a result of the defendant's various and numerous medical conditions.
The defendant was observed by a security guard as well as an independent witness driving through a fence. The officer responded to the scene and observed the defendant holding onto the stop sign yelling "I'm too f'n drunk". The officer who conducted the investigation stated that the defendant was unable to stand up without assistance. The defendant supposedly advised the officer that he had been drinking bloody marys and a lot of beer. The officer then subsequently called for a car with a video to respond to the scene. On video the defendant refused all testing. Prior to going on video the officer allegedly observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, a flushed face and bloodshot eyes. This was the defendant's 3rd DUI.
Despite all of the initial allegations by the officer, none of them were captured on video. Parks & Braxton then discovered that the arresting officer was under investigation for falsifying reports.
The defendant was stopped for swerving out of her lane colliding with the curb several times. The officer alleged that once he put his lights on that the defendant failed to stop within a reasonable amount of time. The officer made contact with the defendant and observed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. He stated that as she exited her car she was unsteady and lost her balance. The defendant performed the one leg stand, walk and turn and HGN (eye test). The officer alleged that she failed each of the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for DUI. The defendant subsequently refused a breath test.
Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop. In addition, the defense listed a witness who observed the entire incident and contradicted the officer's observations.
Based on the testimony provided by the independent witness the State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The officer suspected he was actually impaired by a chemical and/or controlled substance, not alcohol.
The DUI was Dismissed as the State could not prove by which specific chemical and/or controlled substance impaired the defendant as required by Florida Statutes.
The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slightly slurred speech, and red eyes. The defendant stated he drank six bottles of beer earlier that day. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He submitted to a urine test based on his statements about using marijuana. His urine tested positive for marijuana.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and he admitted to drinking two draft beers and a mixed drink. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests which were video taped. After his arrest for DUI, he blew a .126 and .124 in the breath machine.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. We also pointed out to the State that the video tape at the scene contradicted the defendant's breath alcohol level.
The defendant was stopped for driving with his high-beams. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech/accent, and bloodshot eyes. According to the officer, he failed the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, the defendant blew a .094 and .091 in the breath machine.
The video contradicted the officer's reports as to the defendant's alleged performance on the roadside tests. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm pointed out that the defendant's breath results could have been under the legal limit.
The defendant was stopped for failing to stop at a red traffic signal. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed face, unsteadiness, and glassy/bloodshot eyes. The defendant performed some of the roadside tasks on video and according to the officer did not perform up to standards. He was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test.
A week prior to the trial date, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped for driving the wrong way down a one way street. The officers observed slurred/mumbled speech, an odor of alcohol, and unsteadiness exiting the vehicle. The defendant admitted to having a couple of drinks. According to the arresting officer, he did not perform up to standards on the roadside tests which were video taped and then he was arrested for DUI.
The defendant was found passed out in the drive thru of a fast food restaurant. Officers were called to the scene and could not wake him up even by shaking him and yelling. They had to use a sternum rub to wake him up. They then observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Upon being woken up, the defendant began to scream at the officers. A DUI investigator/drug recognition expert was called to the scene and made similar DUI observations. He also stated the defendant staggered upon exiting the car. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tests which were video taped. The defendant was then arrested for DUI and subsequently refused the breath test. This was the defendant's second DUI within five years.
At jury trial, Parks & Braxton argued that the defendant was asleep in his car because he worked long hours. The defendant testified to this fact. The firm also argued that the video contradicted the arresting officer's testimony as it related to the defendant's performance on the tests. Furthermore, we also pointed out to the the jury many conflicts in the evidence and that the officers had stated many times they did not recall specific facts upon cross examination.
During jury deliberations, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was found by police passed out in his car in a pharmacy parking lot. Upon awaking the defendant, the initial officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and unsteadiness. The defendant stated he was waiting for the pharmacy to open even though it was closed until the next morning. A DUI unit was called and he made similar observations. The defendant refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and a "long distance stare." He fumbled with his items in handing them to the officer and was very unsteady on his feet. The defendant stated he had three drinks. He then refused the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. A pre-trial deposition of the arresting officer was taken prior to the trial date.
After reading the sworn deposition of the arresting officer's answers to our questions, the State Dropped the DUI.
The defendant was stopped by police as she was stopped in the middle of a turning lane. The officer went up to the car and noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness. The defendant stated she was coming from a bar. According to the officer, she did not perform the roadside tests up to standards and was arrested for DUI. She then refused the breath test.
Parks & Braxton prepared the case for trial. The reports were very vaguely written as it related to the defendant's performance on the tests and there was no video tape at the scene.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. The officer who arrived on scene observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and unsteady balance. He performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. The officer found marijuana in the car and added that charge. After his arrest on all charges, he refused the breath test.
On the morning of trial, the State Dropped the DUI an Dismissed the marijuana charge.
The defendant was stopped for speeding and weaving. Once stopped, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She only performed the HGN (eye test) and walk and turn tests. According to the officer, she did not perform up to standards and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she refused the breath test.
To save your license, you must act within 10 days. Get in touch with our firm by calling 321.593.0222, or fill out the form here.