Also serving Volusia County (Daytona)
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights after dusk. Officers
noticed an odor of alcohol, a flushed/red face, and slurred speech. The
defendant admitted to having drank one drink. He then performed the HGN
(eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was then arrested
for DUI and later refused the breath test.
On video, we pointed out to the State that the defendant's roadsides
were much better than written in the reports and there was no probable
cause to arrest him based on his performance. In addition, he had no slurred
speech on tape. The State Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
After several negotiations with the State regarding the defendant himself
and the evidence, they Dropped the DUI and he received no conviction.
Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Just prior trial, the firm
pointed out to the State that the officer never even asked the defendant
to step out of the car for the DUI investigation until he was being arrested.
Thus, no-one could even see if he had any balance issues. Also, his speech
was not slurred on tape. Furthermore, we provided case law to the State
that the defendant's silence in not answering questions would be a
violation of his Miranda rights.
The defendant was stopped after the officer noticed him drifting and crossing
over the lane markers several times. The officer did not smell any alcohol,
but noticed the defendant to appear lethargic, his speech was slurred,
and his eyes were red and watery. His movements were slow and he performed
poorly on roadside tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later asked
to provide a urine sample as the officer believed he was impaired by drugs.
The FDLE lab report showed positive results for marijuana and Xanax.
The defendant was stopped for not having any headlights or tail lights
illuminated. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, a blank/dazed stare,
and watery eyes. She had droopy eye lids and fumbling fingers. She then
performed roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand.
She was subsequently arrested for DUI and later blew a .119 and .112 in
the breath machine.
The defendant was stopped for having no taillights on and drifting by crossing
over the fog line. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol watery/bloodshot
eyes, and slurred speech. He also appeared unsteady and had to lean on
his car for balance. He refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested
for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's
Third DUI arrest and also he was charged with a second refusal.
The defendant was stopped for weaving and speeding. The officer noticed
an odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and a flushed face. The defendant
had a stamp on his hand from a bar. He was asked to perform roadside tests,
but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
The defendant was stopped after he was weaving all over the road for a
lengthy period of time. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred
speech, and bloodshot watery eyes. Two unopened cases of beer were also
spotted in the defendant's car. He was then asked to perform various
roadside sobriety tests. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused
the breath test. While being arrested, he allegedly pulled away and was
tackled. He was also charged with resisting an officer without violence.
Although the erratic driving pattern was captured on video tape, the officer
at that point only had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was
DUI. After the defendant performed well on the field sobriety tests on
tape, there was now a lack of probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The
defendant did perform well on video tape and was still arrested. On the
day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and also he received no criminal
conviction on the resisting without violence charge.
The roadside observations as written in reports were highly exaggerated
as compared to the video. After several negotiations with the prosecutor,
the State Dropped the DUI.
As a result of the crash, the defendant's car was completely inoperable.
The defendant maintained that he did not begin drinking until after the
crash. In addition, the firm presented a call log that proved that the
defendant called the tow truck company shortly after the crash, and remained
in the vehicle for over an hour until the police arrived. The law requires
that the State prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was
impaired at the time the vehicle was operable. Without evidence of intoxication
at the time of the crash the State could not prove the DUI.
The State dropped the DUI.
The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers did
not smell any alcohol, but they noticed glossy eyes, and lethargic behavior.
She was sweating profusely and was unsteady. Believing she was impaired
by drugs, she then performed roadside tests. She performed poorly on tape
and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a urine 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.