| Oct 18, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-038882 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he appeared confused. The defendant stated that he had consumed three beers. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .200 and .202 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense
Serving Miami-Dade and the Florida Keys
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
645-400-6504
Results
| Oct 18, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-030271 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car and then left the scene of the accident. When officers found him, they noticed visible truck damage, an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and his pants hanging down. He fumbled with his items and stumbled outside the truck. The defendant refused to do any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI. | |
| Defense: | When officers finally located the defendant, he was sitting in the passenger seat of the damaged truck, the door was open, and the truck was off. The defendant had the keys in his pocket. Officers were on body worn camera trying to find the witness who saw him driving at the time of the crash, but could not find anyone who could ID him as the driver. In fact, on tape, officers can be heard stating that nobody can identify him. Since the State could not place him in actual physical control of the time of accident, as well as the fact that he was sitting in the passenger seat of a running truck, they Dropped the defendant's Third DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 18, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-030271 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed his car and then left the scene of the accident. When officers found him, they noticed visible truck damage, an odor of alcohol, slurred/mumbled speech, and his pants hanging down. He fumbled with his items and stumbled outside the truck. The defendant refused to do any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Third DUI. | |
| Defense: | When officers finally located the defendant, he was sitting in the passenger seat of the damaged truck, the door was open, and the truck was off. The defendant had the keys in his pocket. Officers were on body worn camera trying to find the witness who saw him driving at the time of the crash, but could not find anyone who could ID him as the driver. In fact, on tape, officers can be heard stating that nobody can identify him. Since the State could not place him in actual physical control of the time of accident, as well as the fact that he was sitting in the passenger seat of a running truck, they Dropped the defendant's Third DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 18, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-034477 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped after he was observed driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and he stated he had drank two beers. He appeared unsteady, moved slowly, and also swayed while he stood. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | Many observations written in the police reports were contradicted by the video tape. After pointing those out to the State, they Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 18, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-033037 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped driving 93 mph in a posted 65 mph zone. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated that he had drank two beers and also had difficulty locating his items. After performing various roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .127 and .126 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUII. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 18, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-038882 | Judge Koenig |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he appeared confused. The defendant stated that he had consumed three beers. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .200 and .202 in the breath machine. | |
| Defense: | After negotiations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 17, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-001295 | Judge Grey |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for continuously failing to maintain his lane of travel as he crossed over the dotted lines numerous times. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a pale/flushed face, and slurred speech. When asked where he was coming from, he replied "I am going home." He also stated that he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) and also started to do the walk and turn. As he started to do the walk and turn, he started laughing and refused to continue. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 17, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-001295 | Judge Grey |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for continuously failing to maintain his lane of travel as he crossed over the dotted lines numerous times. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a pale/flushed face, and slurred speech. When asked where he was coming from, he replied "I am going home." He also stated that he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) and also started to do the walk and turn. As he started to do the walk and turn, he started laughing and refused to continue. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 17, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-001295 | Judge Grey |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for continuously failing to maintain his lane of travel as he crossed over the dotted lines numerous times. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a pale/flushed face, and slurred speech. When asked where he was coming from, he replied "I am going home." He also stated that he had drank a couple of beers. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test) and also started to do the walk and turn. As he started to do the walk and turn, he started laughing and refused to continue. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. | |
| Defense: | When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, an officer must advise them of the adverse consequences for refusing. For example, the officer must state something like, "I am going to have base my decision to arrest you on what I have observed so far if you refuse." In addition, the officer can state to the defendant that their refusal can be used against them in court. If they do not give any adverse consequences, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give the defendant any adverse consequences. After negotiations short of trial, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 22-009277MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for both running a red light as well as speeding. The defendant was pulled over in a bank parking lot. The officer asked for the defendant's driver's license and stated that the defendant provided a debit card instead. The officer stated he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle in order to perform a series of field sobriety tests. By this time, a second officer arrived on scene to observe the investigation. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. The defendant was arrested for DUI. At the breath facility the defendant initially agreed to perform the breath test, but later refused when the police would not allow her to contact a lawyer for advice. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton took depositions of both officers that were on scene. While both agreed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech, their recollection of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were completely inconsistent. The officers had no video at the scene, and the video at the breath alcohol testing facility was supposedly broken. Parks & Braxton then filed a motion to compel the repair order for the video camera. Next, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest. At the motion, the officer admitted that some of his testimony was inconsistent with prior testimony that he gave in the deposition. After the motion, the DUI was dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-021287 | Judge T. Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed into a car at the complex where he lives and police were called to the scene. They observed an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and incoherent/slurred speech. He was unable to stand without assistance. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance or unsteady. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 22-009277MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for both running a red light as well as speeding. The defendant was pulled over in a bank parking lot. The officer asked for the defendant's driver's license and stated that the defendant provided a debit card instead. The officer stated he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle in order to perform a series of field sobriety tests. By this time, a second officer arrived on scene to observe the investigation. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. The defendant was arrested for DUI. At the breath facility the defendant initially agreed to perform the breath test, but later refused when the police would not allow her to contact a lawyer for advice. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton took depositions of both officers that were on scene. While both agreed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech, their recollection of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were completely inconsistent. The officers had no video at the scene, and the video at the breath alcohol testing facility was supposedly broken. Parks & Braxton then filed a motion to compel the repair order for the video camera. Next, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest. At the motion, the officer admitted that some of his testimony was inconsistent with prior testimony that he gave in the deposition. After the motion, the DUI was dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-003028 | Judge Rich |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers did not smell any alcohol, but observed watery eyes, slurred/delayed speech, and she appeared unsteady. She had fumbling fingers and a loss of her fine motor skills. Believing she was impaired by drugs and not alcohol, she was asked to perform field sobriety tests. She refused and was arrested for DUI. She later provided a urine sample which came back positive for Xanax. This was the defendant's second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm provided medical records to the State showing she had medical conditions which caused her to appear unsteady and have slurred speech. In addition, she was also prescribed the Xanax. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 22-009277MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for both running a red light as well as speeding. The defendant was pulled over in a bank parking lot. The officer asked for the defendant's driver's license and stated that the defendant provided a debit card instead. The officer stated he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle in order to perform a series of field sobriety tests. By this time, a second officer arrived on scene to observe the investigation. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. The defendant was arrested for DUI. At the breath facility the defendant initially agreed to perform the breath test, but later refused when the police would not allow her to contact a lawyer for advice. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton took depositions of both officers that were on scene. While both agreed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech, their recollection of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were completely inconsistent. The officers had no video at the scene, and the video at the breath alcohol testing facility was supposedly broken. Parks & Braxton then filed a motion to compel the repair order for the video camera. Next, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest. At the motion, the officer admitted that some of his testimony was inconsistent with prior testimony that he gave in the deposition. After the motion, the DUI was dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-021287 | Judge T. Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed into a car at the complex where he lives and police were called to the scene. They observed an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and incoherent/slurred speech. He was unable to stand without assistance. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance or unsteady. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 22-009277MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for both running a red light as well as speeding. The defendant was pulled over in a bank parking lot. The officer asked for the defendant's driver's license and stated that the defendant provided a debit card instead. The officer stated he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle in order to perform a series of field sobriety tests. By this time, a second officer arrived on scene to observe the investigation. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. The defendant was arrested for DUI. At the breath facility the defendant initially agreed to perform the breath test, but later refused when the police would not allow her to contact a lawyer for advice. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton took depositions of both officers that were on scene. While both agreed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech, their recollection of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were completely inconsistent. The officers had no video at the scene, and the video at the breath alcohol testing facility was supposedly broken. Parks & Braxton then filed a motion to compel the repair order for the video camera. Next, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest. At the motion, the officer admitted that some of his testimony was inconsistent with prior testimony that he gave in the deposition. After the motion, the DUI was dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-003028 | Judge Rich |
| Facts: | The defendant was the at fault driver in a rear end crash. Officers did not smell any alcohol, but observed watery eyes, slurred/delayed speech, and she appeared unsteady. She had fumbling fingers and a loss of her fine motor skills. Believing she was impaired by drugs and not alcohol, she was asked to perform field sobriety tests. She refused and was arrested for DUI. She later provided a urine sample which came back positive for Xanax. This was the defendant's second DUI. | |
| Defense: | The firm provided medical records to the State showing she had medical conditions which caused her to appear unsteady and have slurred speech. In addition, she was also prescribed the Xanax. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 22-009277MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for both running a red light as well as speeding. The defendant was pulled over in a bank parking lot. The officer asked for the defendant's driver's license and stated that the defendant provided a debit card instead. The officer stated he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle in order to perform a series of field sobriety tests. By this time, a second officer arrived on scene to observe the investigation. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. The defendant was arrested for DUI. At the breath facility the defendant initially agreed to perform the breath test, but later refused when the police would not allow her to contact a lawyer for advice. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton took depositions of both officers that were on scene. While both agreed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech, their recollection of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were completely inconsistent. The officers had no video at the scene, and the video at the breath alcohol testing facility was supposedly broken. Parks & Braxton then filed a motion to compel the repair order for the video camera. Next, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest. At the motion, the officer admitted that some of his testimony was inconsistent with prior testimony that he gave in the deposition. After the motion, the DUI was dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 22-009277MU10A | Judge Diaz |
| Facts: | The defendant was stopped for both running a red light as well as speeding. The defendant was pulled over in a bank parking lot. The officer asked for the defendant's driver's license and stated that the defendant provided a debit card instead. The officer stated he observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle in order to perform a series of field sobriety tests. By this time, a second officer arrived on scene to observe the investigation. The defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, one leg stand as well as the finger to nose test. The defendant was arrested for DUI. At the breath facility the defendant initially agreed to perform the breath test, but later refused when the police would not allow her to contact a lawyer for advice. | |
| Defense: | Prior to trial, Parks & Braxton took depositions of both officers that were on scene. While both agreed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol as well as slurred speech, their recollection of the defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests were completely inconsistent. The officers had no video at the scene, and the video at the breath alcohol testing facility was supposedly broken. Parks & Braxton then filed a motion to compel the repair order for the video camera. Next, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest. At the motion, the officer admitted that some of his testimony was inconsistent with prior testimony that he gave in the deposition. After the motion, the DUI was dropped. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
| Oct 15, 2024 | Case: 24-CT-021287 | Judge T. Brown |
| Facts: | The defendant crashed into a car at the complex where he lives and police were called to the scene. They observed an odor of alcohol, glassy/watery eyes, and incoherent/slurred speech. He was unable to stand without assistance. The defendant refused to perform roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI. | |
| Defense: | On tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance or unsteady. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI. | |
| Result: | The State dropped the DUI. | |
Obtain Immediate Legal Help
To save your license, you must take action within 10 days. Contact a partner about your case today by calling (645) 400-6504 or fill out the form here.