Mar 4, 2025	Case: 24-CT-001088	Judge Wallace
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, mumbled speech, bloodshot eyes, and a sway to his stance. The defendant stated he had just left a bar. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Many observations were contradicted by the video tape. His speech was normal and not mumbled and he had no sway to his stance. Also, many written observations of the field sobriety tests were contradicted by the tape. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 4, 2025	Case: 24-CT-011460	Judge Uzabel
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving within his lane and running a red light. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he stumbled to catch his balance. He also had a bracelet on his wrist form a bar. He then performed the HGN ( eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .162 and .154 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 3, 2025	Case: 24-CT-055483	Judge Koenig
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and his hands were shaking. The defendant exited the car slowly, swayed while standing, and he stated that he had consumed one beer. He performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exorcises. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .118 and .117 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.

Feb 26, 2025	Case: 23-007747MU10A	Judge Francois
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for straddling lane markers on the highway. In addition, the defendant was clocked at 85mph in a 65mph zone. The defendant then slowed down in the far right lane to 10mph, eventually stopping in the right lane of traffic. Upon approaching the vehicle, the Trooper observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Upon exiting the car, the officer observed extreme unsteadiness. The Trooper then asked the defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests. The defendant responded by saying it was up to the Trooper. There was clearly a language barrier between the Trooper and the client. Since the defendant never answered with a clear yes or no answer the Trooper arrested him for DUI. The Trooper then asked for a breath and urine sample. The defendant responded by saying "whatever you want to do just do it." The Trooper took that as a refusal to submit to a breath test.
Defense:	The evidence made clear that the defendant never specifically responded to the Trooper's requests. In addition, despite the heavy accent it was evident that there was a language barrier between the Trooper and the defendant. These specific issues were raised with the prosecutor. The defendant had his charges reduced to reckless driving with no conviction of any kind on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI to a reckless driving.

Feb 25, 2025	Case: 24-CT-016598	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane and also driving in the middle of two lanes for several blocks. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, unsteady balance, and he admitted to having consumed several mixed drinks. He also had glassy eyes and slurred speech. He performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .182 and .180 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 24, 2025	Case: 24-011987MU10A	Judge Evans
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a multiple car accident. Upon arrival, the officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a sway while she walked. Multiple witnesses identified the defendant as the driver involved in the accident. After the crash investigation, the defendant was informed that the officers were now conducting a DUI investigation. The defendant refused to participate in either field sobriety tests or a breath test. She was subsequently arrested for DUI Property Damage/Personal Injury. After arrest, the officers located 53 Lorazepam pills in the defendant's purse as well as well as a liquid THC Truelieve syringe.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a series of motions challenging the admissibility of the evidence. Specifically, the firm argued that both the field sobriety test request and subsequent refusal was unlawful. Next, the firm argued that the refusal to submit to a breath test was unlawful. The Court agreed, and excluded any mention that the defendant refused either a breath test or field sobriety tests. Lastly, Parks & Braxton filed a motion for Statement of Particulars. Specifically, the motion argued that the prosecutor needed to state with specificity what substance the defendant was allegedly impaired by. The prosecutor conceded the motion, and the defendant walked away with no criminal charges on her record.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 20, 2025	Case: 24-CT-019480	Judge Damico
Facts:	The defendant was found unconscious in his car at an intersection. When he regained consciousness, his car began to roll forward almost striking the officers. Officers got the vehicle to stop rolling and upon contact noticed an odor of alcohol, delayed speech, and bloodshot/glossy eyes. He then performed various field sobriety tests such as the finger to nose, count backwards, walk and turn, one leg stand, and the HGN (eye test). He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later blew a .106 and .104 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 19, 2025	Case: 24-CT-045334	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for swerving and striking the median wall of the highway. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glassy eyes. The defendant staggered, swayed, and had an uneven gait. The defendant also stated that he had consumed two drinks. He performed poorly on the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 19, 2025	Case: 24-CT-041250	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, swerving, and braking heavily. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and he stated that he had consumed a couple of drinks. He also appeared unsteady and walked slowly. After refusing to perform field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After conversations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI .
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 19, 2025	Case: 24-CT-051274	Judge Ingram
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, thick/slurred speech, a flushed face, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant stated he had drank two Long Island Iced Teas. He then performed the HGN (eye test), estimation of 30 seconds, walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .098 and .095 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.

Feb 13, 2025	Case: 24-CM-009995	Judge Scott
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for making a wide turn and straddling the bike lane markers. Officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, an odor of marijuana, slurred speech, and red/watery eyes. The defendant only performed the HGN (eye test only). No walk and turn or one leg stand exercises were conducted due to his belligerent behavior. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test. This was his Second DUI. He was also charged with resisting an officer without violence.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI. They also Dismissed the resisting charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 13, 2025	Case: 24-CT-012747	Judge Scott
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding (83mph in a 55mph zone). Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. She also appeared unsteady and had fumbling fingers. The defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The firm pointed out to the State prior to trial that the defendant was not unsteady and had no slurred speech on tape. After negotiations, the State Dropped her Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 13, 2025	Case: 24-CT-014431	Judge Scott
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for almost crashing into an officer by violating his right of way. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a tired/lethargic balance. He also had poor balance and admitted to drinking beer. After performing the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .110 and .110 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.

Feb 12, 2025	Case: A77GXKE	Judge Vaccaro
Facts:	Police got a call about a suspicious vehicle on the side of the highway. When the trooper arrived, he saw the defendant's vehicle on the side of the highway. At the same time, the defendant was inside an ambulance being evaluated by paramedics. The road ranger told the trooper that the defendant was sitting the driver's seat when he arrived. Officers made contact with the defendant and noticed an odor of alcohol, lack of balance, and thick tongued speech. He also had red/bloodshot eyes. He refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .243 and .235 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton filed a pretrial motion to suppress the lawfulness of the arrest. In our motion, we alleged that under Florida Statute 901.15, when there is no crash, an officer must observe every element of a misdemeanor crime "in their presence." Here, the officer did not observe the defendant driving or in actual physical control when he arrived (i.e., the first element of a DUI). A civilian road ranger is not an officer so the fellow officer rule does not apply. After conversations with the State about the legal issue, the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Feb 11, 2025	Case: 24-CT-011598	Judge Valkenburg
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane (i.e. weaving). Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. He also had fumbling fingers and exaggerated movements. Alcohol was found all over the car. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .088 and .088 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, we were able to place both breath results below the legal limit. After several negotiations regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 10, 2025	Case: 24-CT-502312	Judge Gonzalez
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving, running a red light, and having a defective headlight. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, a disheveled look, she appeared confused, and had bloodshot eyes. Alcohol was found all over the car. The defendant performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After conversations with the State regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 10, 2025	Case: 24-CT-502019	Judge Gill
Facts:	Police responded to a call regarding a drunk pedestrian (i.e. the defendant) that was stumbling around the restaurant parking lot trying to find his car and opening random car doors. Officers arrived and parked behind the defendant who was now in the driver's seat of his car. Officers knocked on the window and he rolled it down in response to their command. They noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and he appeared unsteady. The defendant stated he had drank two glasses of wine. He performed very poorly on field sobriety tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, finger to nose, and one leg stand. The walk and turn was actually terminated due to safety concerns as the defendant almost fell over. He was arrested for DUI and later blew a .170 and .164 in the breath machine. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense:	Since the caller was anonymous, the officers needed to have some type of corroboration of the defendant's intoxication in order to lawfully seize him. Here, the unlawful seizure, without corroboration, was blocking his car in and ordering him to roll down his window. Officers observed nothing prior to their actions. After conversations with the State regarding the actions by police, they Dropped his Third DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 10, 2025	Case: 24-CT-502844	Judge Gonzalez
Facts:	The defendant crashed his car into a concrete light pole. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a sway to his stance. He also appeared unsteady, had bloodshot eyes, and dilated pupils. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	EMS was on scene and told the officers that the defendant appeared alert, oriented, answered all questions appropriately, and had a steady gait. This was all in contradiction to the officers' observations. In addition, the arresting officer stated that he conducted a DUI investigation, yet he never asked the defendant questions such as where he was coming from, where heading too, or if he even had a drink. He did not ask one question. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 5, 2025	Case: 24-CT-012794	Judge Taylor
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for weaving and nearly striking a vehicle. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant stated that he had consumed several drinks prior to driving. After performing the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Many observations before and during the field sobriety tests written by the officer were contradicted by the video tape. After negotiations, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 5, 2025	Case: 24-CT-503201	Judge Paluck
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for having tinted windows too dark under Florida Law. Officers did not smell any alcohol, but noticed bloodshot eyes, an odor of burnt marijuana coming from the truck, bloodshot/watery eyes, and white foam on his lips. Believing that he was impaired by drugs, he was requested to perform field sobriety tests. He then performed the HGN (eye test), estimation of 30 seconds, finger to nose, walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. He later provided a urine sample which revealed positive results from FDLE for marijuana and cocaine. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Even though he tested positive for nonprescribed illegal drugs, the State still must prove that he was impaired. On tape, none of the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. In fact, the arresting officer can be heard on tape stating that he needed a DRE (drug recognition expert) to be sure that the defendant was impaired by the drugs. Well, no DRE was ever called. So, if the cop is not sure, then how can a jury convict? After conversations with the State, they Dismissed the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.