Jul 27, 2023	Case: AFLPTCE	Judge Croff
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting over the lane markers and speeding. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. He also had a blank expression. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the State regarding the defendant the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 27, 2023	Case: 22-MM-016196	Judge Mckyton
Facts:	The defendant was observed docking his boat. Officers approached the boat to do a safety inspection. Once approaching the defendant, they noticed an odor of alcohol and he admitted to having drank earlier. They also noticed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He was then asked to perform various field sobriety tests such as the finger to nose, palm pat, and another coordination exercises due to him just getting off a boat. He was then arrested for Boating Under the Influence (BUI). He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI (BUI) and he was also charged with a Second refusal to submit to a breath test.
Defense:	Under Florida law, a defendant cannot be asked to take a breath test prior to being arrested for either Boating or Driving under the influence. Here, on video tape, the officer requested a breath test prior to the defendant being arrested. In addition, they told him his prior refusal would not count against him because it was over three years old. That is a misstatement of the law. Thus, the refusal to take a breath test would have been excluded from evidence. The State then Dismissed the refusal charge. In addition, on tape his speech was not slurred and his roadside tests were better than as described in the reports. The State agreed and Dropped the Boating Under the Influence charge.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 27, 2023	Case: AFLPTCE	Judge Croff
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for drifting over the lane markers and speeding. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and slurred speech. He also had a blank expression. After performing various roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the State regarding the defendant the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 18, 2023	Case: 22-CT-502572	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash while on his motorcycle. He was hit so hard he went airborne. The people who hit him left the scene and were never caught. Officers came in contact with the defendant in the ambulance. They noticed an odor of alcohol and slow/slurred speech. The defendant was injured and had gashes to his head. He was taken to a hospital. There, after being treated, he refused to provide a blood sample. The State later requested his medical records which revealed a blood alcohol content at a level of .295 (over three times the legal limit).
Defense:	Prior to trial, discussions were held with prosecutor. We pointed out that he was not at fault and the people who hit him left. In fact, the police were so concerned with the defendant's DUI, they made no effort to go after the people who fled the scene. Also, officers wrote that the witness to the crash saw the defendant on the bike (i.e. the wheel witness). That was not true as she stated on video that she did not know if he was driving the bike at all and only saw it as it went airborne. Furthermore, the officer was actually asking the defendant to perform roadside tests at the hospital with giant gashes on his head. The State analyzed the case after our discussions about the above issues and many others. They then Dismissed the Case.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jul 18, 2023	Case: 22-CT-502572	Judge Swett
Facts:	The defendant was involved in a crash while on his motorcycle. He was hit so hard he went airborne. The people who hit him left the scene and were never caught. Officers came in contact with the defendant in the ambulance. They noticed an odor of alcohol and slow/slurred speech. The defendant was injured and had gashes to his head. He was taken to a hospital. There, after being treated, he refused to provide a blood sample. The State later requested his medical records which revealed a blood alcohol content at a level of .295 (over three times the legal limit).
Defense:	Prior to trial, discussions were held with prosecutor. We pointed out that he was not at fault and the people who hit him left. In fact, the police were so concerned with the defendant's DUI, they made no effort to go after the people who fled the scene. Also, officers wrote that the witness to the crash saw the defendant on the bike (i.e. the wheel witness). That was not true as she stated on video that she did not know if he was driving the bike at all and only saw it as it went airborne. Furthermore, the officer was actually asking the defendant to perform roadside tests at the hospital with giant gashes on his head. The State analyzed the case after our discussions about the above issues and many others. They then Dismissed the Case.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jul 13, 2023	Case: 22-002551MU10A	Judge Francois
Facts:	The defendant was first observed seated in his car outside of his residence. The officers initially made contact with him in an effort to serve a restraining order. After making contact with the defendant the officers observed a bottle of Jack Daniels that was almost empty. In addition, they observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and extremely slurred speech. The two officers on scene then called for a DUI task force officer. During the DUI investigation the defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, as well as the one leg stand exercises. The defendant performed poorly on all of the exercises. The entire investigation was captured on video. He was arrested and refused to submit to a breath test. This was his second DUI.
Defense:	Parks and Braxton took depositions of the officers involved in the investigation. The officers were unable to explain why the defendant was sitting in his parked car outside of his residence. Given the fact that they were there to serve a restraining order each witness agreed that it was reasonable to assume he was trying to avoid conflict with his wife who was inside. As a result, Parks & Braxton was able to demonstrate a necessity defense. The necessity defense means that despite the fact that the defendant was impaired inside the vehicle, he was doing so to in order to avoid a more dangerous situation inside the residence with his wife. The state agreed and dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 13, 2023	Case: 22-002551MU10A	Judge Francois
Facts:	The defendant was first observed seated in his car outside of his residence. The officers initially made contact with him in an effort to serve a restraining order. After making contact with the defendant the officers observed a bottle of Jack Daniels that was almost empty. In addition, they observed a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and extremely slurred speech. The two officers on scene then called for a DUI task force officer. During the DUI investigation the defendant performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, as well as the one leg stand exercises. The defendant performed poorly on all of the exercises. The entire investigation was captured on video. He was arrested and refused to submit to a breath test. This was his second DUI.
Defense:	Parks and Braxton took depositions of the officers involved in the investigation. The officers were unable to explain why the defendant was sitting in his parked car outside of his residence. Given the fact that they were there to serve a restraining order each witness agreed that it was reasonable to assume he was trying to avoid conflict with his wife who was inside. As a result, Parks & Braxton was able to demonstrate a necessity defense. The necessity defense means that despite the fact that the defendant was impaired inside the vehicle, he was doing so to in order to avoid a more dangerous situation inside the residence with his wife. The state agreed and dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AGOUW4E	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and he admitted to having drank beer. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance at all. There was also a lack of probable cause to arrest based on a lack of impairment.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AFWDCWE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	Officers were dispatched to a person down call. Call notes showed people were knocking on the windows to wake up the driver (i.e. the defendant). When the officer arrived, he saw two individuals standing outside the driver's window and were flagging him down. The defendant then pulled away almost striking the officer's vehicle. The officer then observed the defendant driving over the white dash marks. A traffic stop was conducted. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, a flushed face, and his pupils were constricted. He also had a blank stare. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. In addition, none of the alleged driving pattern was captured on tape. In addition, on tape, he stepped out of the car normally, walked normally, talked normally, and appeared totally responsive and coherent. The prosecutor reviewed the tape after our discussions and they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AGOUWEE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his running vehicle at an intersection. Paramedics were on scene as well to assist. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, he admitted to having drank hard seltzers, and he had difficulty answering questions. He had bloodshot eyes, appeared drowsy, and his face was flushed. He performed poorly on roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, incorrectly turned, and stopped walking to regain balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and failed to count as instructed. He was then arrested for DUI later blew a .122 and .117 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AFWDCWE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	Officers were dispatched to a person down call. Call notes showed people were knocking on the windows to wake up the driver (i.e. the defendant). When the officer arrived, he saw two individuals standing outside the driver's window and were flagging him down. The defendant then pulled away almost striking the officer's vehicle. The officer then observed the defendant driving over the white dash marks. A traffic stop was conducted. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, a flushed face, and his pupils were constricted. He also had a blank stare. He refused to perform any roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI arrest.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. In addition, none of the alleged driving pattern was captured on tape. In addition, on tape, he stepped out of the car normally, walked normally, talked normally, and appeared totally responsive and coherent. The prosecutor reviewed the tape after our discussions and they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AGOUW4E	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and he admitted to having drank beer. He refused to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform field sobriety tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer never advised the defendant of any consequences. In addition, on tape, the defendant's speech was not slurred and he was not off balance at all. There was also a lack of probable cause to arrest based on a lack of impairment.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 11, 2023	Case: AGOUWEE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was found passed out in his running vehicle at an intersection. Paramedics were on scene as well to assist. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol, he admitted to having drank hard seltzers, and he had difficulty answering questions. He had bloodshot eyes, appeared drowsy, and his face was flushed. He performed poorly on roadside tests. For example, on the walk and turn, he missed heel to toe, incorrectly turned, and stopped walking to regain balance. On the one leg stand, he put his foot down and failed to count as instructed. He was then arrested for DUI later blew a .122 and .117 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After several negotiations with the prosecutor regarding the evidence and the defendant, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 23-CT-500938	Judge Gill
Facts:	Officers were called out due to an alleged traffic crash. The defendant's car was found resting over a parking curb stuck in place. Officers noticed the defendant to have thick tongue/slurred speech, he appeared sleepy, and he also looked clumsy. He was also observed to stumble, almost fall, sway, and stagger. The defendant told police he was on his way to drive to Kentucky. A bottle of vodka was found in the car next to the driver's seat. He refused to do any roadside tests and also refused to take a breath test. This was Not the defendant's first DUI arrest.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences for refusing. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not follow the law and there were no consequences given. Thus, the refusal to do roadside tests would have been excluded. In addition, under Florida Statute 316.1932(1), a breath test can only be requested after one is arrested for DUI, not before. Here, the officer requested a breath test prior to arrest. Thus, the refusal to provide a breath test would have been excluded as well. In addition, in order for the State to prove a DUI under Florida Statute 316.193, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol and/or a specific controlled or chemical substance. One cannot just be impaired by "something" like a bad banana. Here, there was no odor of alcohol detected and the defendant made no statements about taking any drugs. Based on the totality of problems the firm presented to the State about the weaknesses in their case, with everything above being captured on video, they agreed and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 23-CT-015363	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred/slow speech, and gassy/watery eyes. He was slow to exit the car, stumbled out, and walked slowly after dropping his phone. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .165 and .165 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After negotiating with the State about the case, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 22-CT-057550	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was traveling 95 mph in a 45 mph zone. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongue/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He stumbled while exiting the car and swayed while he stood. The defendant then performed poorly on the HGN (eye test) and after beginning the walk turn, he refused to continue and was then arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiating with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 22-CT-041799	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was traveling 70 mph in a 35 mph zone. He was also weaving on video tape back and forth. Officers observed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he was sweating. He swayed while he stood and walked slowly. He then performed the walk and turn, one leg stand, and HGN (eye test) exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After conversations with the State, we pointed out that many observations describing the defendant's roadside tests were over exaggerated and contradicted by the videotape. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 23-CT-500938	Judge Gill
Facts:	Officers were called out due to an alleged traffic crash. The defendant's car was found resting over a parking curb stuck in place. Officers noticed the defendant to have thick tongue/slurred speech, he appeared sleepy, and he also looked clumsy. He was also observed to stumble, almost fall, sway, and stagger. The defendant told police he was on his way to drive to Kentucky. A bottle of vodka was found in the car next to the driver's seat. He refused to do any roadside tests and also refused to take a breath test. This was Not the defendant's first DUI arrest.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, they must be warned of the adverse consequences for refusing. If not, the refusal will be excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not follow the law and there were no consequences given. Thus, the refusal to do roadside tests would have been excluded. In addition, under Florida Statute 316.1932(1), a breath test can only be requested after one is arrested for DUI, not before. Here, the officer requested a breath test prior to arrest. Thus, the refusal to provide a breath test would have been excluded as well. In addition, in order for the State to prove a DUI under Florida Statute 316.193, a defendant must be impaired by alcohol and/or a specific controlled or chemical substance. One cannot just be impaired by "something" like a bad banana. Here, there was no odor of alcohol detected and the defendant made no statements about taking any drugs. Based on the totality of problems the firm presented to the State about the weaknesses in their case, with everything above being captured on video, they agreed and the DUI was Dismissed.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 23-CT-015363	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred/slow speech, and gassy/watery eyes. He was slow to exit the car, stumbled out, and walked slowly after dropping his phone. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .165 and .165 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After negotiating with the State about the case, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Jul 7, 2023	Case: 22-CT-057550	Judge Garagozlo
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding as he was traveling 95 mph in a 45 mph zone. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, thick tongue/slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He stumbled while exiting the car and swayed while he stood. The defendant then performed poorly on the HGN (eye test) and after beginning the walk turn, he refused to continue and was then arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	After negotiating with the State about the evidence and the defendant, the State agreed to Drop the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.