Mar 7, 2023	Case: 22-007592MU10A	Judge Levy
Facts:	The defendant was attempting to leave a parking lot and subsequently struck two vehicles. The crash was witnessed by three officers who were working a detail at a bar. The officers ran towards the defendant and noticed that she was attempting to leave the scene. They immediately stopped the vehicle and made contact with the driver. The lead investigator asked her why she was attempting to leave the scene of a crash. The driver stated that she was not involved in an accident. The officers all observed an extremely strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes as well as slurred speech. They asked the defendant to exit the vehicle, but she was unable to stand on her own and was placed back into the car. One of the officers located the owners of the two vehicles that were struck in the accident and brought them to the crash scene. In court, one of the owners stated that the defendant was extremely uncooperative and could not stand on her own. The defendant was eventually asked to perform field sobriety tests to which she refused. She stated that she was not in an accident and not "drunk." She was subsequently asked to provide a breath test and was arrested for DUI. The defendant blew a .168 at the police station and subsequently refused to provide a second sample of her breath.
Defense:	In order to request a breath test a person must first be placed under lawful arrest for DUI. In this case, Parks & Braxton filed a motion to exclude the breath test and subsequent refusal based on the fact that the request for a breath test was made before the arrest for DUI. In court the officer testified that while his initial request for a breath sample was prior to arrest, he stated that he asked for a breath test again after the defendant was placed under arrest. On cross-examination the officer admitted that he did not actually request a breath test a second time after arrest. Rather, the officer admitted that the defendant stated in the car that she was willing to do whatever it took to go home. He then testified that he drove her straight to the police station to acquire a sample of her breath. Parks & Braxton successfully argued that by his actions the officer led the defendant to believe that she would go home if she provided a breath test. In addition, the officer failed to read Miranda warnings during the initial stages of the investigation. The Court granted the motion to suppress and excluded any evidence regarding a breath test, a refusal to submit to testing as well as any and all statements made by the defendant. The State Attorney dismissed the case.
Result:	The DUI was dismissed.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PV5E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The police were called to a parking garage as the defendant and his passengers were causing a disturbance. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, droopy eyelids, and mumbled speech. He had mood changes and swayed while he stood. After performing several roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI and later blew a .087 and .081 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Issues were raised about the lawfulness of the initial detaining of the defendant. Also, due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place both breath samples below the legal limit of .08.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PUFE	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, making sudden lane changes, and driving in an overall aggressive manner. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and he swayed while he stood. He then performed various roadside tests such as the estimation 30 seconds (Romberg balance), one leg stand, and walk and turn. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Many observations on the field sobriety tests were contradicted by the videotape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PT3E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed a strong odor of marijuana, his mouth was extremely dry, and he had noticeable body tremors. He had mumbled speech, swayed, and had vomit on himself. He then performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a urine test.
Defense:	The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests was contradicted by the police reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PXVE	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, weaving, and failing to move over for an emergency vehicle. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/puffy eyes, and he was wearing three different bar wristbands. He appeared unsteady and denied having anything to drink. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .101 and .099 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to the .02 margin of error the breath machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit of .08.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PT3E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed a strong odor of marijuana, his mouth was extremely dry, and he had noticeable body tremors. He had mumbled speech, swayed, and had vomit on himself. He then performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a urine test.
Defense:	The defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests was contradicted by the police reports.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PV5E	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The police were called to a parking garage as the defendant and his passengers were causing a disturbance. Officers noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, droopy eyelids, and mumbled speech. He had mood changes and swayed while he stood. After performing several roadside tests, he was arrested for DUI and later blew a .087 and .081 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Issues were raised about the lawfulness of the initial detaining of the defendant. Also, due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to place both breath samples below the legal limit of .08.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PXVE	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, weaving, and failing to move over for an emergency vehicle. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, red/puffy eyes, and he was wearing three different bar wristbands. He appeared unsteady and denied having anything to drink. He performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .101 and .099 in the breath machine.
Defense:	Due to the .02 margin of error the breath machine, the firm was able to place one of the defendant's breath test results under the legal limit of .08.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Mar 2, 2023	Case: AG5PUFE	Judge Komninos
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding, making sudden lane changes, and driving in an overall aggressive manner. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and he swayed while he stood. He then performed various roadside tests such as the estimation 30 seconds (Romberg balance), one leg stand, and walk and turn. He was subsequently arrested for DUI and later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Many observations on the field sobriety tests were contradicted by the videotape.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-501432	Judge Gill
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his coordination was slow. The car smelled like an alcoholic beverage had spilled. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Based on the video tape evidence as pointed out to the prosecutor, it appeared that none of defendant's normal faculties were impaired. Thus, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The State Dropped the DUI just before trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-010438	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and a blank/dazed stare. He also had slurred speech, a lethargic appearance, and poor balance. He performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew .177 and .158 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The defendant performed very well on the roadside tests on video tape. This clearly showed that the defendant was absorbing alcohol when he blew into the machine and his breath alcohol content was lower at the time of driving. After several conversations with the State, they Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-014293	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he admitted to having drank 5 beers, and had droopy eyelids. His speech was slurred and he appeared unsteady. He then performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .198 and .197 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After several conversations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-006654	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights at night. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he was lethargic in his movements. He had a wristband on from a nightclub. According to the officer's reports, he performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The officer's reports were contradicted by the videotape as to his performance on the roadside tests and all the other written observations. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-501419	Judge Gill
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after an officer observed him exiting a parking lot without stopping before crossing the sidewalk. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The officer observed the defendant sway and stumble to catch his balance. According to the officer, he performed poorly on roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one legs stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	There was no video in the case. The officer’s reports were vague and without specific details describing the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. Just before trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: A9CCOLE	Judge Lawhorne
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and poor dexterity. The defendant stated he had consumed a couple of White Claws and also had a wristband form a club. He then performed various roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .173 and .165 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The officer misled the defendant into taking a breath test. The officer told the defendant that he could get a hardship permit if he blew, but none if he refused. That is a misstatement of the law as one can obtain a hardship if they refuse the breath test as well. The officer went beyond the realm of the implied consent law and coerced the defendant into taking a breath test. Knowing that the breath test would be excluded from evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-008745	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant crashed her car by driving through barricades and then crashing into a center median. When officers arrived, they noticed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and she appeared unsteady on her feet. She refused to perform any field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. She later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Between the video and written reports, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest her for DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-014293	Judge Rich
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, he admitted to having drank 5 beers, and had droopy eyelids. His speech was slurred and he appeared unsteady. He then performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later blew a .198 and .197 in the breath machine.
Defense:	After several conversations with the State regarding the defendant and the evidence, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-006654	Judge Gutman
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with no lights at night. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and he was lethargic in his movements. He had a wristband on from a nightclub. According to the officer's reports, he performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	The officer's reports were contradicted by the videotape as to his performance on the roadside tests and all the other written observations. The State agreed and Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-501432	Judge Gill
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and his coordination was slow. The car smelled like an alcoholic beverage had spilled. He refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. He later refused a breath test.
Defense:	Based on the video tape evidence as pointed out to the prosecutor, it appeared that none of defendant's normal faculties were impaired. Thus, there was a lack of probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The State Dropped the DUI just before trial.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Feb 28, 2023	Case: 22-CT-501419	Judge Gill
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after an officer observed him exiting a parking lot without stopping before crossing the sidewalk. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The officer observed the defendant sway and stumble to catch his balance. According to the officer, he performed poorly on roadside tests such as the walk and turn and one legs stand. He was then arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	There was no video in the case. The officer’s reports were vague and without specific details describing the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. Just before trial, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.