Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense

ALSO SERVING MARTIN, ST. LUCIE & INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
Free Consultations
ALSO SERVING MARTIN, ST. LUCIE & INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES
Local
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
Free Consultations

CRIMINAL CASE RESULTS

OUR RECENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE VICTORIES

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 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 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 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 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 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.

OBTAIN  IMMEDIATE LEGAL HELP

To save your license, you must act within 10 days. Get in touch with our firm by calling 561.948.0880, or fill out the form here.