Oct 28, 2020	Case: 19-CT-012953	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, fumbling fingers, and slurred speech. She had difficulty following instructions and leaned on the car for balance. Roadside tests were stopped for safety concerns, due to her level of intoxication. She was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The firm was able to show that the defendant never actually refused to give a breath test and it was due to the machine. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 19-CT-013373	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant ran a red light and ended up in an embankment. When officers and fire rescue arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and a sway while he stood. He was asked to perform roadside tests but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, the officer must advise of the adverse consequences for refusing. or the refusal is excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give any adverse consequences and immediately arrested the Defendant. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000597	Judge Nicola
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for driving with his high beams on. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a flushed face. He also admitted to having drank 3 beers. He then performed various field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	The officer's reports exaggerated all the alleged indicators of impairment prior to and during the roadside tests. This was brought to the State's attention by the firm and they Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI and he received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 19-CT-012953	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, fumbling fingers, and slurred speech. She had difficulty following instructions and leaned on the car for balance. Roadside tests were stopped for safety concerns, due to her level of intoxication. She was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The firm was able to show that the defendant never actually refused to give a breath test and it was due to the machine. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 28, 2020	Case: 19-CT-013373	Judge Myers
Facts:	The defendant ran a red light and ended up in an embankment. When officers and fire rescue arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, thick tongued speech, and a sway while he stood. He was asked to perform roadside tests but he refused. He was then arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	When a defendant refuses to perform roadside tests, the officer must advise of the adverse consequences for refusing. or the refusal is excluded from evidence. Here, the officer did not give any adverse consequences and immediately arrested the Defendant. The State Dropped the Defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000303	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after almost sideswiping an officer and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. After performing some field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	On tape, the officer kept interrupting the defendant. The firm pointed out that this is what caused the defendant's mishaps on the roadside tests, not any alcohol impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-004083	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and fumbling fingers. He also had bloodshot eyes and a blank stare. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton was able to show that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI based on all the reports and video tape. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-020145	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after a manager at a bar called police saying that the defendant was intoxicated and refused an Uber ride. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed while he stood and admitted to drinking. He was arrested for DUI after performing roadside tests. He later blew. a .129 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense:	There was no corroboration by the officer of any erratic driving pattern or intoxication based on the call. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003345	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also stated that she had drank 3 beers. After performing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew. a .097 and a .092 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm was able to take the defendant's breath results below the legal limit due to the .02 margin of error. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000309	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, dilated pupils, and watery eyes. He also was nonreactive to light and had unstable balance. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The video contradicted the officer's reports on numerous specifics on the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003375	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by police after a call went out about a reckless driver. Upon contact, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. She performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense:	When there is an anonymous call, not only must be it be specific, but officers must corroborate some type of driving pattern. Here, there was no specifics (i.e. reckless driving) and also no corroboration. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-020145	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after a manager at a bar called police saying that the defendant was intoxicated and refused an Uber ride. Once stopped, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He also swayed while he stood and admitted to drinking. He was arrested for DUI after performing roadside tests. He later blew. a .129 and a .126 in the breath machine.
Defense:	There was no corroboration by the officer of any erratic driving pattern or intoxication based on the call. Thus, the lawfulness of the traffic stop was called into question. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000309	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for running a red light. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, dilated pupils, and watery eyes. He also was nonreactive to light and had unstable balance. He performed poorly on roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	The video contradicted the officer's reports on numerous specifics on the defendant's performance on the roadside tests. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003345	Judge Farr
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer noticed her to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. She also stated that she had drank 3 beers. After performing field sobriety tests, she was arrested for DUI. She later blew. a .097 and a .092 in the breath machine.
Defense:	The firm was able to take the defendant's breath results below the legal limit due to the .02 margin of error. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-003375	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped by police after a call went out about a reckless driver. Upon contact, the officers observed an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. She performed poorly on the roadside tests such as the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand. She was then arrested for DUI and later blew a .142 and a .141 in the breath machine.
Defense:	When there is an anonymous call, not only must be it be specific, but officers must corroborate some type of driving pattern. Here, there was no specifics (i.e. reckless driving) and also no corroboration. Since the lawfulness of the stop was called into question, the State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-000303	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped after almost sideswiping an officer and weaving. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red eyes, and slurred speech. After performing some field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. He later refused the breath test.
Defense:	On tape, the officer kept interrupting the defendant. The firm pointed out that this is what caused the defendant's mishaps on the roadside tests, not any alcohol impairment. The State Dropped the DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.

Oct 27, 2020	Case: 20-CT-004083	Judge Jeske
Facts:	The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and fumbling fingers. He also had bloodshot eyes and a blank stare. He then performed the HGN (eye test), walk and turn, and one leg stand exercises. He was arrested for DUI and later refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second DUI.
Defense:	Parks & Braxton was able to show that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI based on all the reports and video tape. The State Dropped the defendant's Second DUI.
Result:	The State dropped the DUI.