If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you may be concerned about the result of your case. Perhaps a breathalyzer test indicated that you're indeed intoxicated. You might think that this proof will guarantee that you'll be discovered guilty if you go to trial, but this doesn't have to be the situation. DUI lawyers know very well what arguments could make evidence less compelling or even make it invalid.
One point your lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
The DUI attorney may also debate if the arresting officer did not obtain the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Police officers shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals that they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. An officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or tells the individual that charges are going to be nastier if he or she does not take the examination can be breaking due process. In this case, the judge may not accept the outcomes of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
A similar discussion that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers can't halt a car except if they have probable cause that the law is being violated. It means that any reasonable individual would be convinced that the individual behind the wheel or the passengers are violating legislation. If there wasn't any probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. This involves the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. It's the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge could leave out the examination results during trial.
One point your lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
The DUI attorney may also debate if the arresting officer did not obtain the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Police officers shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals that they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. An officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or tells the individual that charges are going to be nastier if he or she does not take the examination can be breaking due process. In this case, the judge may not accept the outcomes of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
A similar discussion that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers can't halt a car except if they have probable cause that the law is being violated. It means that any reasonable individual would be convinced that the individual behind the wheel or the passengers are violating legislation. If there wasn't any probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. This involves the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. It's the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge could leave out the examination results during trial.
About the Author:
Looking to find DUI lawyers Orlando you need to check out these DUI lawyers for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment