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 argument your attorney can make is the outcomes of the breath analyzer were skewed due to a preexisting condition that you've got. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the capacity to get rid of other substances that can test positive in a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise results.
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 could also debate if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the driver prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must explain to individuals who're stopped for drunk driving that they could decline to have the breath test. If the policeman states that the breath test is mandatory or says that the motorist will have heavier penalties should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the court may not include it as an evidence during trial.
It's also possible for the lawyer to state there was no probable cause for the officer to stop the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law doesn't permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they see a probable cause that the driver is breaking a law. It means that a sensible individual would have to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of a law. Without having probable cause, proof obtained can become unacceptable. It could include the results of a breathalyzer test. It's the attorney who will convince the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge can leave out the examination results in trial.
One argument your attorney can make is the outcomes of the breath analyzer were skewed due to a preexisting condition that you've got. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the capacity to get rid of other substances that can test positive in a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise results.
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 could also debate if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the driver prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must explain to individuals who're stopped for drunk driving that they could decline to have the breath test. If the policeman states that the breath test is mandatory or says that the motorist will have heavier penalties should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the court may not include it as an evidence during trial.
It's also possible for the lawyer to state there was no probable cause for the officer to stop the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law doesn't permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they see a probable cause that the driver is breaking a law. It means that a sensible individual would have to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of a law. Without having probable cause, proof obtained can become unacceptable. It could include the results of a breathalyzer test. It's the attorney who will convince the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge can leave out the examination results in trial.
About the Author:
Looking to find DUI lawyers Orlando you need to check out these DUI lawyers for you.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire