If you have been arrested for and charged with driving while intoxicated, you might be concerned with the result of your case. Maybe you did not pass the breathalyzer test. It might seem that this proof assures that you'll be discovered responsible should you go to trial, yet this doesn't need to be the case. DUI attorneys can make a number of arguments to have the proof inadmissible or to make it look much less potent.
One argument your attorney could make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing condition that you have. A breath analyzer test makes use of the person's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This particular test isn't always accurate. A number of components cannot be filtered out by the test, thus providing a false positive result. Diabetes, acid reflux, and ketosis are just some of the ailments that could have an impact on the outcomes of the breath analyzer test and make it inaccurate.
If the police officer did not stick with protocols in the breathalyzer test, your attorney can create an argument from it. The actual process that must be adopted varies by state and occasionally by the individual police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and waiting for the appropriate time to give the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference can be caused by a cellular phone, leading to undependable results.
If the arresting officer failed to get the subject's authorization before taking the test, a DUI attorney can make a discussion from it. Law enforcement officials should not forget to tell the drivers they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a driver to take the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she does not have the test may be violating due process. In this situation, the judge might not accept the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state there was no probable cause for the police officer to stop the offender. The United States Supreme Court case law does not permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they notice a probable cause that the motorist is breaking a law. This means that any reasonable person would believe that the person behind the wheel or the passengers are breaking legislation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This could include things like the results of a breath test. It is the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there was no probable cause so the judge can leave out the test results in trial.
One argument your attorney could make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing condition that you have. A breath analyzer test makes use of the person's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This particular test isn't always accurate. A number of components cannot be filtered out by the test, thus providing a false positive result. Diabetes, acid reflux, and ketosis are just some of the ailments that could have an impact on the outcomes of the breath analyzer test and make it inaccurate.
If the police officer did not stick with protocols in the breathalyzer test, your attorney can create an argument from it. The actual process that must be adopted varies by state and occasionally by the individual police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and waiting for the appropriate time to give the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference can be caused by a cellular phone, leading to undependable results.
If the arresting officer failed to get the subject's authorization before taking the test, a DUI attorney can make a discussion from it. Law enforcement officials should not forget to tell the drivers they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a driver to take the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she does not have the test may be violating due process. In this situation, the judge might not accept the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state there was no probable cause for the police officer to stop the offender. The United States Supreme Court case law does not permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they notice a probable cause that the motorist is breaking a law. This means that any reasonable person would believe that the person behind the wheel or the passengers are breaking legislation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This could include things like the results of a breath test. It is the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there was no probable cause so the judge can leave out the test results in trial.
About the Author:
Check out this DUI attorney in Orlando and see why a good DUI lawyer is vital for your DUI arrest.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire