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.
Another discussion your lawyer could make is when the policeman didn't adhere to protocols during the breathalyzer test. Protocols differ per state and even for every police department. Some typical samples of proper protocol include patiently waiting to administer the breathalyzer so that residual alcohol doesn't affect the outcomes or keeping the place where the test is administered free from radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency interference can be induced by a cell phone, resulting in unreliable results.
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 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.
Another discussion your lawyer could make is when the policeman didn't adhere to protocols during the breathalyzer test. Protocols differ per state and even for every police department. Some typical samples of proper protocol include patiently waiting to administer the breathalyzer so that residual alcohol doesn't affect the outcomes or keeping the place where the test is administered free from radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency interference can be induced by a cell phone, resulting in unreliable results.
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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire