If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you might be concerned with the result of your case. Maybe a breath analyzer test demonstrated that you are indeed drunk. Persons feel that failing the breathalyzer test will demonstrate that they're guilty, but this does not happen always. DUI lawyers can make several arguments to have the proof inadmissible or to make it seem much less forceful.
One argument your lawyer can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test measures alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam isn't always flawless. It may not have the ability to get rid of other substances that may test positive during a breath analyzer test. Diabetes, a dietary ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease could all affect the results of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your attorney can also argue that the police officer who administered a breathalyzer did not follow standard protocol. States and even police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that must be followed include administering the exam at the correct time so results will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing area is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Even a mobile phone can already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes unreliable.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer did not comply with protocol. States and even police departments adhere to different protocols. Some typical examples of proper protocol include patiently waiting to execute the breath analyzer test to ensure that residual alcohol doesn't alter the outcomes or keeping the location in which the test is administered clear of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cellular phone could cause radio frequency interference and render the results of a breathalyzer test undependable.
A relevant argument that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer didn't have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. The United States Supreme Court case law only permits law enforcement officials to halt a motor vehicle when there is probable cause. This means that any sensible individual would be convinced that the individual driving or the passengers are breaking legislation. If there was no probable cause to halt the motor vehicle, any kind of proof extracted from that stop would be inadmissible. The results of the breath test are involved in these proofs. If the attorney can persuade the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the outcomes of the examination won't be used in trial.
One argument your lawyer can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test measures alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam isn't always flawless. It may not have the ability to get rid of other substances that may test positive during a breath analyzer test. Diabetes, a dietary ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease could all affect the results of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your attorney can also argue that the police officer who administered a breathalyzer did not follow standard protocol. States and even police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that must be followed include administering the exam at the correct time so results will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing area is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Even a mobile phone can already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes unreliable.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer did not comply with protocol. States and even police departments adhere to different protocols. Some typical examples of proper protocol include patiently waiting to execute the breath analyzer test to ensure that residual alcohol doesn't alter the outcomes or keeping the location in which the test is administered clear of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cellular phone could cause radio frequency interference and render the results of a breathalyzer test undependable.
A relevant argument that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer didn't have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. The United States Supreme Court case law only permits law enforcement officials to halt a motor vehicle when there is probable cause. This means that any sensible individual would be convinced that the individual driving or the passengers are breaking legislation. If there was no probable cause to halt the motor vehicle, any kind of proof extracted from that stop would be inadmissible. The results of the breath test are involved in these proofs. If the attorney can persuade the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the outcomes of the examination won't be used in trial.
About the Author:
You can get more info on this DUI lawyer in Orlando and see how this Orlando DUI attorney can help you with your case.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire