If you have been busted for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you could be concerned with the outcome of your case. Maybe you got a breathalyzer test and was found to be over the permissible limit. It may seem that this evidence guarantees that you will be found responsible if you go to trial, but this doesn't need to be the case. DUI lawyers know what arguments could make evidence much less persuasive or even make it unacceptable.
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.
Another discussion your attorney can make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols in the breath analyzer test. States and even police departments stick to different protocols. A few examples of these guidelines are conducting the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and awaiting the right time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in 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 that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during 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.
Another discussion your attorney can make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols in the breath analyzer test. States and even police departments stick to different protocols. A few examples of these guidelines are conducting the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and awaiting the right time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in 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 that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during trial.
About the Author:
As you get a DUI arrest you need to look up this DUI attorney in Orlando. Having the best Orlando DUI lawyer can help you out.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire