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 point your attorney could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed because of a pre-existing medical condition that you have. Breath screening works by measuring the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, yet this kind of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the ability to filter other components that could test positive during a breathalyzer test. Conditions like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise outcomes.
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.
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 point your attorney could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed because of a pre-existing medical condition that you have. Breath screening works by measuring the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, yet this kind of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the ability to filter other components that could test positive during a breathalyzer test. Conditions like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise outcomes.
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.
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