Being arrested for DUI could make you worry about the result of your case. Maybe a breath analyzer test indicated that you are indeed intoxicated. Persons feel that failing the breath analyzer test will demonstrate that they're guilty, yet this does not happen always. DUI attorneys could make several arguments to have the proof inadmissible or to make it look much less potent.
One argument your attorney can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a preexisting condition that you've got. A breathalyzer exam calculates alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam is not always perfect. Some substances cannot be filtered out by the examination, thereby giving a false positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux could all alter the outcomes of a breathalyzer and make it erroneous.
One more argument your attorney could make is when the police officer did not abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. Standards vary for each state and even per police division. Some examples of these protocols are giving the breathalyzer test in an area clear of radio frequency and awaiting the appropriate time to give the examination so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in questionable results.
A third justification that a DUI attorney can use to debate that the end results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's permission just before he got the test. Authorities must explain to individuals who are stopped for driving while intoxicated that they could decline to take the breathalyzer test. A police officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she doesn't have the examination could be breaking due process. In this situation, the judge might not recognize the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to say that there was no probable cause for the official to stop the accused. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a vehicle except if they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a sensible person would need to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of legislation. If there was no probable cause to halt the automobile, any kind of proof obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. It could involve the results of a breath test. It's the attorney who is going to convince the judge that there wasn't any probable cause so the judge could leave out the examination results in trial.
One argument your attorney can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a preexisting condition that you've got. A breathalyzer exam calculates alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam is not always perfect. Some substances cannot be filtered out by the examination, thereby giving a false positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux could all alter the outcomes of a breathalyzer and make it erroneous.
One more argument your attorney could make is when the police officer did not abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. Standards vary for each state and even per police division. Some examples of these protocols are giving the breathalyzer test in an area clear of radio frequency and awaiting the appropriate time to give the examination so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in questionable results.
A third justification that a DUI attorney can use to debate that the end results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's permission just before he got the test. Authorities must explain to individuals who are stopped for driving while intoxicated that they could decline to take the breathalyzer test. A police officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she doesn't have the examination could be breaking due process. In this situation, the judge might not recognize the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to say that there was no probable cause for the official to stop the accused. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a vehicle except if they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a sensible person would need to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of legislation. If there was no probable cause to halt the automobile, any kind of proof obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. It could involve the results of a breath test. It's the attorney who is going to convince the judge that there wasn't any probable cause so the judge could leave out the examination results in trial.
About the Author:
Getting the best DUI lawyers in your area can help your case. To find a good DUI attorney you should check out our site.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire