If you have been busted for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you might be worried about the outcome of your case. Perhaps a breath analyzer test revealed that you're indeed intoxicated. Most people think that the result of the test will demonstrate your guilt once on trial, but this is not the case all of the time. There are many arguments a DUI lawyer can make to get the evidence excluded or at least make it seem less convincing.
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 could also debate if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the driver prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must explain to individuals who're stopped for drunk driving that they could decline to have the breath test. If the policeman states that the breath test is mandatory or says that the motorist will have heavier penalties should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the court may not include it as an evidence during 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 could also debate if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the driver prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must explain to individuals who're stopped for drunk driving that they could decline to have the breath test. If the policeman states that the breath test is mandatory or says that the motorist will have heavier penalties should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the court may not include it as an evidence during 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