If you have been arrested for and charged with driving while intoxicated, you might be concerned with the result of your case. Maybe you did not pass the breathalyzer test. It might seem that this proof assures that you'll be discovered responsible should you go to trial, yet this doesn't need to be the case. DUI attorneys can make a number of arguments to have the proof inadmissible or to make it look much less potent.
Your attorney can say that you've got a pre-existing problem which will make breathalyzer results erroneous. A breath analyzer test makes use of the individual's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components it can't filter out, leading to a positive result. Disorders like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease can lead to inaccurate outcomes.
If the police officer did not stick with protocols in the breathalyzer test, your attorney can create an argument from it. The actual process that must be adopted varies by state and occasionally by the individual police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and waiting for the appropriate time to give the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference can be caused by a cellular phone, leading to undependable results.
The DUI lawyer can also argue if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must not forget to tell the motorists that they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a person to take the test or tells the person that penalties are going to be nastier if he or she doesn't have the test might be violating due process. In this case, the judge may not acknowledge the results of the breathalyzer test as an evidence during trial.
A DUI attorney could also claim that the police officer did not have any probable cause to let the defendant pull over. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, police officers cannot halt a car unless they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a reasonable individual would believe that the people inside the automobile are committing a violation. Without having probable cause, evidence obtained will become invalid. The outcomes of the breath test are involved in these evidences. If your lawyer could efficiently persuade the court that no probable cause was there to pull you over, the judge will exclude the outcomes of the breathalyzer examination from court trial.
Your attorney can say that you've got a pre-existing problem which will make breathalyzer results erroneous. A breath analyzer test makes use of the individual's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components it can't filter out, leading to a positive result. Disorders like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease can lead to inaccurate outcomes.
If the police officer did not stick with protocols in the breathalyzer test, your attorney can create an argument from it. The actual process that must be adopted varies by state and occasionally by the individual police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and waiting for the appropriate time to give the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference can be caused by a cellular phone, leading to undependable results.
The DUI lawyer can also argue if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must not forget to tell the motorists that they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a person to take the test or tells the person that penalties are going to be nastier if he or she doesn't have the test might be violating due process. In this case, the judge may not acknowledge the results of the breathalyzer test as an evidence during trial.
A DUI attorney could also claim that the police officer did not have any probable cause to let the defendant pull over. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, police officers cannot halt a car unless they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a reasonable individual would believe that the people inside the automobile are committing a violation. Without having probable cause, evidence obtained will become invalid. The outcomes of the breath test are involved in these evidences. If your lawyer could efficiently persuade the court that no probable cause was there to pull you over, the judge will exclude the outcomes of the breathalyzer examination from court trial.
About the Author:
Check out this DUI attorney in Orlando and see why a good DUI lawyer is vital for your DUI arrest.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire