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 lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
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 is also possible for the legal professional to say there wasn't any probable cause for the police officer to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law only allows law enforcement officials to stop a motor vehicle if there's probable cause. It means that a reasonable individual would believe that the individuals inside the vehicle are committing a violation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence won't be admitted. The results of the breath test are involved in these evidences. It is the lawyer who'll convince the judge there was no probable cause and so the judge can exclude the test results in trial.
One point your lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
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 is also possible for the legal professional to say there wasn't any probable cause for the police officer to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law only allows law enforcement officials to stop a motor vehicle if there's probable cause. It means that a reasonable individual would believe that the individuals inside the vehicle are committing a violation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence won't be admitted. The results of the breath test are involved in these evidences. It is the lawyer who'll convince the judge there was no probable cause and so the judge can exclude the test 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