If you've been arrested for and arraigned with driving while intoxicated, you could be concerned about the final result of your case. Maybe a breathalyzer test revealed that you are indeed drunk. It may seem that this evidence assures that you will be discovered guilty should you head to trial, yet it doesn't need to be the case. DUI lawyers know what justifications could make evidence less compelling or perhaps make it unacceptable.
One argument your lawyer could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test calculates alcohol concentration in your breath, but this test isn't always flawless. It might not have the ability to remove other components that can test positive during a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux could 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.
A third justification that a DUI lawyer could use to argue that the end results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't truly obtain the subject's consent before he got the test. Police officers must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they can say no to the breathalyzer test. If the officer claims that the breath test is mandatory or states that the driver will have heavier charges should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the judge might not include it as an evidence during trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during trial.
One argument your lawyer could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test calculates alcohol concentration in your breath, but this test isn't always flawless. It might not have the ability to remove other components that can test positive during a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux could 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.
A third justification that a DUI lawyer could use to argue that the end results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't truly obtain the subject's consent before he got the test. Police officers must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they can say no to the breathalyzer test. If the officer claims that the breath test is mandatory or states that the driver will have heavier charges should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the judge might not include it as an evidence during trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during trial.
About the Author:
Get this Orlando DUI attorney to help you out because this DUI lawyer in Orlando is here to help.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire