If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you may be concerned about the result of your case. Perhaps a breathalyzer test indicated that you're indeed intoxicated. You might think that this proof will guarantee that you'll be discovered guilty if you go to trial, but this doesn't have to be the situation. DUI lawyers know very well what arguments could make evidence less compelling or even make it invalid.
One argument your attorney can make is the outcomes of the breath analyzer were skewed due to a preexisting condition that you've got. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the capacity to get rid of other substances that can test positive in a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise results.
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.
A third basis that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's approval just before he took the test. Law enforcement officials shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. If a law enforcement officer shows that the breath test is necessary or demonstrates that the detained subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this could be a due process violation and a judge can opt to leave out the 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 argument your attorney can make is the outcomes of the breath analyzer were skewed due to a preexisting condition that you've got. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the capacity to get rid of other substances that can test positive in a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise results.
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.
A third basis that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's approval just before he took the test. Law enforcement officials shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. If a law enforcement officer shows that the breath test is necessary or demonstrates that the detained subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this could be a due process violation and a judge can opt to leave out the 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:
Learn more about DUI lawyers in Orlando. Stop by Bob Parler's YouTube channel to see how the best Orlando DUI lawyers can help you in your time of need.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire