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.
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.
Another argument that your lawyer could make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. The actual process that should be implemented varies by state and at times by the individual police section. Some basic examples of appropriate protocol include waiting to administer the breath analyzer to ensure that residual alcohol does not impact the results or keeping the area in which the test is given free of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cell phone can cause radio frequency interference and render the outcomes of a breath test undependable.
If the arresting officer failed to get the subject's authorization before taking the test, a DUI attorney can make a discussion from it. Law enforcement officials should not forget to tell the drivers they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a driver to take the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she does not have the test may be violating due process. In this situation, the judge might not accept the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state there was no probable cause for the police officer to stop the offender. The United States Supreme Court case law does not permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they notice a probable cause that the motorist is breaking a law. This means that any reasonable person would believe that the person behind the wheel or the passengers are breaking legislation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This could include things like the results of a breath test. It is the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there was no probable cause so the judge can leave out the test results in 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.
Another argument that your lawyer could make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. The actual process that should be implemented varies by state and at times by the individual police section. Some basic examples of appropriate protocol include waiting to administer the breath analyzer to ensure that residual alcohol does not impact the results or keeping the area in which the test is given free of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cell phone can cause radio frequency interference and render the outcomes of a breath test undependable.
If the arresting officer failed to get the subject's authorization before taking the test, a DUI attorney can make a discussion from it. Law enforcement officials should not forget to tell the drivers they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a driver to take the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she does not have the test may be violating due process. In this situation, the judge might not accept the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state there was no probable cause for the police officer to stop the offender. The United States Supreme Court case law does not permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they notice a probable cause that the motorist is breaking a law. This means that any reasonable person would believe that the person behind the wheel or the passengers are breaking legislation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This could include things like the results of a breath test. It is the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there was no probable cause so the judge can leave out the test results in 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