If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you could be concerned about the result of your case. Perhaps a breathalyzer test revealed that you're indeed drunk. You might think that this data guarantees that you will be found guilty should you go to trial, yet this doesn't have to be the situation. There are many justifications a DUI attorney can make to get the evidence excluded or at the very least make it seem much less persuasive.
One argument your attorney can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a preexisting condition that you've got. A breathalyzer exam calculates alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam is not always perfect. Some substances cannot be filtered out by the examination, thereby giving a false positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux could all alter the outcomes of a breathalyzer and make it erroneous.
If the officer didn't adhere to protocols in the breath analyzer test, your lawyer could create a discussion from it. Protocols vary for each state and even for every police department. A few examples of these methods are giving the breathalyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and awaiting the right time to administer the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the outcomes. Even a mobile phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes not reliable.
A third justification that a DUI attorney can use to debate that the end results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's permission just before he got the test. Authorities must explain to individuals who are stopped for driving while intoxicated that they could decline to take the breathalyzer test. A police officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she doesn't have the examination could be breaking due process. In this situation, the judge might not recognize the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to say that there was no probable cause for the official to stop the accused. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a vehicle except if they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a sensible person would need to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of legislation. If there was no probable cause to halt the automobile, any kind of proof obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. It could involve the results of a breath test. It's the attorney who is going to convince the judge that there wasn't any probable cause so the judge could leave out the examination results in trial.
One argument your attorney can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a preexisting condition that you've got. A breathalyzer exam calculates alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam is not always perfect. Some substances cannot be filtered out by the examination, thereby giving a false positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux could all alter the outcomes of a breathalyzer and make it erroneous.
If the officer didn't adhere to protocols in the breath analyzer test, your lawyer could create a discussion from it. Protocols vary for each state and even for every police department. A few examples of these methods are giving the breathalyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and awaiting the right time to administer the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the outcomes. Even a mobile phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes not reliable.
A third justification that a DUI attorney can use to debate that the end results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's permission just before he got the test. Authorities must explain to individuals who are stopped for driving while intoxicated that they could decline to take the breathalyzer test. A police officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she doesn't have the examination could be breaking due process. In this situation, the judge might not recognize the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to say that there was no probable cause for the official to stop the accused. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a vehicle except if they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a sensible person would need to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of legislation. If there was no probable cause to halt the automobile, any kind of proof obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. It could involve the results of a breath test. It's the attorney who is going to convince the judge that there wasn't any probable cause so the judge could leave out the examination results in trial.
About the Author:
Check out how this DUI lawyer can help you in your case. To learn more about the DUI lawyer definition and what it can do for you, check us out.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire