If you have been accused of DUI, there is a huge likelihood you are concerned about the end result of the case. Perhaps a breath analyzer test demonstrated that you are indeed drunk. Many people think that the result of the exam will confirm your guilt when on trial, yet this is not the situation all of the time. There are many arguments a DUI lawyer could make to have the evidence omitted or at the very least make it seem much less powerful.
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.
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.
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.
A similar discussion that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers can't halt a car except if they have probable cause that the law is being violated. It means that any reasonable individual would be convinced that the individual behind the wheel or the passengers are violating legislation. If there wasn't any probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. This involves the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. It's the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge could leave out the examination results during 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.
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.
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.
A similar discussion that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers can't halt a car except if they have probable cause that the law is being violated. It means that any reasonable individual would be convinced that the individual behind the wheel or the passengers are violating legislation. If there wasn't any probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. This involves the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. It's the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge could leave out the examination results during trial.
About the Author:
When you're looking for a DUI lawyer Orlando, then check out these videos about lawyers in Orlando for your needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment