If you have been busted for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you might be worried about the outcome of your case. Perhaps a breath analyzer test revealed that you're indeed intoxicated. Most people think that the result of the test will demonstrate your guilt once on trial, but this is not the case all of the time. There are many arguments a DUI lawyer can make to get the evidence excluded or at least make it seem less convincing.
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.
Your lawyer can also argue that the law enforcement officer who conducted a breath analyzer test didn't abide by standard protocol. States as well as police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that should be put into practice include administering the test at the correct time so outcomes will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing place is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency disturbance can be induced by a cellular phone, leading to questionable 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.
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 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.
Your lawyer can also argue that the law enforcement officer who conducted a breath analyzer test didn't abide by standard protocol. States as well as police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that should be put into practice include administering the test at the correct time so outcomes will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing place is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency disturbance can be induced by a cellular phone, leading to questionable 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.
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:
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