If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you might be concerned about the final result of your case. Maybe you did not successfully pass the breath analyzer test. You might think that this proof guarantees that you will be found guilty if you head to trial, but it doesn't have to be the situation. There are many arguments a DUI lawyer can make to get the evidence excluded or at least make it look less convincing.
Your attorney can express that the results of the breath analyzer test were inaccurate due to a condition you already possess. A breathalyzer exam determines alcohol concentration in your breath, yet this exam isn't always flawless. There are components it can't remove, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes mellitus, a diet ailment known as ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all alter the outcomes of a breath analyzer test and render it imprecise.
Your attorney can also argue that the police officer who administered a breathalyzer did not follow standard protocol. States and even police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that must be followed include administering the exam at the correct time so results will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing area is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Even a mobile phone can already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes unreliable.
A third basis that a DUI lawyer can utilize to argue that the results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't truly obtain the subject's approval just before he got the test. Law enforcement officials must explain to people who are stopped for drunk driving that they could refuse to take the breathalyzer test. An officer who forces a person to take the test or informs the individual that penalties will be nastier if he or she doesn't take the examination may be breaking due process. In this case, the judge might not recognize the results of the breathalyzer test as an evidence during trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to state there wasn't any probable cause for the policeman to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law merely permits police officers to stop a vehicle when there is probable cause. This means that a sensible person would believe that the people in the car are committing an infringement. If there wasn't any probable cause to halt the vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. The outcomes of the breathalyzer test are included in these evidences. If your lawyer could successfully convince a judge that no probable cause existed to pull you over, the court will not include the results of the breathalyzer test from trial.
Your attorney can express that the results of the breath analyzer test were inaccurate due to a condition you already possess. A breathalyzer exam determines alcohol concentration in your breath, yet this exam isn't always flawless. There are components it can't remove, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes mellitus, a diet ailment known as ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all alter the outcomes of a breath analyzer test and render it imprecise.
Your attorney can also argue that the police officer who administered a breathalyzer did not follow standard protocol. States and even police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that must be followed include administering the exam at the correct time so results will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing area is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Even a mobile phone can already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes unreliable.
A third basis that a DUI lawyer can utilize to argue that the results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't truly obtain the subject's approval just before he got the test. Law enforcement officials must explain to people who are stopped for drunk driving that they could refuse to take the breathalyzer test. An officer who forces a person to take the test or informs the individual that penalties will be nastier if he or she doesn't take the examination may be breaking due process. In this case, the judge might not recognize the results of the breathalyzer test as an evidence during trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to state there wasn't any probable cause for the policeman to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law merely permits police officers to stop a vehicle when there is probable cause. This means that a sensible person would believe that the people in the car are committing an infringement. If there wasn't any probable cause to halt the vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. The outcomes of the breathalyzer test are included in these evidences. If your lawyer could successfully convince a judge that no probable cause existed to pull you over, the court will not include the results of the breathalyzer test from trial.
About the Author:
If you want tolearn about this DUI attorney in Orlando, then check out this YouTube channel about DUI lawyers for your area.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire