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 point your attorney can make is that the results of the breath analyzer were skewed due to a preexisting medical condition that you have. A breath analyzer test uses the person's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components that it cannot remove, leading to a positive result. Ailments like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to erroneous results.
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.
If the arresting officer failed to acquire the subject's consent before taking the test, a DUI attorney could make a discussion out of it. Law enforcement officials must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they could say no to the breath analyzer test. If a law enforcement officer demonstrates that the breathalyzer test is necessary or demonstrates that the caught individuals will confront nastier charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this may be a due process violation and a judge could opt to exclude the evidence at 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 point your attorney can make is that the results of the breath analyzer were skewed due to a preexisting medical condition that you have. A breath analyzer test uses the person's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components that it cannot remove, leading to a positive result. Ailments like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to erroneous results.
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.
If the arresting officer failed to acquire the subject's consent before taking the test, a DUI attorney could make a discussion out of it. Law enforcement officials must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they could say no to the breath analyzer test. If a law enforcement officer demonstrates that the breathalyzer test is necessary or demonstrates that the caught individuals will confront nastier charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this may be a due process violation and a judge could opt to exclude the evidence at 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:
When you're ready to find the best DUI lawyers you need to check out this DUI lawyer info for you.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire