If you've been arrested for and arraigned with driving while intoxicated, you could be concerned about the final result of your case. Maybe a breathalyzer test revealed that you are indeed drunk. It may seem that this evidence assures that you will be discovered guilty should you head to trial, yet it doesn't need to be the case. DUI lawyers know what justifications could make evidence less compelling or perhaps make it unacceptable.
Your attorney can say that you've got a pre-existing problem which will make breathalyzer results erroneous. A breath analyzer test makes use of the individual's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components it can't filter out, leading to a positive result. Disorders like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease can lead to inaccurate outcomes.
Another argument that your lawyer could make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. The actual process that should be implemented varies by state and at times by the individual police section. Some basic examples of appropriate protocol include waiting to administer the breath analyzer to ensure that residual alcohol does not impact the results or keeping the area in which the test is given free of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cell phone can cause radio frequency interference and render the outcomes of a breath test undependable.
A third justification that a DUI lawyer could use to argue that the end results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't truly obtain the subject's consent before he got the test. Police officers must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they can say no to the breathalyzer test. If the officer claims that the breath test is mandatory or states that the driver will have heavier charges should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the judge might not include it as an evidence during trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during trial.
Your attorney can say that you've got a pre-existing problem which will make breathalyzer results erroneous. A breath analyzer test makes use of the individual's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components it can't filter out, leading to a positive result. Disorders like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease can lead to inaccurate outcomes.
Another argument that your lawyer could make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. The actual process that should be implemented varies by state and at times by the individual police section. Some basic examples of appropriate protocol include waiting to administer the breath analyzer to ensure that residual alcohol does not impact the results or keeping the area in which the test is given free of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cell phone can cause radio frequency interference and render the outcomes of a breath test undependable.
A third justification that a DUI lawyer could use to argue that the end results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't truly obtain the subject's consent before he got the test. Police officers must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they can say no to the breathalyzer test. If the officer claims that the breath test is mandatory or states that the driver will have heavier charges should he or she decline, it can be a violation of due process and the judge might not include it as an evidence during trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during trial.
About the Author:
Get this Orlando DUI attorney to help you out because this DUI lawyer in Orlando is here to help.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire