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 attorney could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed because of a pre-existing medical condition that you have. Breath screening works by measuring the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, yet this kind of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the ability to filter other components that could test positive during a breathalyzer test. Conditions like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise outcomes.
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.
It is also possible for the legal professional to say there wasn't any probable cause for the police officer to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law only allows law enforcement officials to stop a motor vehicle if there's probable cause. It means that a reasonable individual would believe that the individuals inside the vehicle are committing a violation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence won't be admitted. The results of the breath test are involved in these evidences. It is the lawyer who'll convince the judge there was no probable cause and so the judge can exclude the test results in trial.
One point your attorney could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed because of a pre-existing medical condition that you have. Breath screening works by measuring the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, yet this kind of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the ability to filter other components that could test positive during a breathalyzer test. Conditions like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise outcomes.
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.
It is also possible for the legal professional to say there wasn't any probable cause for the police officer to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law only allows law enforcement officials to stop a motor vehicle if there's probable cause. It means that a reasonable individual would believe that the individuals inside the vehicle are committing a violation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence won't be admitted. The results of the breath test are involved in these evidences. It is the lawyer who'll convince the judge there was no probable cause and so the judge can exclude the test results in 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