If you have been arrested for and charged with driving while intoxicated, you might be concerned with the result of your case. Maybe you did not pass the breathalyzer test. It might seem that this proof assures that you'll be discovered responsible should you go to trial, yet this doesn't need to be the case. DUI attorneys can make a number of arguments to have the proof inadmissible or to make it look much less potent.
One argument your attorney could make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing condition that you have. A breath analyzer test makes use of the person's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This particular test isn't always accurate. A number of components cannot be filtered out by the test, thus providing a false positive result. Diabetes, acid reflux, and ketosis are just some of the ailments that could have an impact on the outcomes of the breath analyzer test and make it inaccurate.
Another discussion your attorney can make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols in the breath analyzer test. States and even police departments stick to different protocols. A few examples of these guidelines are conducting the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and awaiting the right time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in undependable results.
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.
One argument your attorney could make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing condition that you have. A breath analyzer test makes use of the person's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This particular test isn't always accurate. A number of components cannot be filtered out by the test, thus providing a false positive result. Diabetes, acid reflux, and ketosis are just some of the ailments that could have an impact on the outcomes of the breath analyzer test and make it inaccurate.
Another discussion your attorney can make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols in the breath analyzer test. States and even police departments stick to different protocols. A few examples of these guidelines are conducting the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and awaiting the right time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in undependable results.
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:
Check out this DUI attorney in Orlando and see why a good DUI lawyer is vital for your DUI arrest.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire