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 lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer can also argue that the law enforcement officer who conducted a breath analyzer test didn't abide by standard protocol. States as well as police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that should be put into practice include administering the test at the correct time so outcomes will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing place is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency disturbance can be induced by a cellular phone, leading to questionable results.
A third basis that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's approval just before he took the test. Law enforcement officials shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. If a law enforcement officer shows that the breath test is necessary or demonstrates that the detained subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this could be a due process violation and a judge can opt to leave out the 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 lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer can also argue that the law enforcement officer who conducted a breath analyzer test didn't abide by standard protocol. States as well as police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that should be put into practice include administering the test at the correct time so outcomes will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing place is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency disturbance can be induced by a cellular phone, leading to questionable results.
A third basis that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's approval just before he took the test. Law enforcement officials shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. If a law enforcement officer shows that the breath test is necessary or demonstrates that the detained subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this could be a due process violation and a judge can opt to leave out the 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:
When you're looking for a DUI lawyer Orlando, then check out these videos about lawyers in Orlando for your needs.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire