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.
The DUI lawyer can also argue if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must not forget to tell the motorists that they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a person to take the test or tells the person that penalties are going to be nastier if he or she doesn't have the test might be violating due process. In this case, the judge may not acknowledge the results of the breathalyzer test as an evidence during trial.
A DUI attorney could also claim that the police officer did not have any probable cause to let the defendant pull over. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, police officers cannot halt a car unless they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a reasonable individual would believe that the people inside the automobile are committing a violation. Without having probable cause, evidence obtained will become invalid. The outcomes of the breath test are involved in these evidences. If your lawyer could efficiently persuade the court that no probable cause was there to pull you over, the judge will exclude the outcomes of the breathalyzer examination from court 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.
The DUI lawyer can also argue if the arresting officer didn't get the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Law enforcement officials must not forget to tell the motorists that they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a person to take the test or tells the person that penalties are going to be nastier if he or she doesn't have the test might be violating due process. In this case, the judge may not acknowledge the results of the breathalyzer test as an evidence during trial.
A DUI attorney could also claim that the police officer did not have any probable cause to let the defendant pull over. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, police officers cannot halt a car unless they have probable cause that a law is being violated. This means that a reasonable individual would believe that the people inside the automobile are committing a violation. Without having probable cause, evidence obtained will become invalid. The outcomes of the breath test are involved in these evidences. If your lawyer could efficiently persuade the court that no probable cause was there to pull you over, the judge will exclude the outcomes of the breathalyzer examination from court 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