If you have been busted for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you might be worried about the outcome of your case. Perhaps a breath analyzer test revealed that you're indeed intoxicated. Most people think that the result of the test will demonstrate your guilt once on trial, but this is not the case all of the time. There are many arguments a DUI lawyer can make to get the evidence excluded or at least make it seem less convincing.
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 could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
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's also possible for the lawyer to state there was no probable cause for the officer to stop the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law doesn't permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they see a probable cause that the driver is breaking a law. It means that a sensible individual would have to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of a law. Without having probable cause, proof obtained can become unacceptable. It could include the results of a breathalyzer test. It's the attorney who will convince the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge can leave out the examination 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 could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
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's also possible for the lawyer to state there was no probable cause for the officer to stop the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law doesn't permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they see a probable cause that the driver is breaking a law. It means that a sensible individual would have to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of a law. Without having probable cause, proof obtained can become unacceptable. It could include the results of a breathalyzer test. It's the attorney who will convince the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge can leave out the examination 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