If you've been arrested for and arraigned with driving while intoxicated, you could be concerned about the final result of your case. Maybe a breathalyzer test revealed that you are indeed drunk. It may seem that this evidence assures that you will be discovered guilty should you head to trial, yet it doesn't need to be the case. DUI lawyers know what justifications could make evidence less compelling or perhaps make it unacceptable.
Your attorney can say that you've got a pre-existing problem which will make breathalyzer results erroneous. A breath analyzer test makes use of the individual's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components it can't filter out, leading to a positive result. Disorders like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease can lead to inaccurate outcomes.
If the police officer did not stick with protocols in the breathalyzer test, your attorney can create an argument from it. The actual process that must be adopted varies by state and occasionally by the individual police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and waiting for the appropriate time to give the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference can be caused by a cellular phone, leading to 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.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state there was no probable cause for the police officer to stop the offender. The United States Supreme Court case law does not permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they notice a probable cause that the motorist is breaking a law. This means that any reasonable person would believe that the person behind the wheel or the passengers are breaking legislation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This could include things like the results of a breath test. It is the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there was no probable cause so the judge can leave out the test results in trial.
Your attorney can say that you've got a pre-existing problem which will make breathalyzer results erroneous. A breath analyzer test makes use of the individual's breath in calculating alcohol concentration. This test isn't always correct. There are components it can't filter out, leading to a positive result. Disorders like diabetes mellitus, ketosis, and acid reflux disease can lead to inaccurate outcomes.
If the police officer did not stick with protocols in the breathalyzer test, your attorney can create an argument from it. The actual process that must be adopted varies by state and occasionally by the individual police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free of radio frequency and waiting for the appropriate time to give the test so residual alcohol won't invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference can be caused by a cellular phone, leading to 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.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state there was no probable cause for the police officer to stop the offender. The United States Supreme Court case law does not permit police officers to stop a motor vehicle unless they notice a probable cause that the motorist is breaking a law. This means that any reasonable person would believe that the person behind the wheel or the passengers are breaking legislation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This could include things like the results of a breath test. It is the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there was no probable cause so the judge can leave out the test results in trial.
About the Author:
Get this Orlando DUI attorney to help you out because this DUI lawyer in Orlando is here to help.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire