If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you might be concerned with the result of your case. Maybe a breath analyzer test demonstrated that you are indeed drunk. Persons feel that failing the breathalyzer test will demonstrate that they're guilty, but this does not happen always. DUI lawyers can make several arguments to have the proof inadmissible or to make it seem much less forceful.
One argument your lawyer can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test measures alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam isn't always flawless. It may not have the ability to get rid of other substances that may test positive during a breath analyzer test. Diabetes, a dietary ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease could all affect the results of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your attorney can also argue that the police officer who administered a breathalyzer did not follow standard protocol. States and even police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that must be followed include administering the exam at the correct time so results will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing area is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Even a mobile phone can already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes unreliable.
A third justification that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer did not truly obtain the subject's permission before he got the test. Police officers should explain to men and women who are stopped for driving under the influence that they can decline to have the breathalyzer test. In case a law enforcement officer demonstrates that the breathalyzer test is mandatory or demonstrates that the caught subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she will not take it, this can be a due process intrusion and a judge may choose to exclude the evidence at trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to state there wasn't any probable cause for the policeman to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law merely permits police officers to stop a vehicle when there is probable cause. This means that a sensible person would believe that the people in the car are committing an infringement. If there wasn't any probable cause to halt the vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. The outcomes of the breathalyzer test are included in these evidences. If your lawyer could successfully convince a judge that no probable cause existed to pull you over, the court will not include the results of the breathalyzer test from trial.
One argument your lawyer can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test measures alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam isn't always flawless. It may not have the ability to get rid of other substances that may test positive during a breath analyzer test. Diabetes, a dietary ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease could all affect the results of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your attorney can also argue that the police officer who administered a breathalyzer did not follow standard protocol. States and even police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that must be followed include administering the exam at the correct time so results will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing area is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Even a mobile phone can already cause radio frequency interference making the outcomes unreliable.
A third justification that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breathalyzer test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer did not truly obtain the subject's permission before he got the test. Police officers should explain to men and women who are stopped for driving under the influence that they can decline to have the breathalyzer test. In case a law enforcement officer demonstrates that the breathalyzer test is mandatory or demonstrates that the caught subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she will not take it, this can be a due process intrusion and a judge may choose to exclude the evidence at trial.
It's also possible for the attorney to state there wasn't any probable cause for the policeman to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law merely permits police officers to stop a vehicle when there is probable cause. This means that a sensible person would believe that the people in the car are committing an infringement. If there wasn't any probable cause to halt the vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. The outcomes of the breathalyzer test are included in these evidences. If your lawyer could successfully convince a judge that no probable cause existed to pull you over, the court will not include the results of the breathalyzer test from trial.
About the Author:
If you want tolearn about this DUI attorney in Orlando, then check out this YouTube channel about DUI lawyers for your area.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire