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 lawyer could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test calculates alcohol concentration in your breath, but this test isn't always flawless. It might not have the ability to remove other components that can test positive during a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux could lead to inaccurate outcomes.
Another argument that your lawyer could make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. The actual process that should be implemented varies by state and at times by the individual police section. Some basic examples of appropriate protocol include waiting to administer the breath analyzer to ensure that residual alcohol does not impact the results or keeping the area in which the test is given free of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cell phone can cause radio frequency interference and render the outcomes of a breath test undependable.
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 lawyer could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed due to a pre-existing medical condition that you have. A breathalyzer test calculates alcohol concentration in your breath, but this test isn't always flawless. It might not have the ability to remove other components that can test positive during a breath analyzer test. Ailments like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux could lead to inaccurate outcomes.
Another argument that your lawyer could make is when the police officer didn't abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. The actual process that should be implemented varies by state and at times by the individual police section. Some basic examples of appropriate protocol include waiting to administer the breath analyzer to ensure that residual alcohol does not impact the results or keeping the area in which the test is given free of radio frequency disturbance. Even a cell phone can cause radio frequency interference and render the outcomes of a breath test undependable.
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:
Get this Orlando DUI attorney to help you out because this DUI lawyer in Orlando is here to help.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire