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.
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 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.
If the arresting officer failed to get the subject's authorization before taking the test, a DUI attorney can make a discussion from it. Law enforcement officials should not forget to tell the drivers they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a driver to take the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she does not have the test may be violating due process. In this situation, the judge might not accept the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during 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 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.
If the arresting officer failed to get the subject's authorization before taking the test, a DUI attorney can make a discussion from it. Law enforcement officials should not forget to tell the drivers they pull over that they can say no to the breath analyzer test. An official who pushes a driver to take the test or informs the person that penalties will be harsher if he or she does not have the test may be violating due process. In this situation, the judge might not accept the results of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also entirely possible for the legal professional to state that there was no probable cause for the officer to halt the offender. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers cannot stop a car unless they have probable cause that the law is being breached. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the individuals in the vehicle are committing an infringement. Without probable cause, the gathered evidence will not be admitted. This includes the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. If the attorney could convince the judge there wasn't any probable cause, the results of the exam won't be used during 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