If you have been accused of DUI, there is a huge likelihood you are concerned about the end result of the case. Perhaps a breath analyzer test demonstrated that you are indeed drunk. Many people think that the result of the exam will confirm your guilt when on trial, yet this is not the situation all of the time. There are many arguments a DUI lawyer could make to have the evidence omitted or at the very least make it seem much less powerful.
One point your attorney could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed because of a pre-existing medical condition that you have. Breath screening works by measuring the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, yet this kind of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the ability to filter other components that could test positive during a breathalyzer test. Conditions like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise outcomes.
Your lawyer can also argue that the law enforcement officer who conducted a breath analyzer test didn't abide by standard protocol. States as well as police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that should be put into practice include administering the test at the correct time so outcomes will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing place is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency disturbance can be induced by a cellular phone, leading to questionable results.
The DUI attorney may also debate if the arresting officer did not obtain the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Police officers shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals that they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. An officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or tells the individual that charges are going to be nastier if he or she does not take the examination can be breaking due process. In this case, the judge may not accept the outcomes of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also possible for the legal professional to say there wasn't any probable cause for the police officer to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law only allows law enforcement officials to stop a motor vehicle if there's probable cause. It means that a reasonable individual would believe that the individuals inside the vehicle are committing a violation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence won't be admitted. The results of the breath test are involved in these evidences. It is the lawyer who'll convince the judge there was no probable cause and so the judge can exclude the test results in trial.
One point your attorney could make is that the results of the breath analyzer test were skewed because of a pre-existing medical condition that you have. Breath screening works by measuring the levels of alcohol present in a sample of a person's breath, yet this kind of technology is not foolproof. It may not have the ability to filter other components that could test positive during a breathalyzer test. Conditions like diabetes, ketosis, and acid reflux disease could lead to imprecise outcomes.
Your lawyer can also argue that the law enforcement officer who conducted a breath analyzer test didn't abide by standard protocol. States as well as police departments follow different protocols. Some protocols that should be put into practice include administering the test at the correct time so outcomes will not be affected by presence of residual alcohol or making sure that the testing place is free from any form or radio frequency disturbance. Radio frequency disturbance can be induced by a cellular phone, leading to questionable results.
The DUI attorney may also debate if the arresting officer did not obtain the approval of the motorist prior to taking the test. Police officers shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals that they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. An officer who pushes a driver to accept the test or tells the individual that charges are going to be nastier if he or she does not take the examination can be breaking due process. In this case, the judge may not accept the outcomes of the breath test as an evidence in trial.
It is also possible for the legal professional to say there wasn't any probable cause for the police officer to halt the individual. The United States Supreme Court case law only allows law enforcement officials to stop a motor vehicle if there's probable cause. It means that a reasonable individual would believe that the individuals inside the vehicle are committing a violation. In the absence of probable cause, the gathered evidence won't be admitted. The results of the breath test are involved in these evidences. It is the lawyer who'll convince the judge there was no probable cause and so the judge can exclude the test results in trial.
About the Author:
When you're looking for a DUI lawyer Orlando, then check out these videos about lawyers in Orlando for your needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment