If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you could be concerned about the result of your case. Perhaps a breathalyzer test revealed that you’re indeed drunk. You might think that this data guarantees that you will be found guilty should you go to trial, yet this doesn’t have to be the situation. There are many justifications a DUI attorney can make to get the evidence excluded or at the very least make it seem much less persuasive.
One argument your attorney can make is the results of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a preexisting condition that you’ve got. A breathalyzer exam calculates alcohol levels in your breath, but this exam is not always perfect. Some substances cannot be filtered out by the examination, thereby giving a false positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux could all alter the outcomes of a breathalyzer and make it erroneous.
One more argument your attorney could make is when the police officer did not abide by protocols during the breathalyzer test. Standards vary for each state and even per police division. Some examples of these protocols are giving the breathalyzer test in an area clear of radio frequency and awaiting the appropriate time to give the examination so residual alcohol won’t invalidate the final results. Radio frequency interference may be brought on by a mobile phone, resulting in questionable results.
If the arresting officer failed to acquire the subject’s consent before taking the test, a DUI attorney could make a discussion out of it. Law enforcement officials must not forget to remind the motorists they pull over that they could say no to the breath analyzer test. If a law enforcement officer demonstrates that the breathalyzer test is necessary or demonstrates that the caught individuals will confront nastier charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this may be a due process violation and a judge could opt to exclude the evidence at trial.
A relevant discussion that a DUI attorney could make would be that the official didn’t have probable cause to stop the defendant to start with. The United States Supreme Court case law merely permits law enforcement officers to stop a car when there is probable cause. This means that a reasonable individual would have to believe that the motorist or passengers were in violation of a law. If there was no probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any proof obtained from that stop will be inadmissible. This could involve the results of a breathalyzer test. If your attorney could effectively persuade a judge that no probable cause existed to pull you over, the judge will leave out the outcomes of the breathalyzer test from court trial.
When you’re ready to find the best DUI lawyers you need to check out this DUI lawyer info for you.