DUI arrests are serious. You may lose your license and face severe penalties or jail time. DUI defence is possible despite appearances. An experienced DUI attorney like Bryan Kazarian can review your case and provide the best legal strategy.
Here are some instances of legal and scientific DUI defences.
1. The DUI suspect was denied legal representation.
Criminal suspects can see a counsel before or after arrest—State of Arizona Criminal Procedure Rule 6.1. DUI investigations are especially essential since the timing of a decision to collect “independent exculpatory evidence” is directly connected to the length of the inquiry. If denied, a DUI charge may be dropped.
2. Breath alcohol testing is error-prone.
Breath tests, or breathalyzers, measure breath alcohol to calculate blood alcohol levels. This indirect blood alcohol level measurement may be inaccurate because a single test cannot identify all alcohol in your system. The partition ratio is blood alcohol to breath or lung concentration. Breath alcohol testing assumes one partition ratio rating. Physiological differences may cause partition ratios to diverge from the breath alcohol test calibration ratio. Other factors may inflate Intoxilyzer or breath test findings. Testing at different temperatures can yield false positives. The breath instrument’s 10% error rate can exaggerate values.
A defence attorney working with a forensic toxicology expert may find breath testing issues that could help a DUI case.
3. Unauthorized stopping.
Officers cannot detain or search a motorist without probable cause. In criminal cases, the State must prove that all Evidence was legitimately collected in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prevents government overreach. If a police officer has a “hunch” about a driver, they can’t stop them. Late-night driving and leaving a pub are legal. Police must justify any subsequent seizure or Evidence. A defence attorney may file a Motion to Suppress Evidence if the traffic stop was illegal.
4.Failed field sobriety test results
“Standardized” describes Standardized Field Sobriety Tests adequately. “Cues of impairment” tests must be administered, evaluated, and taught consistently. These tests are barely 60-70% accurate and should never be performed on the disabled, obese, or aged, according to some studies.
Not all Field Sobriety Tests are “standardized”. The Federal Government and NHTSA do not recognize the “Finger to Nose” test, the Rhomberg-Modified balancing test, or reciting the alphabet in order as field sobriety tests. Some law enforcement agencies accept all tests. Their legal use to prove impairment needs to be revised.
An expert DUI attorney may argue the admissibility of field sobriety tests if there were no charges of improper driving or if the investigating officer was incompetent or did not correctly administer them.
5. The suspect was not driving.
Most states require cars to pull over if they constitute a hazard. A motorist who is intoxicated but not driving should not be convicted of DUI. State v. Zavala, 136 Ariz. 356 (1983).
In these cases, the jury must evaluate whether the driver sought refuge in the automobile while sobering up or posed an immediate and severe risk to other motorists. The key in the ignition or the engine running does not mean you are driving. A jury considers the “totality of the circumstances” to determine if the defendant harmed himself or others while causing.
In conclusion, while not the only DUI defences, these are the most common in my experience. DUI cases raise the most intriguing and demanding legal and scientific defence questions. Obtain a case evaluation or legal counsel if you’ve been arrested for DUI.
