Some of the most common DUI defenses have been recognized by a lawyer’s practice. This list is intended to provide a sort of overview of the legal and scientific challenges that give rise to the infinite common DUI defenses.
Once arrested for a DUI, you are well aware of some heavy penalties that may await you; namely, the suspension of your driving privileges, heavy fines, and even some jail time. The very size of the whole circus leaves a feeling that there are very few instances where one can defend a DUI; it is, in fact, not so. An experienced DUI lawyer will navigate you through the maze of eccentricities, fighting your case, and find you some solid DUI defenses.
In a hurry? Call +1727-6007-776 Now!
The 5 Most Common DUI Defenses
Denial of Opportunity to Contact an Attorney During the DUI Investigation
Everyone has the right to contact an attorney during any criminal investigation before or after arrest. In DUI investigations, this right becomes extremely important because the timing elements of a DUI investigation become critical to the decision-making of whether to obtain “independent exculpatory evidence.” Denial of that right often leads to outright dismissals of the DUI.
Under established law, a DUI suspect has a right to counsel unless it will materially impede or delay the DUI investigation. Should the defendant decide to file a motion alleging some sort of dismissal or suppression of evidence based on this violation of the right to counsel, then the prosecution will have to prove that any abrogation of this right would interfere with the DUI investigation. This type of argument is often highlighted in common DUI defenses, as otherwise, they will suffer the consequences of such evidence being excluded from trial and the charges being dismissed.
On the other hand, whenever evidence is obtained following a breach of a defendant’s right to counsel, that evidence has to be excluded, and more often than not, the charges will be dismissed where the State intervenes with a defendant’s access to such counsel.
Test of Breath Alcohol Can Be Inaccurate
Breath tests, or breathalyzer tests, assess concentrations of alcohol vapor from breath in the lungs and correlate this with a measurement, the blood concentration of alcohol. Because this breath test represents an indirect measure of your blood alcohol level, it may lead to inaccurate readings since a single test cannot suffice for directly determining any particular level of alcohol in your system.
The Partition ratio is the relationship between blood alcohol levels and alcohol concentration measured in breath or lung. A single partition ratio is presumed in Breath Alcohol Testing, but the variability of human physiology will yield to different partition ratios amongst different individuals from the one used as a basis for their breath alcohol testing. Another half dozen factors are, of course, possible to help bolster the argument that either an Intoxilyzer or breath test reading is high. These arguments are often cited as common DUI defenses since a change in body temperature affecting the results during the tests may falsely increase the results. In-built error margins of up to 10% provided in the breath-testing instruments also favour giving an inflated value to breath tests.
A defense attorney, together with the aid of a forensic toxicology expert, can identify the irregularities in the breath testing that may afford a legitimate defense against breath test results introduced by the prosecution in DUI cases.
In a hurry? Call +1727-6007-776 Now!
Illegal Stop of Person or Vehicle
Before an officer stops a driver, there must exist reasonable suspicion that traffic laws or any other laws have been broken; otherwise, the officer must not proceed to detain the person. Legally, criminal procedure allows no recruitment of evidence by the state that was unlawfully obtained.
Whereas the whole Fourth Amendment aims at preventing unreasonable searches and seizures, a policeman cannot stop motorists based on gut feeling or mere conjecture. Not even a suspicion of a violation of law on the part of the driver constitutes a reasonable suspicion for the officer to effect a stop: a strange driving pattern late at night or leaving a liquor pour. The officer must provide some justification, an objective reason for making that traffic stop, to give weight to the seizure of evidence thereafter.
Such cases may arise where the stop remains without any legal justification, where a defense attorney may explore the case and file a Motion to Suppress Evidence.
The Field Sobriety Test Is Not Accurate or Valid
In lay terms, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are “standardized.” To be a valid predictor of “cues of impairment,” a true test must be instructed, given, and performed in the same way every time. Studies have indicated that they have, in some cases, an accuracy of 60% to 70%; they are utterly invalid when given to the elderly, handicapped, or quite overweight persons.
Not all Field Sobriety Tests can be listed as a ‘standardized.’
There are tests such as the ‘Finger to Nose’ test, Rhomberg-Modified balancing test, or reciting the alphabet, which are not standardized field sobriety tests as defined by the federal government and NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration). Some of them are not valid tests per the law enforcement agencies. At the trial, their relevance to any claim of impairment is doubtful at best.
With an experienced DUI attorney, attacks on the reliability of these field sobriety tests, especially in instances where there are no allegations of poor driving or when the investigating officer lacks training or incorrectly performed the field sobriety tests, stand a good chance of prevailing and are often considered among the common DUI defenses used in court.
No Evidence of Suspect Driving Vehicle or Being in Actual Physical Control
Was there any indication that the suspect drove the vehicle or was in safe physical control? Insofar as they are, this issue has to be determined by a jury concerning whether the driver was just using the vehicle as a shelter until sober or still posed a problem and danger to the motoring public. Just having the key in the ignition or having the car engine running does not mean that he was in actual physical control. The jury must look at the “totality of the circumstances” and determine whether, at the time alleged, the defendant’s current or imminent control of the vehicle posed a real danger to himself or to others.
These are some of the more common DUI defenses we have encountered in our practice, but again, this list is by no means exhaustive of those that can be raised. DUI cases bring some of the more interesting and challenging questions regarding legal and scientific defenses. If you are charged with a DUI, it is best to consult a professional or get a case evaluation to know your rights in a criminal proceeding.
Bottom Line!
If you’re facing arrest or have been charged with a crime, you probably feel frightened, anxious, and unsure of what your future holds. Our capable and experienced attorneys at Perl Law PLLC will walk with you during this troubled time. We are dedicated to supporting clients’ rights, vigorously representing persons accused of crimes, and helping individuals understand common DUI defenses that may apply to their situation.
Call our firm at Perl Law PLLC today to begin discussing your case.