It is important to take the charges of DUI ( driving under the influence) or DWI ( driving while intoxicated) seriously which many people do not. It could be possible that you or your close ones can get arrested and charged under DUI.
When anyone gets charged under DUI, they look for ways to fight back or might need a DUI lawyer to know the defenses available that can save them. Knowing the available defenses that can be used to fight back and reduce the charges or simply preventing the suspension of the driving license is very much needed.
What is the evidence that the prosecution has to show against the person who is DUI convicted?
If a person has been charged with DUI then, the prosecution needs to prove the things that are mentioned below
- Prove that the person has drove a vehicle
- And besides that, he was under influence which simply means that the person had taken some amount of drugs or alcohol that is prohibited completely under the laws of the country.
The prosecution needs to prove both of the above mentioned points so that the conviction can be received against the person. Defenses available may vary from state to state and circumstances to circumstances which is why it is important to know the rules of your state by hiring a knowledgeable DUI lawyer.
What are the defenses available that are related to driving?
In many states a person cannot be convicted under DUI if he was not driving the vehicle and was just resting in the vehicle that was parked aside. Whereas other states do not need a person to drive a vehicle to charge them with DUI.
Other than that, the prosecution needs to prove that the person was either operating or was just simply in actual physical control of the vehicle along with being intoxicated by the prohibited amount of drugs or alcohol.
What are the defenses available to the driver who was intoxicated?
Evidence of the driver can either be proved in two ways. The one can be done after running a chemical test to find out the intoxication present in the body of the driver. Whereas the second one can be done just by testifying the trial of the police officer regarding the observation of the driver’s impairment.
How can one challenge the chemical test results and the officer testimony against your behavior?
According to the DUI law, the amount of alcohol present in the blood should be around .08% which is enough to charge a person under DUI.
When it comes to challenging the chemical test results one can simply deny or accusing that the results are inaccurate because of the flaw in the testing procedure or inaccuracy in the measurement of the drugs or alcohol.
When it comes to challenging the officers testimony, first one needs to understand the factors that the officer’s observations of impairment can hold. This might include the odor of alcohol, bad driving, bizarre behavior, bloodshot eyes and more. It could be quite difficult to convince the juror that the officer’s conclusions are wrong as the officer is the most believed person in the court.
This can depend and vary from one situation to another. You can simply look for the witnesses who were present in that time while you were getting arrested and saw things differently than the officer so that the officer’s testimony can be declared false. Besides that, one can simply justify that their behavior towards the officer excluded the intoxication.
What are the defenses available related to the arrest procedure?
Many times police do not use the right arrest procedure which can give the person a very good point as your defense against DUI.
You can simply say that the arresting was done in an aggressive way or arguably as the police did not follow the arresting laws. In order to know the available defenses one can contact a lawyer in Clear Lake, to hire a solid DUI lawyer.
Talking about the Proper cause for making the arrest
You can also say that there was no proper cause for arresting one as the police need some cause to stop the vehicle even if they were about to arrest one for a DUI.
In most cases the police might say that the following individual had broken the traffic rules but if there was no such reason then a judge will say that all the evidence obtained and presented was completely inadmissible in the eyes of the court.
One can say that No Miranda warnings given to him
Miranda warnings are given by the police prior to the questioning of a suspect who is in custody. If no Miranda warnings have been given then it can conclude to an incriminating statement which cannot be used in the court.
