Skip to main content

7 common DUI defenses

7 common DUI defenses

Tips on how to beat a DUI using tried-and-true defense strategies

We’ve all heard the urban legends of how to beat a DUI charge, including sucking on a penny or a breath mint in those awkward moments post-pullover. Unfortunately, these tactics have been debunked time and time again.
Instead of relying on old wives’ tales to beat a DUI conviction, a better strategy is to mount and advance a credible and thorough defense against any one of the countless components to a DUI prosecution.
From the initial police stop to the introduction of evidence at trial, the following DUI defenses may help to reduce an unreasonably harsh sentence or even result in a dismissal altogether.

1. Improper stop by police

The U.S. Constitution prohibits police from arbitrarily stopping or pulling over private citizens without what’s known as "reasonable suspicion." Interpreted over decades of Supreme Court appeals, this concept is generally defined as "specific and articulable grounds that provide [police] with reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot…." In English, this means that the police must have more than a hunch or a gut feeling that a certain individual is committing or has committed a crime.
In the context of a DUI—or any traffic stop, for that matter—police must actually see the suspect do something wrong. If you were obeying the speed limit, not swerving, obeying all traffic laws, and did not have a mechanical malfunction with your vehicle, it may be possible to assert that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to pull you over, and any evidence gained thereafter is inadmissible.

2. Failure to follow proper field sobriety test protocol

There are certain protocols that must be followed when field sobriety tests (FSTs) are administered. Failure by law enforcement to adhere to the predetermined procedures can quickly result in a suppression of any evidence gathered during the test, especially if officers engaged in disrespectful, overly intimidating, or inappropriate conduct toward the test subject.
Further, FST observations are considered just one component of the state’s evidence, and are not by themselves proof of intoxication. For example, the significance of a heel-toe test may be diminished if the suspect was required to take the test while wearing unreasonable footwear, or if the FST was conducted in inclement weather.

3. Improper testing and storage of blood alcohol samples

First, police must arrange for a proper blood-alcohol analysis by a trained and licensed phlebotomist as quickly as possible following arrest. Unreasonable wait times or testing by an untrained laboratory technician could be possible defenses against the results.
Additionally, police are required to ensure that blood samples are properly maintained after the test to avoid fermentation, contamination, or mislabeling. If questions arise as to the integrity of the sample, it could be thrown out—leaving the prosecution with little to rely upon while advancing its case.

4. Medical conditions

If you have a medical condition, this can sometimes not only create the appearance of drunkenness, but can even skew the results of a roadside breathalyzer test. Fatigue or neurological problems can cause slurred speech, while allergies, sinus troubles, and crying can cause watery eyes.
Moreover, an "alcohol smell" on the breath can derive from a diabetic side effect known as ketosis, which involves the fermentation of glucose in the blood stream, creating the effect of an alcohol odor. Ketosis can also cause an otherwise sober individual to register the presence of alcohol on a breathalyzer test.

5. Improper interrogation or Miranda violations

The U.S. Constitution also requires police to inform a suspect once he or she is officially "under arrest," which is distinguishable from a mere conversation during which the individual is free to leave.
If a person is placed under arrest, police must immediately advise the suspect as to their rights (which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to court-appointed counsel if indigent) and the fact that statements made hereafter may be used in a court of law by the prosecution. If Miranda warnings are not issued, any evidence gathered thereafter (such as incriminating statements, biological evidence, field sobriety test observations, etc.) will likely be excluded.

6. Inappropriate communication with the defendant

Prosecutors know that a defendant cannot be interrogated, or even spoken to, without the consent and/or presence of counsel.
However, this does not stop law enforcement and district attorneys from attempting to avoid the hassle of a trial by enticing a defendant with an attractive plea bargain—often using strategies that a DUI attorney would never allow.
If this happens, any pleas entered outside of due protocol can be quickly overturned after showing that police and/or prosecutors improperly communicated with the defendant. This will also not sit well with the judge assigned to the case.

7. Violations of the rules of evidence & procedure

Finally, there are several DUI defenses that may not arise until the actual day of trial, including violations of the state rules of civil procedure and evidence. This broad category encompasses the rules against hearsay, the introduction of improper character evidence, and the use of unauthenticated documents, recordings, or photographs.
For example, the prosecution may attempt to introduce evidence of a police video purporting to derive from the dashboard camera of an officer present at the defendant’s field sobriety test. However, prosecution must elicit testimony from the officer that he was, in fact, present at the time of the FST, that the individual featured in the video is the defendant, and that the recording in question occurred on the date and time asserted by the prosecution. Otherwise, the video will be excluded.
These defenses are the best place to start when trying to beat a DUI charge, but depending on your situation, an experienced DUI attorney may be able to provide even more options to reduce or dismiss your DUI charges
Charged with a DUI? Let us Help http://www.joshuahallesq.com/
this article was found here: https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/seven-common-dui-defenses

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What classifies as an OVI?

Operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs - OVI. (1)  No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply: (a)  The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them. (b)  The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one per cent or more but less than seventeen-hundredths of one per cent by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person's whole blood. (c)  The person has a concentration of ninety-six-thousandths of one per cent or more but less than two hundred four-thousandths of one per cent by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person's blood serum or plasma. (d)  The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one gram or more but less than seventeen-hundredths of one gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person's breath. (e)  The person has a conc...

Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Charge

Just one more reason you need a Criminal Defense Attorney By Darrell A. Clay   From Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, 83,946 individuals were charged with a federal felony or Class A misdemeanor. An astonishing 96.8 percent of them pled guilty, a rate slightly higher than, but roughly consistent with, each of the previous 10 years. 1  The plea rate in Ohio’s common pleas courts is somewhat lower—about 80 percent—although this is largely due to other forms of case disposition. Of 69,014 new criminal filings in fiscal year 2010, some 55,373 were resolved by plea agreement, but only 2,123—or about 3 percent—were resolved by bench or jury trial. 2   Despite the nearly routine decision to plea bargain in criminal cases, defense counsel must remain vigilant in ensuring that clients fully appreciate the sweeping consequences that flow from a guilty plea, particularly to a felony. Failure to do so can expose defense counsel to claims of malpractice or ineffective assi...