A person with a charge of driving under the influence of substances (Driving under Influence [DUI] Driving While Intoxicated or [DWI]) has some defense options available. There are some affirmative defenses in very few circumstances, even when the evidence supports the charge.

But it is more common fend off a charge of driving while intoxicated attacking the officer’s observations of what happened prior to arrest or question the integrity of the test, as the accuracy of Breathalyzer test. DUI laws differ from state to state, and each case has different facts, so it is best to consult with a lawyer.

Affirmative Defenses for DUI Charges

  • Need: When a person must drive to prevent a greater evil. The driver must demonstrate that it had no choice and that the “greater evil” that wanted to avoid was more serious than the possible harm that could result in a DUI.
  • Coercion: When the defendant leads to avoid serious injury or death. For example, someone compels a person intoxicated driving under threat of force.
  • Celaya: When an officer requests a person driving while intoxicated. The defendant must also be able to demonstrate that not have been predisposed to drive drunk but for the alleged ambush.
  • Error of fact: When a person believes in good faith that is not intoxicated. For example, have valid reasons to believe that the toxic effect of your prescription has disappeared.
  • Unintentional poisoning: When a person has ingested alcohol without their knowledge. For example, if an unrecognizable amount of alcohol was introduced to the bowl of punch at a party.

Common defenses for cases Drunk Driving

  • Improper Arrest: It is one of the most commonly used by defense lawyers in cases of DUI arguments and involves the allegation that the officer had no probable cause to stop the vehicle.
  • Administration / Precision sobriety test: You can have an arrest for a drug should be based on a sobriety test improperly administered or erroneous results. The horizontal nystagmus test, which detects eye movements often associated with food poisoning, often questioned.
  • Administration / Precision Exam portable Breathalyzer: The lawyer can challenge the test administration Breathalyzer conducted at the scene of the offense (..? Egg, was properly trained officer) or if there were influential factors, such as vomiting or indigestion. Moreover, the defense may question whether the device with which the test was performed was properly calibrated and maintained.
  • Administration / accuracy Breathalyzer test standard: It is similar to the defense No. 3, but refers to more accurate tests Breathalyzer used in the police station after making an arrest.
  • Management / Chain of custody of the blood test: This defense questions the administration of blood or was altered or handled incorrectly in the chain of custody.

Elevation of blood alcohol concentration: The defense contends that the blood alcohol concentration was below the legal limit when the defendant was driving, but increased between the time the vehicle stopped and the examination was administered Breathalyzer. This is possible when the system has not completely absorbed recently consumed alcohol so far Breathalyzer exam.

Less Common Defenses

The defendant was not the driver: You can question whether the person with the DUI charge was actually driving at the time. Perhaps the passenger, believing he was sober, switched places with the driver but failed the field sobriety test or Breathalyzer.

Actions inadequate police: This defense may include evidence or testimony that the officer violated the civil rights of the accused falsified a report DUI or had inappropriate behavior.

Author