4. The officer's testimony is flawed. One of the more common defenses is challenging the observations of the officer that led to the arrest. This often involves introducing witnesses who can substantiate your version of the events. While most of these arguments will not negate a DUI conviction in and of themselves, they may poke holes in the officer's story or lead to a challenge of testing validity.
Since much of an officer's testimony against you will be based on observations, you can challenge those observations and show them to be false. Typical evidence will include the way you were driving such as crossing the center line, running a stop sign, or irregular speeds. They may also talk about your physical characteristics such as bloodshot …show more content…
Most times it is the prosecution arguing that, due to the time it took to administer the test, your blood alcohol level was lower than the .08 limit, but the alcohol level was higher while you were driving. Sometimes, however, the defense is able to argue the opposite. Your blood alcohol level was below the legal limit while you were driving; however, newly consumed alcohol, which had not fully absorbed into your body while you were driving, did during the time it took for them to administer the test. This delay raised your BAC significantly enough to register as an unfair fail. This is sometimes called the "had one for the road" defense.
It wasn't me. Based on special circumstances, it can sometimes be shown that the officer could not prove that you were the one who was driving the car.
Framed. This defense requires evidence or substantiating testimony that an officer falsified a DUI report.
Civil Rights violations. Generally requiring substantiating evidence, if it can be shown that your civil rights were violated during the stop, testing, or arrest, the DUI may be thrown out.
You weren't driving. Different than the "it wasn't me" defense, this argument is used when a person is arrested for DUI just for being in the car but they never actually drove the vehicle. Perhaps you were just sitting behind the wheel in a parking lot waiting for the effects of the alcohol to wear off when they officer confronted
Since much of an officer's testimony against you will be based on observations, you can challenge those observations and show them to be false. Typical evidence will include the way you were driving such as crossing the center line, running a stop sign, or irregular speeds. They may also talk about your physical characteristics such as bloodshot …show more content…
Most times it is the prosecution arguing that, due to the time it took to administer the test, your blood alcohol level was lower than the .08 limit, but the alcohol level was higher while you were driving. Sometimes, however, the defense is able to argue the opposite. Your blood alcohol level was below the legal limit while you were driving; however, newly consumed alcohol, which had not fully absorbed into your body while you were driving, did during the time it took for them to administer the test. This delay raised your BAC significantly enough to register as an unfair fail. This is sometimes called the "had one for the road" defense.
It wasn't me. Based on special circumstances, it can sometimes be shown that the officer could not prove that you were the one who was driving the car.
Framed. This defense requires evidence or substantiating testimony that an officer falsified a DUI report.
Civil Rights violations. Generally requiring substantiating evidence, if it can be shown that your civil rights were violated during the stop, testing, or arrest, the DUI may be thrown out.
You weren't driving. Different than the "it wasn't me" defense, this argument is used when a person is arrested for DUI just for being in the car but they never actually drove the vehicle. Perhaps you were just sitting behind the wheel in a parking lot waiting for the effects of the alcohol to wear off when they officer confronted