Police stops that result in drunk driving charges often give rise to good-faith questions concerning police procedures and testing that occurs at the scene. In previous blog posts, we have pointed out irregularities and legally impermissible outcomes that occur in states across the country with regularity. Equipment reliability is often an issue, as can be a police officer's probable cause for stopping a motorist in the first instance. Prosecutorial conduct, too, can come to the fore. In short, there are many elements for an experienced DUI attorney to scrutinize in most drunk driving cases.
We recently told readers of the 4,000 DUI cases put on hold in Minnesota following reliability issues with the Intoxilyzer breath-testing device. We related the fiasco unfolding in Philadelphia over the improper calibration of a number of breathalyzer machines, which has necessitated the retrials of more than 1,000 persons.
Stories such as these are occurring with increasing frequency, with many DUI experts stating that courts are deferring less than previously to experts' conclusions and more often allowing evidence in that allows for consideration of testing procedures, calculations and documentation that undercuts reliability pronouncements.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, for example, requires federal judges to consider the evidence underlying experts' conclusions. A National Academy of Sciences report from 2009 cites a lack of standards for appropriately reporting deviation ranges for the Intoxilyzer machine.
Challenges to arrests and convictions are increasing, based increasingly on matters ranging from problems with testing machines themselves to testing simulations and human calibration errors.
An experienced DUI attorney is well attuned to these nuances and legal developments, and can seek the best possible results for a person facing criminal charges.
Related Resource: Philadelphia Inquirer, "Operator error in breath tests?" April 4, 2011
