A great DUI defense consists of knowing every stage of the process so as to identify where officers deviate from the law, regulations, and policies.
The case typically starts with a perceived traffic infraction, an equipment defect or a license plate issue. License and tag issues have become more of an issue with the greater use of license plate readers. These devices allow an officer to continuously scan license plates of passing cars while attending to other duties. The device will alert the officer if the device gets a return on a plate indicating a problem with registration, the license of the registered owner, or a reportedly stolen vehicle.
Your lawyer has to know these requirements to identify those times when the officer's beginning basis for the stop is flawed. This portion of the stop is based on whether the officer has an articulable suspicion or probable cause to make the stop. The motor vehicle code gives officers hundreds of reasons to pull over vehicles. Moving violations are just a small part of those reasons. It is not uncommon to see traffic stops based on one of two tag lights being burned out.
After the stop, your lawyer needs to know what the officer knows about conducting a DUI investigation. Sean Black has completed the coursework normally taught to officers o administer and to instruct Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. That gives him a greater understanding of the correct procedure for the administration of the investigatory stop, driver contact and roadside tests and the importance of the officer getting these tests right. If the officer does not properly administer the tests, the evaluation is flawed. That can make a difference in the court's evaluation of probable cause.
Driving Under the Influence is a serious charge. In Georgia, it can arise out of an alleged use of alcohol, drugs (legal or illegal), inhalants, or any combination thereof.
In Georgia, every driver is presumed to have consented to a test of their blood, breath or urine upon request. Drivers are still entitled to an implied consent warning upon an officer requesting that they submit to such a test or tests. This warning must be given according to a statutorily mandated wording. The state must prove that a decision to submit to the requested testing is done voluntarily. Recent court decisions suggest that a search warrant may be required in blood test cases.
Failure to comply with the request for testing can result in the suspension of a driver's license or privilege to drive in the state.Often the officer will fail to comply with the requirements of the implied consent warning, proper testing procedures, Miranda warnings, field sobriety testing or other matters.
Depending upon the test requested, the refusal to submit to the state requested test may be used in evidence against the person at trial. Refusal to submit to a state requested breath test may not be used as evidence against the person under Georgia constitutional privileges as found in Elliot.
It is a DUI lawyer's task to identify these deficiencies and attempt to turn them to your advantage.Georgia has not distinguished itself in the procedures or equipment it has selected to conduct its alcohol chemical testing. Over the past ten years, the procedures that would insure the proper administration of chemical testing have been lessened or eliminated. The equipment has not been subjected to appropriate calibrations or maintenance or scientific oversight.It's important to know what to do if you are arrested for DUI. A 2019 New York Times article titled These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust Them details the tremendous problems with the breath testing system.
This can put drivers in a difficult situation when it comes to making decisions about what to do when stopped and investigated for impaired driving. Each decision is important to the officer's arrest decision and to the future driving privileges of the detained person, yet the person will be afforded no opportunity to speak to a qualified legal advisor.
We put together your file to have all available information so that it can be cross-checked and compared. We know what training the arresting officer has completed and what he is lacking. We identify evidence which needs to be attacked with an aim to exclusion of that evidence.