To obtain a conviction for DWI, DUI or DUBAL, the prosecution must first establish that the defendant charged with driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence was operating the vehicle. This may be accomplished by either eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. The court reviewed a DUI conviction where the defendant’s only contention was that the prosecution failed to prove he was driving a vehicle. Evidence at the defendants’ trial revealed that he was found asleep behind the steering wheel of his car parked on the roadway with the key in the ignition, the motor running, and the transmission in drive. The court determined that this evidence established that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle and therefore was sufficient to prove that the defendant was driving the automobile. To fight for ones right it is important to hire the DUI lawyer Flint. Next, the prosecution must establish the intoxication. Statutes, it should be noted, often refer to intoxication occurring as a result of alcohol or from ingestion of contraband substances. Intoxication is often a difficult state to articulate. Therefore, in addition to frequently offering evidence of a defendant’s blood and urine alcohol content, law enforcement officers who observed the defendant are permitted to testify as to the defendant s appearance, speech, or conduct and whether the officer detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the defendant s person. These factors are relevant evidence of the defendant’s mental and physical impairment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that an officers roadside questioning and administration of a field sobriety test to an individual stopped for irregular driving was not a “custodial interrogation” that required giving the suspect the Miranda warnings. However, the Court cautioned that the Miranda warnings apply once the suspect is under arrest. Evidence indicates that field sobriety tests can be somewhat unreliable, and courts are beginning to scrutinize cases that rely solely on field sobriety tests without supporting chemical testing of the blood, urine, or breathe of the suspect. Still, most courts permit persons to be convicted of DUI without chemical tests, especially when multiple sobriety tests have been performed by more than one officer. Increasingly, police videotape suspects' performance on field sobriety tests and make audiotape recordings of suspects’ speech. Many police agencies today have mobile blood-alcohol testing units equipped with breathalyzer testing machines, videotape equipment, and voice recorders. These vans, available at the call of the arresting officer, give the police the opportunity to promptly collect evidence at or near the scene of the arrest. Hiring the flint dui lawyer could solve the legal problems effectively. When it comes to DUI case, the law is very strict and punishment is quite serious, however hiring the DUI lawyer is very important. Reading the reviews provided by the author is one of the best ways to gain necessary information on criminal attorney flint.
Related Articles -
flint, dui, lawyer,
|