Police officers, just like other professionals in Pennsylvania, make mistakes from time to time. When it comes to DUI cases, those mistakes can often mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.
Stopping you without probable cause
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This includes police officers pulling over cars without probable cause. If an officer stops you without a good reason, anything they find after that stop, including any evidence of DUI, may not be admissible in court.
Failing to read you your Miranda rights
These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If the officer fails to read you your Miranda rights, anything you say after that point, including any admissions of guilt, may not be admissible as evidence.
Mishandling or failing to properly administer field sobriety tests
Field sobriety tests are notoriously inaccurate, and there are a number of ways that police officers can mishandle them. If the officer administering the test makes a mistake, it could be enough to create reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury. For instance, if you noticed that the officer skipped a step in the test or gave you confusing instructions, you may be able to use that to your advantage.
Failing to properly maintain or calibrate breathalyzers
Breathalyzers must be properly maintained and calibrated in order to produce accurate results. If the machine was not properly maintained or calibrated, the DUI results may be inaccurate. You can know if the machine was properly maintained or calibrated by asking to see the machine’s maintenance records.
These are just a few of the mistakes that police officers can make when investigating DUI cases. If you have been charged with DUI, it is important to consider whether any of these mistakes may have been made in your case. Even if you believe that the evidence against you is overwhelming, remember that you can always get acquitted if you’re able to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the court.