|
FREE DUI CASE EVALUATION
Recent Cases Which May Be Helpful In Your Defense Of A Utah
DUI
- State v. Homan: Field Sobriety Tests not allowed to
establish probable cause unless done correctly.
- Knowles
v. Iowa: Officers may not search beyond what is necessary for
officer safety in a routine traffic stop.
- U.S. v.
Lambert: A defendant was seized while agents held his driver's
license for 20 minutes.
- U.S. v. Buchannan: The
defendants were seized when the troopers separated them from their
vehicle.
- U.S. v. Mitchell: A defendant retains his
priveledge against self-incrimination through sentencing.
- Florida v. J.L.: A seizure can not be made based on an
uncorroborated anonymous tip.
- Salt Lake City
v. Garcia: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test cannot be
introduced as scientific evidence and cannot be used to determine the
actual level of intoxication.
- State v. Preece: Even
though the statute says that you are guilty of a DUI if you have
sufficient alchol in your body that a chemical test given within two
hours of the alleged operation or physical control shows that you have
a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater, there
is no presumption that your blood alcohol level was .08 or higher at
the time of driving just because it was taken within two hours. In
other words, your breath test result can always be challenged and the
validity of the test can be challenged.
- Murray
City v. Hall: Before the breath test result can be introduced as
evidence against you, the state must have evidence that the intoxilyzer
machine was working properly.In other words, if the state cannot
produce affidavits showing the machine was working properly, or they
cannot have a witness testify that the machine was working properly,
then the breath test result cannot be introduced into evidence against
you.
- Salt Lake City v. Womack: Officers must observe
the Defendant for 15 minutes prior to giving the breath test. This is
Utah's "Baker Test". If you had gum or you burped before taking the
breath test, the validity is compromised and the officer has to start
the 15 minute observation period over.
|