A vast majority of cases charging driving under the influence, or DUI, end up with a plea to a DUI conviction, court supervision, a reduced charge such as reckless driving or a dismissal. There is a common misconception that hiring a lawyer automatically results in a “better deal”.
The reality is that cases are won or lost in two primary aspects of the case. The first involves procedural irregularities, or what many unfortunately refer to as “technicalities”. Good DUI lawyers know that “technicalities” are actually violations of Constitutional or other legal provisions.
The entire purpose of a DUI prosecution is to prove a claim that the defendant (the accused driver) failed to follow the law. In the United States, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It only seems fair that the party to a case who has the burden of proving its claim that the other side did not follow the law should itself be required to follow the law.
If the state does not follow the law and if there are no consequences for its failure to do so, then the state has no incentive to comply with the Constitution and other laws the next time a situation arises. Therefore, the only proper remedy is to exclude the evidence that is gathered in violation of the driver’s Constitutional rights or contrary to established legal procedures for collecting and presenting evidence. Continue reading →