Challenging DUI Evidence in Philadelphia
What defenses can be raised in your case?
When people are arrested for DUI, the biggest mistake they make is to assume there is no hope and plead guilty in hopes of receiving lighter penalties. While DUI cases present both prosecutors and defense attorneys with clear statutory and constitutional hurdles, prosecutors still must demonstrate that every element of a crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and that a defendant's constitutional rights were not violated.
At Parkinson, Tarpey & Lloyd, each of our criminal lawyers in Philadelphia are former prosecutors and together, we offer you over 40 years of combined experience. Not only have we tried literally thousands of cases, but two of our attorneys are included in The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers. When it comes to challenging DUI evidence, we are the law firm to trust!
Ways to Effectively Question DUI Evidence
As Philadelphia DUI attorneys, we have extensive courtroom trial experience. We know the ins and outs of the court system and we know how to challenge the scientific and legal issues that intersect in DUI cases. Challenges to be raised in a DUI case include:
- The stop was invalid because there as no reasonable suspicion.
- The stop was pretextual (arrests for minor offenses that enable police to detain suspects for investigation of other matters).
- The officer's detention of the driver exceeded the reasonable amount of time for the purpose of the stop.
- The officer's stop for drunk driving was based on all of the wrong observations.
- The officer did not have a right to stop the defendant because the officer relied on a citizen's tip, which has no proof of reliability.
- There was no probable cause to make an arrest.
- The officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest based on the administration of the field sobriety tests (SFSTs), and the blood alcohol results should be suppressed.
- The officer did not have probable cause for an arrest because the suspect refused all SFSTs and chemical tests.
- The field sobriety tests are inadmissible because the defendant was not free to leave the scene during the investigation. Under Miranda guidelines, the suspect was in custody.
Contact a Skilled DUI Lawyer Today!
The above challenges are only the tip of the iceberg. DUI prosecutions are among the most difficult cases for a prosecutor to handle, especially for new prosecutors who are usually the one's assigned to these types of cases. DUI cases almost always deal with technical and scientific testimony, but they should always involve a skilled and knowledgeable defense attorney who has done his or her homework.
If you were arrested for DUI, we urge you to contact Parkinson, Tarpey & Lloyd to discuss your case for free with one of our Philadelphia DUI lawyers. We are on your side and we are highly experienced in the field of DUI defense – let us use our knowledge to challenge the DUI evidence in your case!
Schedule your free consultation by contacting Parkinson, Tarpey & Lloyd today.
“"Three A+++ lawyers in one firm!"”- John J.
“"Jim is stand-out lawyer and a stand-up guy!"”- John J.
“Great company”- Antonio M
Commonwealth v. A.B. Reduced Sentence
Commonwealth v. A.D.M. Dismissed
Commonwealth v. A.G. Dismissed
Commonwealth v. A.H. Found Not Guilty
Commonwealth v. A.P. Charges Dismissed
Commonwealth v. A.R. Not Guilty
Commonwealth v. A.S. Dismissed
Commonwealth v. A.T. Dismissed
Commonwealth v. A.T. Charges Withdrawn
Commonwealth v. A.T. Dismissed