What defenses can be used to fight a drunk driving charge?

In California, there are a number of potential defenses that may be used to fight a drunk driving charge. Generally, the defense must be tailored to the individual case and specific circumstances. The most common defense used to fight a drunk driving charge is the "lack of evidence" defense. This defense is based on the idea that the state may not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually operating a vehicle while intoxicated. This type of defense may involve challenging the accuracy of breathalyzer tests, or bringing into question the manner in which a police officer conducted a field sobriety test. Another possible defense is the "necessity" defense. This defense acknowledges that the defendant was driving drunk but argues that it was necessary to do so in order to protect the safety of the driver and others. However, in California, this defense is rarely successful. In addition, an individual charged with a drunk driving offense may be able to claim that they were not read their Miranda rights prior to the arrest. This could potentially lead to any evidence gathered by police to be excluded in court. Finally, the defendant may also argue that they were not given an opportunity to refuse the breathalyzer test or field sobriety test. Depending on the circumstances, this may be a valid argument against a drunk driving charge. Ultimately, the best defense in any criminal case is to consult with a qualified attorney. An attorney can help assess the individual circumstances of a case and identify the most appropriate defense strategy. With the help of an experienced attorney, a defendant in a drunk driving case may be able to have the charge reduced or dismissed altogether.

What defenses can be used to fight a drunk driving charge?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts