Common DUI Myths Addressed by Broward DUI Lawyer

As an experienced Broward County DUI attorney, William Moore Criminal Defense knows about the myths and misperceptions surrounding driving under the influence (DUI) charges.

1. If someone is arrested for DUI, he or she must be an alcoholic. This is not true. First, the driver might not have actually been intoxicated, as the breath test equipment has serious reliability problems and law enforcement officers have a bias towards thinking that a person is impaired following the performance of highly subjective roadside field sobriety testing. Secondly, if you were in fact actually intoxicated, or borderline intoxicated, that does not mean that the alcohol or other impairing substances were taken as a result of addiction. Alcoholism is a serious disease that affects millions of Americans, often with dire consequences to their home lives and careers, but a simple DUI arrest is not a diagnosis, says Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer William Moore.
2. If you are arresting for DUI, you must have been drunk. This is clearly false. In fact, many people who are arrested for driving under the influence were not even at the per se legal limit of 0.08 blood alcohol content. Individuals are commonly arrested at significantly lower levels, such as 0.05, 0.06, or 0.07. The levels could be lower — even 0.00 (when someone blows “triple zeroes”) — but police often begin to look for evidence that the driver is under the influence of a secondary substance. The police frequently ask for a urine sample or even a blood draw in this situation. Urine tests, it should be noted, do not effectively quantify substances found in urine, making them less reliable.
3. Breath test machines, or breathalyzers, provide indisputably accurate information about a person’s level of intoxication. Many people mistakenly believe that breathalyzers are beyond a doubt accurate. This is simply not the case. They can be thrown off by many things, including diabetes and the presence of other substances in the test-taker’s mouth. Further, the company that manufactures the device has refused, even under court order, to disclose the source code. Without that information, which would disclose how the machine calculates breath alcohol, it is impossible to verify the claims of accuracy made by law enforcement.

---