Call a former DUI Judge
with over 40 years experience
Of all the possible chemical tests to determine whether a person is driving under the influence of alcohol, the urine test is by far the least reliable. Urine tests are also often unreliable in determining whether a driver was under the influence of drugs while operating a motor vehicle. In fact, urine tests are often inaccurate, and because of this, are often ruled to be inadmissible as evidence in a DUI case.
DUI lawyer Mark Weingart has years of experience in providing expert defense of motorists who are facing DUI charges. If you have been charged with a DUI and you were asked to take a urine test, it is important that you understand your rights and legal options. It is equally important that you understand the flaws inherent in urine tests and how exposing these flaws can be used to your advantage in your DUI defense. Securing the counsel of a DUI lawyer with the experience, knowledge, and skill of Mark Weingart can make the difference between keeping and losing your driver’s license or even between maintaining your freedom and spending time in jail.
At our law firm in Tempe, DUI urine testing cases are handled with aggressive defense of our clients’ rights. If you would like further information about the flaws in urine testing or would like to arrange an evaluation of your DUI case, please contact the The Weingart Firm today.
Urine tests are widely considered to be unreliable for a variety of reasons. For one, the percentage of alcohol present in a person’s urine does not necessarily correlate to the percentage of alcohol in a person’s blood. While it is generally agreed that the amount of alcohol in the urine is roughly 1.33 times the amount of alcohol in the blood, studies have demonstrated that in certain individuals, the amount of alcohol can be substantially more or substantially less in a person’s blood than in a person’s urine. The bottom line is that it can be argued that the test is flawed, and that the division of the percentage of alcohol present in the urine by 1.33 gives only an estimate, not a reliably accurate number.
In addition, a urine test can be affected by when the driver last urinated. For example, it is theoretically possible that hours had passed since a driver’s last drink, and during that time the driver did not urinate. As a result, the percentage of alcohol in the urine would almost certainly be higher than the percentage of alcohol in the blood. It is for this reason that most police officers administer two urine tests, the second generally being more reliable than the first because the bladder has been voided. However, even then the amount of alcohol that remains in the bladder can be significantly higher than the amount present in the blood.
In a sense, it is often to the driver’s advantage if his or her DUI arrest is based primarily on the results of a urine test, as this test can rather easily be discredited by an experienced attorney. Certainly, Mark Weingart has the experience to argue compellingly against the validity of DUI urine tests.