Driven to get results!

How police mistakes can help your DUI defense

On Behalf of | May 1, 2026 | DUI |

If you’ve been charged with driving under the influence (DUI) in Pennsylvania, it might feel like the odds are stacked against you, especially if the evidence seems irrefutable. However, what looks like a solid DUI case can quickly fall apart.

Law enforcement officers make mistakes, and they can be the very thing that unravels the prosecution’s case against you. Here are some of the most common ones.

Unlawful traffic stops

Police officers must have a valid legal reason to pull you over. If they stop you unlawfully, any evidence collected during the stop may be inadmissible in court. This includes the officer’s observations, field sobriety tests and even breathalyzer results. Without such crucial evidence, the case against you may no longer be as strong as it seemed.

Improper field sobriety testing

Field sobriety tests are highly subjective and must be administered according to strict guidelines. If an officer fails to follow proper procedures, the results can be challenged. Uneven road surfaces, poor lighting or medical conditions can also lead to flawed results that may not hold up in court.

Breathalyzer and blood test errors

Breathalyzer machines that test blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels require regular calibration and maintenance. Officers must also be properly certified to operate them. If the device wasn’t calibrated within the required timeframe, records weren’t kept or the officer lacked current certification, the reading may be disputed or thrown out altogether.

Blood tests must follow strict chain of custody rules. If there are any gaps in how the sample was handled while under police custody, the integrity of the evidence may be ruled unreliable.

Your defense starts with scrutiny

Every stage of a DUI case matters, from the moment you’re pulled over to your arrest and processing. Even slight procedural mistakes can have major consequences, but only if they are properly identified and challenged. It underscores the need for early legal guidance before critical opportunities to challenge the evidence are lost.

Archives