What is a common defensive strategy in DWI cases?

Challenging the validity of the traffic stop is a well-recognized defensive strategy in DWI cases. This approach hinges on the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. If a defense attorney can successfully argue that the traffic stop was not justified—meaning law enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate the stop—then any evidence gathered during that stop, including breathalyzer tests or field sobriety tests, may be deemed inadmissible in court. This can significantly weaken the prosecution's case and potentially lead to a dismissal of the charges.

The other options do not hold up as effective strategies. Claiming complete innocence without evidence lacks substance; without corroborating proof or a strong narrative to back the claim, this defense is unlikely to persuade a judge or jury. Arguing that all drivers are treated equally does not take into account the individualized circumstances of each case; it is more of a statement about fairness and does not specifically address the legality of the DWI charge. Finally, stating there was no interaction with law enforcement can be counterproductive—if the arrest followed a legitimate traffic stop, the interaction itself is critical to the case, and denying it may not have the desired effect. Thus, focusing on the legitimacy