That's what I say even when I know that my client was too drunk to drive.
And I believe it when I say it.
I'm not defending my client's actions, I'm defending our constitutional rights by putting the state to its burden.
Then why is it so hard to say it when the alleged wrongdoer is a police officer? Why am I so willing to believe what I read in the paper about his alleged misdeeds? Why does the same mechanism that starts ticking off possible defenses, explanations and excuses when a client sits down across from me shut down when the alleged wrongdoer is a police officer?