breathalyzer

SkyHog said:
Again, that's not true in NM. In NM, the field Alcoanalizer (as I think its called) is admissible in court, and there is no need for any further tests of any sort once a single dirty test has been administered.
....
Click to expand...

You might be thinking of probable cause hearings. Field alcohol tests are admissible to determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest and/or request the "official" sobriety test.

In New Mexico, to be admissible against you, the instrument used has to be certified. To be certified, the instrument has to, among other things, be maintained in an area free of contaminants. There aren't any PBT's that can meet that standard, unless they're left in a sterile environment in the police station somewhere.

And there's appellate cases in New Mexico saying that.
 
ziege said:
http://www.nashvillecriminallawrepo...s/dui/a-lot-of-burping-convicts-judge-of-dui/

"...burped 78 times while waiting to do the breath alcohol test..."
Click to expand...

Yeah. To give a technical legal explanation, excessive burping would result in one of two things: 1) a deemed refusal; or 2) a blood test.

If you're deemed to refuse the test, you lose your license for a lot longer, and the refusal is used against you (and that uniformly looks bad to a jury). If they ask for the blood test, you could of course refuse it (resulting in the foregoing), or they get your BAC eventually, even though it takes longer (which could work for or against you, usually against).
 
In Illinois, despite field calibration protocols, field observation protocols, etc- if you blow over and are refused the blood test, the LEOs lose on data and have to make it on the checklist field observations.

Additionally, though, the subjects are usually too dumb to insist on the blood test. Alcohol makes you stupid.
 
Police can get a conviction on DUI without the chemical evidence - look at videos from the tank sometime.

True story: Client of mine, charged with DWI - lawyer to whom I referred him calls me to come along to view video.

Miranda warnings administered properly and professionally, then "Are you willing to talk with us?"

"Well, my lawyer'll probably kill me, but *sure* I'll talk to you!"

"Have you been drinking tonight?"

"Not really... just a couple of beers... course, they were big'uns!"

"Would you say you're drunk right now?"

"Nope, I ain't drunk. Got a pretty good buzz, goin' though!"

And so it went, up to and including the shots... "Buttery Nipples!"

Plea deal accepted.
 
bstratt said:
He said it was that the vapours were still in my mouth and throat from downing the half beer that caused the initial overage.
Click to expand...

Entirely possible. That's why I have to observe a DUI suspect for 20 minutes prior to administering a breath test, to allow the volatile alcohol time to disperse. That was NOT the same as a legal breath test.
 
ronnieh said:
The breathalyzer results are whatever the cop says they are.
Click to expand...

Negative, ghostrider. The legally admissible test must be performed on a certified breathalyzer, which records and prints out the results, on a calibrated machine, with logs and date/time stamps and test sequence numbers. And usually in a videotaped room.

If you want to rant about the implied consent statute, I'm with you. But DUI machines and tests are extremely difficult to fake, and not worth the risk of jail time.
 
Im not talking, Im not doing FST's, not blowing and I may have a bad back and cant stand up either. Like I said earlier, I dont drink, much less drink and drive but ANYTHING you do or say only helps to convict you. I know it varies state by state, But in Alabama A really gifted lawyer will get a dui defendant off 90% of the time on a technicality. Not completely off mind you, but much diminished in severity.
 
PilotAlan said:
Negative, ghostrider. The legally admissible test must be performed on a certified breathalyzer, which records and prints out the results, on a calibrated machine, with logs and date/time stamps and test sequence numbers. And usually in a videotaped room.

If you want to rant about the implied consent statute, I'm with you. But DUI machines and tests are extremely difficult to fake, and not worth the risk of jail time.
Click to expand...

Depending on the jurisdiction, the calibration could be mis-set.

Washington DC has suspended their breathalyzer program because the machines were miscalibrated by the police in a manner that caused them to read 20% too high.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Why *shouldn't* you be arrested if those two beers impacted your ability to drive? Why should other members of the public be on the line for your "those two beers didn't impair my driving that much" opinion of your abilities?

There are two levels of driving alcohol offenses, by the way. I can't speak to what they're called everywhere, but here, there is: 1) "Driving While Ability Impaired" (under a .08, but your ability to drive is impaired to the "slightest degree"); and 2) "Driving While Intoxicated" or "Driving Under the Influence" (where either: a) your driving is really bad or; b) you've got above a .08).

So, if you blow less than a .08, you're not necessarily going to be convicted of anything. But if you're at a .01, you can still be convicted of the lesser offense if your driving was at all impacted. So, if you look sleepy, if you swerve over the line, etc., you're busted if you've got booze in your system.

Might seem like a draconian, zero tolerance, approach. It is, and it's meant to be - a whole lot of people are dead because of alcohol and cars.

This is coming from someone who's driven while absolutely trashed, by the way. It's a major problem; some pretty reliable studies show that you'll get caught once for roughly every 200 times you drive drunk.
Click to expand...

So do we arrest people for DWS (Driving While Sleepy), or for most any other event that impacts ones ability to drive "in the slightest bit"? That is my fundamental problem with DWI laws. They exist because it is EASY with modern technology to prove guilt.
 
tdager said:
So do we arrest people for DWS (Driving While Sleepy), or for most any other event that impacts ones ability to drive "in the slightest bit"? That is my fundamental problem with DWI laws. They exist because it is EASY with modern technology to prove guilt.
Click to expand...

I understand exactly where you're coming from.

My response would be that, apparently, we've said that we're willing to accept the risk of sleepy, or momentarily-distracted (changing the radio, arguing kids, etc.), drivers.

I guess we've said that we're not willing to accept the risk of someone who downs some booze and then drives.
 
Alan, your assumption is based on cops, prosecutors, and judges being honest and playing by the rules. This may happen in Oz but, in the real world that seldom happens. The rules are made up as needed. I have personal knowledge of a person who had a seizure, had a wreck with no injuries. The person was charged with DUI (no BAC tests of any kind) based on field sobriety, no proof of insurance though he had full coverage with an insurance card in his billfold (due to the seizure he was not able to understand the request) and driving without a liscense. He had a valid out of state liscense. He had a choice, pay a lawyer $15 K or the city of Gardendale, Al. $5 K. It is all about the money. If you are charged either the government or a lawyer is going to get money and many times both get paid. If you want to see the laws enforced fairly make one change. If the government loses the case in court they pay all legal fees and pay for any lost wages. That would make the cops more willing to play by the rules rather than just being a fee collector.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top