Today on Blogcritics
Home » DUI Defendants Get Off Scott-Free

DUI Defendants Get Off Scott-Free

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Here is the link.

Many DUI cases in Florida have been tossed out because the manufacturer of the breath-alcohol tests used to catch them refused to “disclose how the machines work.”

All four of Seminole County’s criminal judges have been using a standard that if a DUI defendant asks for a key piece of information about how the machine works – its software source code, for instance – and the state cannot provide it, the breath test is rejected, the Orlando Sentinel reported Wednesday.

Prosecutors have said they do not know how many drunken drivers have been acquitted as a result. But Gino Feliciani, the misdemeanor division chief in the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office, said the conviction rate has dropped to 50 percent or less.

First, I need to praise the person who first got acquitted using this tactic. Although it isn’t that hard to circumvent the judicial system and its process and get away with crimes, this is pretty clever. It needed the manufacturer to not reveal the machine’s inner workings, and for the judge to allow that defense, but somehow the man got away with it. Others followed the man’s example, and rightfully so.

It hasn’t worked it all places. “Judges in other counties have said the opposite: The state cannot turn over something it does not possess, and the manufacturer should not have to turn over trade secrets.” This is the nature of the system, that every judge has a different opinion and perspective on things and it affects how each case will proceed.

But this is also where I think the real flaws of the system do the most damage. Some cases become precedents for further cases, like Roe V. Wade, and change the entire country. Despite what people say about the lack of need for judges – that lawyers and juries decided the cases, judges can determine and guide their outcomes.

Yes, if the manufacturer of the breathalyzers don’t show how test works which proved that the people were driving over the legal alcohol limit, then there is no real case. But the breathalyzer is pretty much a universally accepted method for detecting the alcohol limit. Not knowing a test’s accuracy is one thing, but not knowing how it works is another. These people broke the law and endangered the lives of many people. These people made serious mistakes in driving and driving, and there is a likelihood that they might repeat those mistakes. How can you let them off the hook?

Powered by

About Tan The Man

I am a proud dork and loser.
  • http://www.google.com Erik

    Hello sir, please remember that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, so in fact you cannot say that they are endangering lives and getting off the hook.

    I am sure you would be bothered if I accused you of child molestation because I have a black box here that says so. I’m not going to tell you how the black box works, however, but it’s always right.

    Trade secrets, copyright etc do not apply when there is an overriding social need for such information. I am extremely bothered by the concept of a device used by the government for the purposes of determining guilt, but no one will disclose how it arrives at that conclusion! I ask you, would you feel comfortable in a court of law if, the prosecutor rather than presenting evidence of your guilt, simply appealed to the jury that he has a high accuracy of conviction and they should take his word that you are guilty?

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan Hoang

    Before I answer your questions… do you not believe in the accuracy of breathalyzers?

  • Micky Dee

    Tan while I am not the above poster “Erik” I will answer your question. I for one do not believe in the the accuracy of anything in this mortal world that CAN NOT be VERIFIED!

    When the “testimony” of one of these machines is entered into evidence against someone it is IMPOSSIBLE to verify if it’s results are accurate or not. Unlike blood or urine, by design, these machines leave no evidence behind that can be verified. But thanks to the MADDness, under the DUI laws the state is under no obligation to prove that the results are accurate on an individual bases..

    As for Eric and everyone else I have a shock for you. Under the DUI laws there IS NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE once someone blows into one of these machines. Under the DUI law called “Illegal per se laws”, a person is “PRESUMED TO BE GUILTY” even before stepping one foot into a court of law if the machine reports they have a BrAC of .08 or more.

    Only in DUI is the burden of proof shifted to the accused. Everyone else including rapists and child molesters are still presumed to be innocent.

    “Marcus Hill took a small swig of bourbon and swished it in his mouth. He spit the liquor into a cup, then blew into the Intoxilyzer 5000, a machine police and the Highway Patrol commonly use to help determine whether a driver is drunk. Despite not swallowing a drop of the bourbon, the Durham lawyer registered 0.25 — more than three times the legal threshold for intoxication. Sutton put two drops of bourbon into her mouth for less than a second before spitting them out. The Intoxilyzer gave her a reading of 0.35, more than quadruple the legal threshold.” http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1145

    Tan you said “judges can determine and guide their outcomes”. But that is as it should be, is their job! Judges are to be the “gatekeepers” and as such are to decide what will be allowed to be considered as evidence.

    Tan said: “Although it isn’t that hard to circumvent the judicial system and its process and get away with crimes, this is pretty clever”

    Really? You speak as if you have some first hand experience with this. The fact is when it comes to DUI it’s often easier to persecute, prosecute, and convict an innocent person than to convict a guilty one.

    Tan said:
    “But the breathalyzer is pretty much a universally accepted method for detecting the alcohol limit. Not knowing a test’s accuracy is one thing, but not knowing how it works is another. These people broke the law and endangered the lives of many people. These people made serious mistakes in driving and driving, and there is a likelihood that they might repeat those mistakes. How can you let them off the hook?”

    The breathalyzer is only “a universally accepted method for detecting the alcohol” by those whose primary interest is in convicting people and not in preventing “Drunk Driving” per se. These people are willing to sacrifice one of the most basic tenants of our legal system. A tenant that has been part of every enlighten legal system dating back to biblical times…. Just for the sake of expediency!!!

    For you to simply say that “These people broke the law and endangered the lives of many people” is really judgmental and myopic on your part.

    How can you say that that these people made serious mistakes in (drinking) and driving, and there is a likelihood that they might repeat those mistakes. On what empirical evidence do you base those statements on? They may have been been ” let off the hook” but comparing them to a fish caught on a hook is just not right. Our judicial system and police should not be involved conducting “fishing expeditions” in the name of some cause, but never the less they are. And they are not even using hooks. There using what is tantamount to dynamite.

    The plain and simple truth is this. There is no “trade secret” with these machines unless one considers plain old B.S. and or deceit to be a “trade secret”. What they are talking about is the program code that the manufacture has coded into the machine’s memory (“EPROM”) that tells the machine exactly how to work. What the accused want is just to be able to verify that the machine is programmed to do exactly what the manufactures and the police claim that it does.

    Admissibility of scientific evidence

    hxxp://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=114

    It appears that nowadays the name “Breathalyzer” is almost a generic name. The Breathalyzer was originally invented by Prof. Robert F. Borkenstein with the Indiana State Police back in 1954. So how can something that was invented by one employed with the government have trade secret? The fact is since its invention more than 50 years ago there has been no real improvement in the underlying pseudoscience that these machines are premised on.

    The fact is the Polygraphs, or lie-detector leaves more “verifiable” evidence behind than these breath testing machines do, yet Polygraphs are generally inadmissible in criminal cases hxxp://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1126

    Intoximeter uses “new fool proof technology” hxxp://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=812

    ..

  • MD

    FLorida
    May 14, 2005

    1,100 DUI cases face state review
    Move follows breath-analysis test ruling

    The State Attorney’s Office must review 1,100 of the county’s drunken-driving cases from July 2004 through April to see which ones it can prosecute without evidence from breath-analysis tests, according to a prosecutor’s memo to State Attorney Barry Krischer.The Friday memo came after a judge ruled this week that the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office method of maintaining breath-analysis machines unfairly damages the ability to defend against a DUI arrest.

    For 10 months, the Sheriff’s Office had multiple technicians do monthly maintenance and didn’t adequately record who worked on which machines
    In cases in which an individual submitted to the test, prosecutors must decide if sufficient other evidence exists for a conviction.

    “The only thing we are going to have is impairment,” Parker said.

    They have one instance where that appears to be enough.

    Quote:
    In cases in which an individual submitted to the test, prosecutors must decide if sufficient other evidence exists for a conviction.

    “The only thing we are going to have is impairment,” The prosecutor said.

    They have one instance where that appears to be enough.
    ******************

    So out of 1,100 DUI cases they can only PROVE that one person was really, honest to goodness, truly, IMPAIRED!
    Incredible!!!!!

    Now if that is not indicative of a witch hunt I don’t know what is.

    ..

  • Md

    The correct link for THE “admissibility of scientific evidence” is here

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan Hoang

    I like having my arguments dissected and completely destroyed. Thanks for the links and the insights.

  • jb

    The Breathalyzer was originally invented by Prof. Robert F. Borkenstein with the Indiana State Police back in 1954. – TRUE

    The fact is since its invention more than 50 years ago there has been no real improvement in the underlying pseudoscience that these machines are premised on. – FALSE

    The old breathalyzer used ampoules with a solution of three substances. One that absorbed the alcohol into the solution, one to react with it and change color, and a third (a catalyst) to cause the chemical reaction to be done within 90 seconds. Two ampoules would be placed on either side of a light inside the instrument. Light would be shone through them and collected on the other side and converted to electrical current. The needle would be moved (well technically the light would be moved closer to one, further from the other) until an equal amount of light went through both ampoules (so balanced – same electrical current on each side). The person would blow into the breathalyzer. The breath sample would collect in one of the ampoules. The concentration of alcohol would impact the amount of change in the color of the solution in the ampoule (from yellowish to clear). The amount of light that would go through that ampoule compared to the other (remember, they were balanced to be the same prior to the test) would be compared. The comparison would allow the instrument to determine the concentration of alcohol in the person’s breath. Between the first and second sample, the technician would do a Standard Alcohol Solution test using a solution of known alcohol concentration (certified by a lab). This would permit the technician to validate the proper functioning (hence the accuracy) of the instrument each time it was used.

    The new ones run through some internal calibration. Then a sample is obtained. A UV light is shone through the sample, through a chopper wheel and collected on a plate. Abosrption of alcohol by the UV light produces a specific result that allows to eliminate possible contaminants being responsible for the readings. After each of the two (or more) tests for a given subject the instrument conducts its own Standard Alcohol solution test using a solution of known concentration (and certified by a lab). Only if the internal calibrations work plus the external standard alcohol solution validations work will the instrument rely on the results and report a reading and print it off.

    The instrument firstly had to go through scientific testing before it would be approved by the courts. Plus there are processes in place that if followed demonstrates that the instrument was working properly and accurately for any given subject, and therefore the results can be relied upon.

    A person can be charged for being over the legal limit. A person can be charged for being visibly impaired. They are two very different offences, and a person can be charged with both. You can be over the legal limit, but not display sufficient overt signs of impairment to support a straight impaired charge (but you are nevertheless sufficiently impaired in your abilities to be a threat to the public and yourself). So you can be charged for over the legal limit (as determined by the breathalyzer) but not for straight impaired.

    A person can be under the legal limit but staggering around drunk (someone who requires little amount of alcohol to reach such a stage of impairment). They can be charged for straight impaired but not for being over the legal limit.

    Finally a person can be visibly drunk, AND over the legal limit. In that case you can be charged for both offences as they are different in the elements of the offences.

    The case of “1,100 DUI cases face state review” is an example where either:
    1 – all but one did not display overt signs of impaired but did fail the breathalyzer (so were likely all just a bit over the limit – keep in mind the limit for some may require as many as 8-10+ beers in a 4 hour period, or as little as 4 for others depending on metabolism, body composition, and sex – male vs female).

    or

    2 – There was only one case where the officer(s) made proper notes that supported a straight impaired charge. In the other 1099 cases insufficient observations of physical impairment were noted by the officers and therefore a charge of straight impaired could not be pursued. Many of the officers may have relied too much on proceeding only with the scientific evidence of the breathalyzer for an over the legal limit charge and consequently became lax in their notes pertaining to physical impairment. That does not invalidate a breathalyzer’s reading. But unfortunately it inhibits the ability to pursue a charge of straight impaired and leaves you with nothing if for some reason you lose the breathalyzer readings (most frequent reasons argued to throw out the readings would be an argument concerning a person’s rights having been violated (such as legal counsel, demand not read, grounds for demand not properly articulated or not present and therefore the officer should have first gone to the roadside screening device which only requires a suspicon in order to demand compliance with it).

    The fact that a particular jurisdiction or a particular officer (or officers) failed to follow proper procedures (or failed to properly document the procedures followed) does not give reason to question the instrument’s technology. That would require providing reasonable evidence to the courts of a potential flaw across a number of instruments. That would support an argument that the instrument itself may be flawed (source code, faulty component, whatever).

    I have seen nothing on the Internet to suggest that such was the case here. Rather it was a whim by a lawyer. The courts don’t automatically entertain something because it’s possible that it may be true. I introduce a piece of evidence with my initials on it and a movement sheet showing where it was stored securely pending court. Is it possible someone broke into the police station’s bond room, stole the evidence and replaced it with another and properly reproduced my initials on it? Yes, it’s possible. Is it probable? Not at all. Courts normally do not entertain such far fetched “possibilities”.

    The breathalyzer has been scientifically proven to funciton accurately. There are a number of checks & balances that ensures that it continues to function properly out in the field (internal calibration, external standard alcohol solution test after each and every breath sample, physical observations of impairment consistent with the readings, failure of the road side screening device prior to taking the breathalyzer). But a lawyer gets up and says despite all that evidence in favour of the accuracy of the instrument, it is possible that it is flawed. But not just flawed. Flawed in such a way that it gives the impression that it is functioning properly and accurately despite the internal and external calibrations that produces known results when the instrument is functioning properly.

    So a judge decides that given that there is a possibility (however infinite it is) that the instrument is flawed in such a fashion, and that the flaw may be related to source code, orders the source code to be produced for validation. Now what source code do you want? There are a number of computer components inside modern breathalyzers. And those components may have code embeded on the chip. So lets get all possible source code. Let’s also get the diagram for the circuitry of those chips. Who knows, one of those connections on the chip may be wrong despite producing accurate results during scientific testing.

    It was a ridiculous, erroneous decision with no foundation in facts.

    Innocent until proven guilty. Absolutely. These people were proven guilty by the proper use of a scientific instrument to measure the blood/alcohol concentration. The courts in these particular cases chose to ignore scientific evidence for no valid reason at all. They were not found guilty in court. But you will never convince me that 1099 out of 1100 DUIs are innocent. If all the processes were properly followed, then they were definitely guilty. They simply got off with it because of a dumb ass decision. They did endanger lives. And they will do it again, and again, and again unless someone steps in and shakes the crap out of those judges so that there is room for some common sense to get back in to their heads.

  • SFC SKI

    Not to mention the reasons a lot of them were probably pulled over for, driving while impaired is fairly obvious.
    Any loophole that keeps more drunks on the road is OK, I suppose.

  • jb

    By the way Mickee Dee, you quoted:
    “Marcus Hill took a small swig of bourbon and swished it in his mouth. He spit the liquor into a cup, then blew into the Intoxilyzer 5000, a machine police and the Highway Patrol commonly use to help determine whether a driver is drunk. Despite not swallowing a drop of the bourbon, the Durham lawyer registered 0.25 — more than three times the legal threshold for intoxication. Sutton put two drops of bourbon into her mouth for less than a second before spitting them out. The Intoxilyzer gave her a reading of 0.35, more than quadruple the legal threshold.” http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1145

    Absolutely correct! That will happen. That is why we wait at least 15 minutes (as required by law) between each test (including the first one). The driver is in a controlled environment, often searched prior to being placed there. The not likely he’d be able to grab a swig without being seen. Mouth alcohol dissipates within 5-8 minutes (it’s been tested, I’ve tested it as well).

    Furthermore 2 readings are taken, and each must agree within 20 mg% (because your body cannot eliminate that much alcohol between the tests). If the readings deviate by more than 20 mg%, a third test is required. And in rare cases a 4th. Until you have the two readings within 20 mg%. You can then rely on those readings (you’ve already established the accuracy of the instrument through a number of calibrations I’ve mentioned earlier. The 20 minutes between tests plus no more than 20 mg% between the two acceptable readings ensures mouth alcohol is not a factor – all processes to ensure the accuracy of the instrument and reliability of the readings produced by it).

    If you are going to argue something do it competently, or don’t do it at all. Making unqualified, unsupported statements based neither on scientific research, experience, or education in favour of your point of view will get you nowhere fast.

  • Micky Dee

    jb Oh Please…What a bunch of tripe and delusive nonsense.

    I said>>
    The fact is since its invention more than 50 years ago there has been no real improvement in the underlying pseudoscience that these machines are premised on.
    JB Said < <<<<- FALSE>>>>>>>>
    WRONG!!! What I said is absolutely true and if you truly know anything about what you talking about than you know that to be the case.

    I just love your your statement that says volumes about how you feel are legal system should operate..  Yes screw the courts and our legal system and while we are at it why don’t we just burn the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because after all their just loopholes and technicalities that get “Drunk Drivers’ off. We don’t need any stinking rights. All hail the machine. The machine is god.

    [[JB SAID:Innocent until proven guilty. Absolutely. These people were proven guilty by the proper use of a scientific instrument to measure the blood/alcohol concentration. They were not found guilty in court. But you will never convince me that 1099 out of 1100 DUIs are innocent]] 

    Fortunately we still have a legal system that more or less affords everyone accused, guilty or not, the due process of law. Only in a court of law can a person be found guilt of some crime. Not by some Machine built on pseudoscience. These machines were designed for only one purpose. Not to prove innocence or guilt but to convict people. The guilty along with the innocent. Thank God no one has to convince you, or someone like you, of ANYTHING unless you are sitting on a jury or wearing a black robe and presiding over a court of law.

    JB, who the hell appointed you judge jury and executioner? That’s why we have courts. To prevent shallow minded Fascist individuals from conduction witch hunts or public lynchings.

    [[JB Said: If you are going to argue something do it competently, or don’t do it at all. Making unqualified, unsupported statements based neither on scientific research, experience, or education in **favour** of your point of view will get you nowhere fast. ]]

    JB; What qualifies you to make such ridiculous statements. Just because your a L.E.O.? You are either being purposely disingenuous or are ignorant of the facts. Or maybe its just that you choose to ignore them altogether because of you own personal biases.

    I’m under no delusion that many who will read this topic will leave with their opinions about it unchanged. Many will believe what they want to believe or have been told to believe because its suits their sentiments. For some to think about any thing else is just too much work. I think it was Henry Ford who once said .” Thinking is hard work. That fact that so many people fail to do it is proof.” Some people really hate being told the truth and others hate the people that tell it.

    What gets me is how the mere suggestion that something is wrong in this subject will often bring out the “true believers” and their prejudicial myopic way of thinking that prevents any objective consideration of the issue.

    Your response is so typical of that kind of mentality. About the only thing you haven’t done was accuse me of being a “Drunk” or a the equivalent of some sort of blaspheming heretic as is so often the Modus Operandi of people with that kind of mindset. But wait you did do the latter in a way didn’t you?

    Despite all your rhetoric you have failed to address that simple truth that I started out with when I said. 

    I for one do not believe in the the accuracy of anything in this mortal world that CAN NOT be VERIFIED!

    When the “testimony” of one of these machines is entered into evidence against someone it is IMPOSSIBLE to verify if it’s results are accurate or not. Unlike blood or urine, by design, these machines leave no evidence behind that can be verified. But thanks to the MADDness, under the DUI laws the state is under no obligation to prove that the results are accurate on an individual bases..

    Under the DUI laws there IS NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE once someone blows into one of these machines. Under the DUI law called “Illegal per se laws”, a person is “PRESUMED TO BE GUILTY” even before stepping one foot into a court of law if the machine reports they have a BrAC of .08 or more.
    Quick Definition of Illegal per se laws here. hxxp://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1184

    Only in DUI is the burden of proof shifted to the accused. Everyone else including rapists and child molesters are still presumed to be innocent. No mater what side of the issue you’re on, anyone one that believes in the presumption of innocence should find such a law to be repugnant.

    Like I said before. The breathalyzer is only “a universally accepted method for detecting the alcohol” by those whose primary interest is in convicting people and not in preventing “Drunk Driving” per se. These people are willing to sacrifice one of the most basic tenants of our legal system. A tenant that has been part of every enlighten legal system dating back to biblical times…. Just for the sake of expediency!!!

    J.B. You have purposefully or ignorantly made so many statements that border on pure conjuncture and utter B.S I’m not going to waist my time auguring with you about each one of them except for the following just as an example

    < <<>>>

    Oh I see just because you say “it” has been tested and that “you” have tested it everyone should just except it and put their blind faith in a machine that was designed to convict people and which leaves no verifiable evidence behind.

    You speak of waiting at least 15 minutes and say is required by law. In most jurisdiction this is no law but just a RULE commonly known as the 15 or 20 rule enacted by the various state agencies charge with the oversight pertaining to the operation and maintenance of these machines.
     
    There are many many “rules” governing the use of these machines. NONE of them were enacted out of any altruistic concern for protecting the rights of the accused or to insure any degree of fairness or accuracy. No they were ALL enacted because of challenges made against these machines to the many “fatal flaws” both in the theory of operation and the the design of these machines over the years. The 15 or 20 minuet rule is just one of them but goes to the hart of the matter.

    So called mouth alcohol is just one of several factor behind the 15 or 20 minuet rule. The rule says that the officer who will be administering the test must observe the subject for 15 or 20 minuets and insure that the subject does not ingest any foreign substance at all.

    This is because even something like plain old white bread will cause many of these machines to give a false reading. The officer is also suppose to watch the subject to insure that the subject does not belch or burp or regurgitate at all with in the wating period because any one of these events will generate a false reading on the machine.

    JB do you sit there and stare at the subject for 15 or 20 minuets as the rule requires???????.

    Most officer do not, They just put the subject in a holding area and go have a cup of coffee and shoot the bull with other officers. When they come back they will just put a check mark indicating that they have compiled with the rule.

    The fact is that in order for a person to be impaired, “even to the slightest degree” by alcohol the alcohol has to be in their blood in order for it to reach the brain and effect the central nervous system. These MACHINE’s and they are just that, do not directly, or in most case even indirectly, measure the TRUE amount of alcohol in a persons blood. AND THERES IS NO WAY THAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN PROVE THAT THE HAVE ON AN INDIVIDUIAL BIASES

    A person should not have to prove the machine to be wrong!!!!!

    According to the manufacture of these machines and the their FAULTY application of a THEORY called Henry’s law, in order for the machine to have any kind of a chance at measuring the true amount of alcohol, if any, in a persons blood by means of analyzing their breath the machine has to sample what is called the alveoli air or Deep Lung air and only that and nothing else.

    Belch Not Just Hot Air http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1723

    Another condition of Henry’s law states that its only applicable in a Closed system. For example a glass jar with a lid on it.

    In an attempt to get around this fact some so called self proclaimed police expert recently told an acquaintance of mine that the air in the bottom of the lungs CAN NOT BE exhaled. Therefore, it acts as a closed system and follows Henry’s law.

    Poppycock!!! That would only be true if a person is deceased or in the process of being suffocated.

    I would think if this was true than a person would quickly die due to a build up of carbon dioxide poising.

    >>>>All the manufactures of these devices clearly state that in order for their machines to measure a persons BrAC the machine must sample the Deep Lung air and only the deep air in the bottom of the subjects lunges called the alveoli air. If the air in the bottom of the lungs COULD NOT BE exhaled than there would be no way in hell for these machines to even have a chance to sample it.

    We all should remember that everyone has the RIGHT, not the privilege, but the RIGHT to be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

    But alas when it come to DUI and those Breath testing machines THERE IS NO presumption of innocence under the DUI laws. On top of that the physical evidence is purposefully discarded.

  • jb

    Mickey Dee:

    “JB do you sit there and stare at the subject for 15 or 20 minuets as the rule requires???????.”

    I always did do that, both as a qualified breathalyzer technician, and as the arresting officer. The subject is placed in the breathalyzer room, where the breathalyzer technician is also located and subjects the instrument to a series of tests prior to obtaining the first sample. And yes, when the person burps, I re-start the waiting period and note that fact. And in all my years of experience, I have observed nothing but proper observation period and following of proper breathalyzer procedures.

    The device is not designed to convict. It is designed to analyse. I have had a few that have passed. Not many, indicative of the fact that we properly screen a subject either using a roadside screening device, or through visual observations consistent with impairement before demanding they provide a breath sample.

    What qualifies me to make these statements? A total of 3 weeks of training (120+ hours), and combined between the older model and the newer model instruments, somewhere in the range of a few hundred tests.

    Deep lung air is captured by ensuring the subject blows for at least 6 seconds on the older models, and the newer models has a flow meter which measures the volume and the flow rate of the breath sample being introduced. If the person stops blowing too quickly, or slows down the flow of their breath too much, the instrument rejects the sample. And only the last 50 ml of that 1.5L of breath is captured by the instrument (the rest flows through it, with the sample chamber closing once it has the last 50 ml of the acceptable sample – hence deep lung air in a closed system.

    If we didn’t consistently capture deep lung air, you’d run the risk of readings varying significantly (which would make them invalid) because of mouth alcohol or whatever. The system even checks the air for any alcohol odours in the air before a person blows to eliminate that possibility.

    When you exhale, if you exhale enough volume of air from your lungs you will exhale some deep lung air. The alcohol in your blood evaporates in part through alveoli sacs in your lungs (some more through your eyes, much of it through your urine). This is ongoing until your body has eliminated all the alcohol in the blood. So at any given time capturing deep lung air will give us the BAC for the subject at that time.

    An officer could have manipulated the results on the older models (however I have never, ever known this to be done in any case I was involved with, or heard about – not suggesting it never was as I’m sure it was by someone somewhere). With the new instruments, the instruments controls the collection of the breath sample, and reports the results on a printed paper. Any suggestion of manipulation by the officer is easily refuted.

    Clearly you will never be convinced regardless of what anybody says. You have this idea that the system works to convict, not find the truth. Again, that no doubt happens sometimes, just like in every other walk of life not everybody is honest. But in my years of experience I have never, ever witnessed it or heard it suggested that someone did that.

    But at the end of the day you will argue this forever and a day. You believe that the system is corrupt and works to convict you. That being the case short of drawing blood from a person and giving them their own vial (right away, wouldn’t want a chance to switch it or add alcohol to it…) for their own analysis, you will suggest some sort of corrupt behaviour by police.

  • JB

    By the way Mickey Dee, are you arguing that the instrument is flawed, or the process? If the instrument, you mean to tell me defence lawyers around the world have never purchased some of these instruments and had them subjected to their own lab tests? You know they have. They came to the same conclusion, that it works. Had anything been found to the contrary, that would have made its way around the world among defence lawyers like wildfire. And no, the source code is not needed to subject an instrument to a series of tests to examine if it reports the results accurately. You can submit a calculator to a lab and they will subject it to a series of tests and determine if it works properly or not without ever needing the source code. The same applies to the Intoxalizer.

    As for independant analysis of the results, what’s to stop you from going and getting a blood test done upon your release and having it analysed by a lab? In my years I had one impaired who asked to be taken to the hospital upon release to get a blood test done. So instead of driving him home I accomodated him and dropped him off at the local hospital. He plead guilty at his court appearance. Either he had it done and it wasn’t what he wanted to see, or he didn’t bother getting it done because he knew the outcome. And it doesn’t matter if it’s done 3-4, or even 6-8 hours later. A qualified lab technician could interpret the results and provide a range of readings at the time of the breathalyzer test.

    The instrument is proven to be reliable & accurate (otherwise defence would produce lab tests showing the contrary). The newer instruments such as the Intoxalizer has electronic checks & balances in place in lieu of relying on the breath. tech., thereby significantly reducing opportunities for human error, and eliminating human manipulation of the readings (because the instrument analyzes the sample and prints the results out, and the driver is provided a copy of the printout upon release vs the older models where the officer transcribes the results himself/herself).

    Your arguments are without validity. The instrument can be independantly validated at any time by the law society or anyone else who wishes to purchase one (or several) and have a lab test it (or them). A subject can go to a hospital and have a blood sample drawn and tested to verify if the breathalyzer was accurate or not. They don’t because they know they’re impaired and over the legal limit. They didn’t need an instrument to tell them that.

    Oh yea, and as for how much a person drinks before they are over (I’ve seen you and/or others argue that point on another board), I can say that when I did my training, on the day that I was a test subject, I (200 lb male at the time) consumed 7 beers in 40-45 minutes and blew 130 (.13) on the first test, but then settled at 120 quickly after that for a while, and in keeping with known elimination rates I saw my readings drop accordingly throughout the afternoon. Some drank less, some drank as much, a few may have consumed a bit more. The one constant, even when we were down to 80 mg% (.08), there was no way in the world we felt capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. So the guy who’s been out to the club all night and blows 120 mg% (.12) at 2:30 in the morning either went on a binge the last hour or so, or drank in excess of 8 beers for certain (assuming average size male) over the course of the evening (due to elimination rate of 10-20 mg% per hour, so after 4 hours they would have eliminated between 40-80 mg% to bring them to 120 mg% at 2:30 AM).

    And again, this has been studied and determined by scientists. And if defence can find a study (or requisition their own study if they don’t trust what’s already out there) to prove otherwise, why has it never been produced and argued in the courts? Again, because the studies that reported those findings are accurate.

    Lawyers have to attack credibility of the officer or breach of rights or some other non technical issue. Because they know that the instrument is proven technology that will withstand any attempts to discredit it.

    As I’ve said to someone else, show me the money. Show me one shred of scientific evidence that demonstrates the inaccuracies of the device or the science behind it. The instrument and the science behind it had to be proven before it would be accepted by the courts (and you can rest assured defence lawyers wouldn’t have allowed it otherwise). The instrument is valid, the science behind it is valid.

    And by the way, Henry’s Law is “the concentration of a solute gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution”. It does not require a closed system. It does require that you capture and analyze the gas above the solution, hence the blood vapours in the deep lung air where as you noted alcohol vapours escape via the alveoli sacs in your lungs from the solution, your blood and alcohol in it.

  • JB

    By the way, “THEORY” of Henry’s law???? Don’t know of any post secondary institutions that describe it as a “theory”. It was proposed in 1800 by J.W. Henry. So it’s been subjected to validation for 205 years now. Surely that’s enough validation to elevate it from theory to scientific fact…

  • jb

    What? No response md?

    I guess a blood test after the breathalyzer would satisfy your stand that you “do not believe in the the accuracy of anything in this mortal world that CAN NOT be VERIFIED!”, because it can be verified by doing so. If defence lawyers have such an issue with the breathalyzer, and are so confident of its inaccuracies and in the innocence of their client (and their legal BAC), why wouldn’t they advise them to attend the hospital upon release to have a blood test done? Because they know that the client would fail that also, making it impossible to exclude the results of that one based on flawed police procedures seeing the client undertook the test on their own outside of police custody.

    Finally to echo your question, what qualifies YOU to make the statments you make? What training do you have in this field? What experience do you have? What reputable scientific research have you reviewed? What are the qualifications of those who have emparted their knowledge onto you? My 120+ hours of training was received from a group of lab scientists who are experts in the field of toxicology.

    I don’t proclaim to know it all, or to never be wrong. But I am confident in the accuracy of what I’ve stated in this forum based on my training & experience.

  • Micky Dee

    posted by jb on July 2, 2005 10:59 PM:
    What? No response md?

    I guess a blood test after the breathalyzer would satisfy your stand that you “do not believe in the the accuracy of anything in this mortal world that CAN NOT be VERIFIED!”, wELLbecause it can be verified by doing so.

    Excuse me for not checking this post. But I do have an outside life that prohibits me form from checking every post write on the net.

    Yes a blood test with split samples, one going to the police and one to the accused, would go a long way in alleviating my distain of the use of machines that are called “Evidential breath-analysis instruments” by their manufactures. In reality they are nothing more than just some piece of crap MACHINE that accuses people of crimes.

    They are not analytical devices. They are just a MACHINES which by DESIGN leaves no verifiable evidence behind to question.

    Even the manufactures of these machines do not warranty them to be suitable for any specific purpose, including actually being able to determine a persons true BLOOD alcohol level.

    The very fact that their results are even allowed to be introduced as evidence should be offensive to anyone that values the principles that our legal system was built on.

    The fact that under the law in the name of expediency their results are presumed to be correct unless the accused can prove otherwise is a travesty of our justice system that has broad consequences for all of us in the future..

    THE ONLY POSSIBLE VALID USE OF THESE MACHINES IS THAT OF A SCREENING DEVICE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE GIVING A BLOOD TEST OR NOT. That’s how they are use in countries like the United Kingdom where Blood test are mandatory for criminal prosecution. hxxp://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1204

    But actually giving blood tests would defeat the intended purpose of these machines, which as I said is, TO CONVICT PEOPLE! Blood tests would leave actual physical evidence behind that could be independently verified. But real physical evidence is messy. The fact is in many states once a person is arrested for DUI they are prohibited from obtaining any independent blood test even if they blow .000.

    Contrary to what many people believe, blowing .000 on one of these machines will not result in them being let go. No, even after posting bond they are still held in lockup anywhere for 6 to 12 hours. This makes it quite it imposable for them to get a independent blood test. Once you’re are arrested there is no “un-arrest” procedure.
    Reference: Intoximeter uses “new fool proof technology”
    hxxp ://ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4962

    All I want is the same rights and protections for drivers that are given to real criminals like child molesters and rapists. That is the right to be presumed innocent under the law and the right to examine any and all evidence presented against them. Something which is currently denied to drivers accused of DUI by these machines and the current DUI per se laws.

    ALL YOUR RHETORIC INCLUDING THE SO CALLED BUILT IN SAFEGUARDS AND INTERNAL CHECKS IS JUST B.S. TO GET AROUND THE PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH WHICH IS THIS. If these machines were so infallible they would not need these band aids and patches in the first place. The plain simple truth is this.

    ****Neither you or any other police officer, prosecutor, or so call expert can PROVE that the results manufactured by one these machines for any given INDIVIDUAL are a true and and accurate representation of that persons BLOOD alcohol content.******

    Comparing B.A.C levels and BrAC levels are like comparing apples and oranges. The may both be called a fruit but they are completely different in their makeup. But thanks to the idiotic and anti American DUI laws a police officer or prosecutor does not have to actually prove that the machine’s results are accurate for any individual.

    The fact is in order to protect these machines the current DUI laws have been worded so even a person with a .000 B.A.C can actually be convicted of DUI just because the machine says their BrAC (Breath) content is above the illegal per se limit. This is so despite their ability to prove that their B.A.C. was .000 at the time. If there is no alcohol in a persons blood they can not be impaired, “even to the slightest degree” by alcohol.

    Yet according to the DUI laws merely having what the machines considers to be “bad breath” is now a crime.

    Comment 13 posted by JB on June 30, 2005 07:00 AM:
    By the way, “THEORY” of Henry’s law???? Don’t know of any post secondary institutions that describe it as a “theory”. It was proposed in 1800 by J.W. Henry. So it’s been subjected to validation for 205 years now. Surely that’s enough validation to elevate it from theory to scientific fact…

    A survey of how Henry’s Law is cited in a wide range of texts suggests that there is significant variation in the presentation of the definition and breadth of the applied theory, applications and limitations of this relationship.

    “Henry’s Law” is not a “law” per se but rather an empirical principle.

    Adjective: empirical
    1. Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory

    2. MEDICINE based on practical medical experience: based on practical experience in the medical treatment of real cases rather than on applied theory or scientific proof.

    3. PHILOSOPHY derived solely from experience: derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, rather than from the application of logic

    4. Relying on medical quackery

    People’s experiences and the resulting conclusions and or opinions they form can often be clouded by their own personal beliefs, biases, or agenda.

    When it comes to these breath testing machines the theory or hypothesis is called Henry’s law named after William Henry the English chemist born in 1774, who first reported the relationship. Of course Henry had no idea that some 150 years later his law would be use by “junk scientists” to build a machine whose sole purpose is to convict people of crimes.

    Unfortunately for the “junk scientists” and the people they use these machines on, Henry’s Law does not apply in the lungs with any degree of predictability or accuracy.. In order for Henry’s Law to apply to these junk science machines, three conditions must be met. Without all three conditions present, it is not possible for equilibrium to occur, and Henry’s Law does not apply.

    But this simple fact has not stopped these machines from being used to manufacture evidence and make medicinal diagnoses classifying people as criminals and or dependant’s or alcoholics..

    Intoximeter uses “new fool proof technology”
    hxxp ://ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4962

    While they maybe more “efficient”…… at what they do ……it does not mean …….that… what they do…..is any more reliable or creditable.

    They can replace vacuum tubes with microprocessors, and analog dials and readouts with digital readouts, and combine “duel technologies”, like IR spectroscopy and Fuel Cell Detectors, but in the end nothing has really changed.

    These machine are still premised on the faulty application of a theoretical relationship of Henry’s Law.

    From Officer.com – Police & Law Enforcement Forums – Question…? DUI
    QUOTE: “”””However, and i love this, even if you are not found guilty of criminal charges for DUI your refusal to take a sobriety test will result in your drivers license being revolked. haha ……………”””

    First off I don’t know of any state were a persons refusal to take the filed sobriety tests would result in the loss of their Drives license. The implied consent law requiring a driver to submit to chemical testing does not come into effect until AFTER they they are placed under arrest for DUI. Field Sobriety tests are totally voluntary but police officers seldom tell people this even when asked.. But just like you, this officer has seen fit to fudge and twist the truth.

    And so officers like this guy, who realize this, will often resort to crap like plugging the inlet tube of the breath testing machine with a piece of a cigarette butt, or a piece of scotch tape, before attaching the sterilized mouth piece.

    In doing so they are insured of getting the machine to register a refusal for people who they doubt would have blown over the limit.

    So not only does the Per se law assume guilt once one of these machines accuses someone of blowing over the limit, but it also assumes guilt when the MACHINE says they didn’t comply.

    ON TOP OF THAT LAWS HAVE BEEN ENACTED THAT EXEMPT THESE MACHINES FROM THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY. These laws or rules serve only to protect the machine and in the process usurp one of the most fundamental tenants of our legal system. The presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Where the accused will have the opportunity to confront and test the veracity of any an all witness and evidence that is brought against them.

    The presumption of innocence has been held sacrosanct as part of every enlightened legal system dating back to biblical times. Only in the case of DUI, at the behest of the MADDness has this sacred principle been turned on its head. If history is an example it will not be too long before it will be applied in other areas as well in the name of some cause. In the end the use of these machines to convict people is tantamount to conducting a witch hunt.

    The whole gist of this post was the fact that the police and the state agency down in Florida failed to follow the “house rules” that allow these machines to be use as evidence in a court of law.

    But this isn’t the first time they have been caught messing around and failing to abide by the rules and procedures governing the use of these machines down in Florida.

    No its been going on for years and years including the Collars for dollars scandal where police officers would purposely perjure themselves to collect over time.

    Thursday, March 7, 2002 FL. Breath-test evidence in DUI cases questionable
    hxxp ://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=934
    December 14, 1996
    Florida trooper Douglas Grice was asked if he had followed the guidelines of a 1994 state memo.
    Quote:
    I don’t know if I was operating in compliance because I never read them,” Grice said.

    April 14, 2005 Hundreds of DUI cases may be jeopardized in Broward county Florida
    They improperly used plain old tap water in calibrating and testing the breath analysis machines when the rules specifically called for them to use distilled bottled water.

    Related post on the inappropriate used of tap water in breath analysis machines. hxxp ://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1022

    The fact is this has been going going on for years not only in Florida but in every state. In Arizona they have almost completely stoped using these breath analysis machines because they were caught screwing around with the records and the internal electronics of the machines with out approval and any disclosure.

    As a result many of the courts have no confidence in these machines. So now they are out for blood and cops are equipped with needles and if you object to them sticking you they will hold down and repeatedly put a Tazer gun to the back of you neck until you either agree or pass out.

    While it is true that some people can be falsely arrested for medications and substances that end up causing “false positives” in blood or urinalysis tests at least these tests, unlike the breath testing machines, leave REAL physical evidence behind that can be verified.

    I would rather be falsely arrested for DUID any day than be falsely arrested for DUI of alcohol, and have to blow into one of these machines and have to TRY to prove my innocence..

    So you can ramble on about this and that but I am done posting replies to this thread here. People can keep their heads stuck in the sand and ignore the truth if they choose to or the can look into it for themselves.

    I have enshrined this entire thread at http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1160

    Any future comments of mine about this post will made there where I can more easily link to other articles.

    If nothing else, I suggest that any one that reads this thread also read my post called “You just can’t trust them” over at the above link. http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=124

    In it I describe how I once stood by and watched a brand new Intoxilyzer 5000’s falsely accuse 3 troopers and their commander of being drunk. After passing all the checks and calibrations tests this very same machine turned around and accused the technician who just seconds earlier was ready and willing to certify it and put it in service .

  • jb

    md, recognizing that you are not monitoring this anymore, I’ll throw out the last posting and call it quits as well. We’ve beaten a dead horse and neither will stray from our respective position.

    I won’t waste time repeating what’s already been argued. I’ll address a few new things you’ve introduced.

    md – “Once you’re are arrested there is no “un-arrest” procedure.”

    Excuse me???? Since when? Unless the laws in the US are different than elsewhere when it comes to that, absolutely you can “un-arrest” someone. Once someone has been arrested, they can be released on their own recognizance (most frequently because the facts subsequent to the arrest justify releasing the person without any further investigation). They can also be released via a few other more formal means at least here in Canada. Or they can be held for bail.

    So if someone blows .000, of course you’d release them – if there were no physical signs of impairment. But typically what happens here is someone displays signs of impairment (by drugs or alcohol). The person blows .000, indicating that the impairment is not caused by alcohol. A blood test is a possibility if you suspect drugs at this point as being the reason for impairement. It could be legal or illegal drugs, no matter – you are responsible for not getting behind the wheel if your abilites to operate a motor vehicle are impaired. This is for the safety of you and others.

    Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Hence why a person must subject to a roadside screening device or a breathalyzer test if demanded. The only time a refusal would be considered justified by the courts if if the officer did not have sufficient legal grounds to make the demand in the first case. The roadside screening device only requires a suspicion. The threshold is very low because you cannot be criminal charged for failing a roadside screening device (again, here in Canada. You could face consequences under a provincial law for same, but not criminal).

    As for using water to calibrate the instrument, never heard of that being done. Again, here in Canada we use a solution that has a known concentration (verified by a lab). The bottles have double seals, and the box is sealed & initialed by the lab. If any of those three are lacking, we discard the bottle and/or case. I have done that with a bottle that had a defective seal. It’s part of our training, to test the bottle for leaks before breaking the seal & using it. I suppose one could use water and expect to see a .000 reading. But to do that you’d need to have a controlled supply of water to use, not just tap water. It would most likely work, but you cannot with absolute certainly be certain of the concentration of alcohol in that tap water (only about 99.99% sure that there is no alcohol in tap water…), hence why we use certified bottles of solution from a lab.

    As for Henry’s Law and results being clouded by people’s beliefs, that being the case one would not expect tests of Henry’s Law by scientists representing the interest of the defence team to yield the same conclusions. Why has that not been successfully argued in court? Had it been, you are right that it would impact breathalyzers because they rely on Henry’s Law to conduct calculations of a person’s BAC.

    It always goes back to the same, show me the money. If these instruments are flawed (not just one individual one, all of them because it’s founded on a flawed scientific belief), why has it never been successfully demonstrated in court. The recent decisions to exclude them has nothing to do with questioning the science behind it. It has everything to do with an argument over disclosure, a technicality that is causing the evidence to be excluded.

    As for plugging the inlet tube or some other B.S. like that, give me a break. Not to say some crooked police officer has never done that. But it’s a mountain of a stretch to argue that it’s a frequent occurence. If we charge someone with refusal (someone who tries to blow but fails), we are trained to take a short piece of tube with our own mouthpiece, connect it to the subject’s mouthpiece and test the device/instrument. If we can blow properly, then we have demonstrated that it was the subject not blowing. Because we are blowing through the exact mouthpiece and tube used by the subject. Furthermore we make an exhibit of the mouthpiece to introduce in court and show that there were no obstructions.

    If we don’t do this, a good lawyer could argue the refusal and potentially win. Our processes have in part evolved through case laws. Which is a good thing. It ensures that the interest of the public is protected while still allowing us to do our job.

    As for your experience back in 1997, I can’t offer any excuse for what happened there. If that indeed did happen, there was a serious flaw in the professionalism of the officers, and serious lack of training on the proper operation of the instrument. But that would not speak to the accuracy of the technology as a whole, only of that one device, or possibly of a batch of device with defective EEPROMS as was summized by the company. But if that was the case, and it was tested properly, I really, really can’t see how it would have passed the tests. Either the testing process was flawed, or was not present at all. If it was properly tested, then there is no way it would have passed. Now did something happen to that EEPROM after it left the plant (i.e. code affected by something during shipping), who knows. But again, that would be picked up right away when doing the SAS test (Standard Alcohol Solution) immediately following each breath sample. Which would have invalidated the samples and demonstrated a problem with the instrument. So nobody would have been falsely charged as a result of that instrument going into service providing the proper steps were followed by the police officer conducting the tests. And as I explained before, these instruments will run through their own SAS test and analyse the results. And consequently would have yielded an incorrect result causing the instrument to discard the subject’s sample. So an officer would not even be able to ignore the error as he/she would not have that choice.

    You, md, are obviously the type of person that would argue any process. If your own technician analyzing a blood sample came up with the same results you’d argue conspiracy, bribery, contamination of your sample by the doctors, or some other form of interference designed to convict you.

    I’ll take my chances in our system and our world rather than in a world that lived by your rules where holding someone accountable in a court of law would be virtually impossible. A world where people would administer their own vigilanty justice both out of frustration, and out of comfort that no consequence would befall them.

  • jb

    Sorry, but I can’t resist replying to this statement you made as well:

    “THE ONLY POSSIBLE VALID USE OF THESE MACHINES IS THAT OF A SCREENING DEVICE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE GIVING A BLOOD TEST OR NOT. That’s how they are use in countries like the United Kingdom where Blood test are mandatory for criminal prosecution. hxxp://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1204″

    According to the Road Traffic Act (1988) (of which what I quote was not ammended by any ammendments in the Road Traffic Act 1991 ammendments to the Road & Traffic Act 1988) from the Government of UK’s web site at:

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl.pl?DB=opsi&STEMMER=en&WORDS=impair+oper+motor+vehicl+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_2.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match

    It has provisions for EITHER breath test or blood test. The breath test is not simply used to form grounds for a blood demand. It is sufficient to pursue a charge of operating a motor while with a BAC in excess of the legal limit.

    They state the legal limit of alcohol in a person’s breath under section 11(2)(a) as: “(a) 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath,”. Section 8(2) of this act states:
    “(2) If the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the person who provided it may claim that it should be replaced by such specimen as may be required under section 7(4) of this Act and, if he then provides such a specimen, neither specimen of breath shall be used.”

    In other words, if the readings are 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath OR LESS, the driver can demand that a blood test or urine test be conducted (as per above). If such is the case, both breath readings are discarded and the results of the blood or urine test is used. In all other cases, the lower of the two breath readings is used.

    Now unless the UK has another act that supersedes this one, your sources are incorrect (my money is on the government web site being more accurate than some posting in a discussion group). Just because it’s on the Internet, it does not make it true/factual. You need to validate the source when relying on none official sources by validating it through other unrelated sources. Even official sources can contain errors of course. But in this case I doubt it…

  • John paul

    “”Comment 13 posted by JB on June 30, 2005 07:00 AM:
    By the way, “THEORY” of Henry’s law???? Don’t know of any post secondary institutions that describe it as a “theory”. It was proposed in 1800 by J.W. Henry. So it’s been subjected to validation for 205 years now. Surely that’s enough validation to elevate it from theory to scientific fact…””

    The problem is not so much with Henry’s law per se. Henry’s law is just fine and is perfectly valid in when applied properly.

    The problem is with using Henry’s law to justify the accuracy and validity of these machines.

    The only studies or research into wether or not it is applicable in these machines have been conducted either by the manufactures of these machines or underwritten by those who have a vested interest in the outcome and its validation.

    The “205 years of validation” you speak of has nothing to do with its use in the fabrication of these machines.

    The fact is when it comes the these machines the use of Henry’s law has never been validated as to its accuracy.

  • wesley

    I recently read an article in the Williston Pioneer, from the cheif of police that stated that the states attorney was getting his training from the Law and Order series on TV. I beleive that he stated Jay North was his idol. I guess that Bill Servone watches this show before he goes to bed so he can tell his DA’s how to act in court. The cheif also said that the cops get very upset when the lawyers beat them. I guess that he should have said–get even–. It’s cops like that that give all of them bad names.

  • wesley

    I seen on the news that Florida lawmakers were trying to make a mandatory two year sentence for the second dui. I wonder where all of the build money for jails is coming from. Not from the tickets, that portion is dolled out to every from MAAD to the arresting officers station. So guess what, all of the people that support the massive building of jails are paying that tax that they are complaining of.Driving with no liscense is another big one, they get about three months in jail. I can see why the theives and druggies get out easy, there isn’t any room for them.

  • wesley

    Imagine this, ten attorneys are setting in a room, all ten of these are defense attorneys. The text of the discussion is the breathalizer 5000. One agrees that it is a peice of trash. One states that it is an effective tool. The other eight, stating together, how can we justify getting rid of a gold mine? Our practice is ten fold, my golf time and vacations are more frequent and I am now in the country club. Why should I give all of that up? Whats right, of course whatever the majority says, is always right, where it is or not.

  • wesley

    I understand that legislation has passed whereas the intoxalizer 5000 is unquestionable, in other words, unchallengeable in court. It is waiting for Jeb Bush’s approval.

  • Tom Jones

    if you Look you will find that the manufacutures of the machines do not warentee the things to detect anything in proticulaar

  • http://macyas71 Mike

    The information on how any machine that is used on the public works. Should be public knowledge. We as law abidding citizens should become intimatly aware of it’s opperation. I beleive the laws are different in every state. However in Fl. you must consent to being tested upon any officers request at any time for any reason. Yeah I know about reasonable suspicion,we all know that means nothing. Or relinquish your freedom to drive for a period of 6 mos. Now in a city that has a modern transportation system that might be acceptable however in the majority of America our cars, trucks, motorcycles etc. are how we get to work. How else are you to pay the ridiculous fines and various classes required of a body. Oh did I mention that is before you have been convicted. Lets get a grip most Cops are lazy and at least here in South FLA are a result of some form of affirmative action or Suffer from some sorta little-mans syndrome. So for Joe Public to finally get a leg up on the Policia. The only reason to hide something so widely used to take away people’s freedom and to fund many politicians and police officials vacations is because it is flawed and will be rightfully exposed and expunged from our system all together.

  • elf

    i was convicted cause i have a breathing problem and csn’t do a brethalizer. no vidieo on the case either. i have a new lawyer now who is looking into the case

  • upset citizen

    A person I know was DUI they hit a truck where as the cops seen it and they had to chase this person for fleeing the scene of the for a hit and run. Then they seen this person ran due to DUI! Also this person was driving without a license due to prier DUI charges. (3rd offense actually!) So this person had NO LICENSE And this person had NO INSURANCE, AND IMPROPER REGISTRATION! And when they searched the vehicle more drugs was found. And this night, this person had endangered the lives of 2 passengers a elderly man and a baby which did receive some injuries due to this persons neglect!. This person went to jail that night. Then was allowed to post bond. Then when this person went to court this person ONLY GOT 40 DAYS IN JAIL..AND COMMUNITY SERVICE. THAT IS ALL THIS PERSON GOT!! SO COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS WORKED???

  • upset citizen

    A person I know was DUI they hit a truck where as the cops seen it and they had to chase this person for fleeing the scene of the for a hit and run. Then they seen this person ran due to DUI! Also this person was driving without a license due to prier DUI charges. (3rd offense actually!) So this person had NO LICENSE And this person had NO INSURANCE, AND IMPROPER REGISTRATION! And when they searched the vehicle more drugs was found. And this night, this person had endangered the lives of 2 passengers a elderly man and a baby which did receive some injuries due to this persons neglect!. This person went to jail that night. Then was allowed to post bond. Then when this person went to court this person ONLY GOT 40 DAYS IN JAIL..AND COMMUNITY SERVICE. THAT IS ALL THIS PERSON GOT!! SO COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS WORKS???

  • Vacuum Dan

    If you subpoena information and they don’t provide it, the case usually gets thrown out. That’s how the legal system works. You can’t question the validity of the breathalyzer in a given situation if they won’t say how it works, thus preventing you from mounting a defense.

  • http://www.alcoholanddruglaw.com Michael Dye

    I guess I am a tad late on this. I don’t understand why everybody is making a big deal about the source codes. You are going to get them period. Some Judges say yes and some say no. I’ve tried a lot of DUI’s and I don’t even ask for the source codes. Once you get it out that they consider it a trade secret, closing goes like this “Ladies and gentleman, the State has had an opportunity to present their evidence to you. They showed you a number. When they were asked to provide proof that the number was right, they said “we don’t know, they won’t tell us, it’s a trade secret.” In order to find the defendant guilty, you must weigh the evidence. The State wants you to convict based on evidence that you have not seen and they won’t show you. They want you to convict on “secret evidence.” King George would be very proud.