breathalyzer

[peanut44]

What is the name of your state? GA

I'm already aware of the fact that none of you want to provide me any legal advice that might help me.

My question is on your thoughts about the use of the breathalyzer. I will give in to the fact that it is "mostly correct". Where I won't give in is to the fact that it as "always" correct. I know lawyers have challenged many of the aspects of this machine, and I'll also acknowledge that some of it may be a total line of BS. I don't know anything about heartburn, or emphysema, or partition ratios, but I have witnessed some of the following.

1. booze in your mouth, but NOT ingested WILL register on the breathalyzer machine. For example, if you swish a mouthful of whiskey, then spit, then blow, it will register higher than your actual BAC by quite a bit.

2. The length of time the breath is in the body has an effect also. The longer the time the air is in the lungs, the more alcohol it will absorb from the blood. This is simple science. It takes time for solutions to mix.


These are 2 simple facts that are true, I have witnessed them both. Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

The truth is, this machine, just like any other machine CAN be inaccurate. lie detectors are not even admissable in a criminal court of law. a radar gun can be backed up by a statement that the vehicle was traveling "at a high rate of speed". Can there be a witness that says I saw the blood, and it looked to be about .15% alcohol? "Not .1%, or .2% but .15"


So my question is.... Dou you agree with the current Per Se laws used in many states, or do you think that physical manifestations need to be proven?

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? GA

I'm already aware of the fact that none of you want to provide me any legal advice that might help me.

My question is on your thoughts about the use of the breathalyzer. I will give in to the fact that it is "mostly correct". Where I won't give in is to the fact that it as "always" correct. I know lawyers have challenged many of the aspects of this machine, and I'll also acknowledge that some of it may be a total line of BS. I don't know anything about heartburn, or emphysema, or partition ratios, but I have witnessed some of the following.

1. booze in your mouth, but NOT ingested WILL register on the breathalyzer machine. For example, if you swish a mouthful of whiskey, then spit, then blow, it will register higher than your actual BAC by quite a bit.

2. The length of time the breath is in the body has an effect also. The longer the time the air is in the lungs, the more alcohol it will absorb from the blood. This is simple science. It takes time for solutions to mix.


These are 2 simple facts that are true, I have witnessed them both. Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

The truth is, this machine, just like any other machine CAN be inaccurate. lie detectors are not even admissable in a criminal court of law. a radar gun can be backed up by a statement that the vehicle was traveling "at a high rate of speed". Can there be a witness that says I saw the blood, and it looked to be about .15% alcohol? "Not .1%, or .2% but .15"


So my question is.... Dou you agree with the current Per Se laws used in many states, or do you think that physical manifestations need to be proven?

Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

Please cite ONE law from ONE state that says this. Thank you.

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

I think the fallacy of the 0.08% being a threshhold that, if you haven't surpassed it you are perfectly fine to drive and won't be prosecuted for DUI, is flat-out wrong. The 0.08% reading on the breathalizer machine theory gives drivers who drink a false sense of security that they should not accept. Any drinking at all, even just one, and no one should drive. You do not have to meet or pass 0.08% to be prosecuted for DUI. Most of us probably are also not capable of "deciding" when we've reached that point, so the whole notion is ridiculous. Don't drive after drinking anything at all, or you'll eventually either hurt someone, or get yourself arrested. (Period)

 

[peanut44]

Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

Please cite ONE law from ONE state that says this. Thank you.

O.C.G.A 40-6-391a (5) cut and pasted for your pleasure

(5) The persońs alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time within three hours after such driving or being in actual physical control from alcohol consumed before such driving or being in actual physical control ended; or


Or, were you asking me for a law that says the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS accurate? I believe that is substantiated 2 ways. 1, they test them from time to time. If they were ALWAYS right, why test them? and 2, the common knowledge that ALL machines fail at some point or another.

So, do you agree that this law should be on the books?

 

[peanut44]

I think the fallacy of the 0.08% being a threshhold that, if you haven't surpassed it you are perfectly fine to drive and won't be prosecuted for DUI, is flat-out wrong. The 0.08% reading on the breathalizer machine theory gives drivers who drink a false sense of security that they should not accept. Any drinking at all, even just one, and no one should drive. You do not have to meet or pass 0.08% to be prosecuted for DUI. Most of us probably are also not capable of "deciding" when we've reached that point, so the whole notion is ridiculous. Don't drive after drinking anything at all, or you'll eventually either hurt someone, or get yourself arrested. (Period)

I agree with you FL, and I'm not trying to defend drunk drivers, or myself with this post. I certainly don't condone drunk driving. My case is in the hands of professionals, and whatever happens, happens.

The purpose of my post is to try to figure out how this law made it on the books when the sole source of evidence can be wrong.

 

[GeorgiaPatty]

I think the fallacy of the 0.08% being a threshhold that, if you haven't surpassed it you are perfectly fine to drive and won't be prosecuted for DUI, is flat-out wrong. The 0.08% reading on the breathalizer machine theory gives drivers who drink a false sense of security that they should not accept. Any drinking at all, even just one, and no one should drive. You do not have to meet or pass 0.08% to be prosecuted for DUI. Most of us probably are also not capable of "deciding" when we've reached that point, so the whole notion is ridiculous. Don't drive after drinking anything at all, or you'll eventually either hurt someone, or get yourself arrested. (Period)

You can certainly be arrested for DUI in Georgia at less than .08 or even if they don't breathalyze you. It's the "less safe" prinicple. If an officer can convince a court that you are less safe at less than .08, you can be convicted.

 

[seniorjudge]

I agree with you FL, and I'm not trying to defend drunk drivers, or myself with this post. I certainly don't condone drunk driving. My case is in the hands of professionals, and whatever happens, happens.

The purpose of my post is to try to figure out how this law made it on the books when the sole source of evidence can be wrong.

What law?

Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

You haven't posted any law that says this.


Here's what you posted:

(5) The persońs alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time within three hours after such driving or being in actual physical control from alcohol consumed before such driving or being in actual physical control ended; or

 

[GeorgiaPatty]

What law?

Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

You haven't posted any law that says this.


Here's what you posted:

(5) The persońs alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time within three hours after such driving or being in actual physical control from alcohol consumed before such driving or being in actual physical control ended; or

Attorneys routinely challenge the breathalyzer machine in DUI defense. They force the state to produce training records for the operator, callibration, maintenance records on the machine used. They win using this defense sometimes. Ask Bubba Head.

 

[peanut44]

What law?

Being that the breathalyzer is not ALWAYS true, how can there be a law that says "it is illegal to blow into this machine and register .08 or higher"?

You haven't posted any law that says this.


Here's what you posted:

(5) The persońs alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time within three hours after such driving or being in actual physical control from alcohol consumed before such driving or being in actual physical control ended; or

OK, maybe I was a little off on my quotes, but the facts remain the same. It is illegal to drive witha BAC over .08. The only way this can be proven is by a blood, breath or urine test. The breath test is BY FAR the most widely used. The fact still remains, if you blow into this (possibly inaccurate) machine, and it registers >.08 you will be charged with per se dui.

 

[gawm]

What is the name of your state? GA
I don't know anything about heartburn, or emphysema, or partition ratios, but I have witnessed some of the following.

1. booze in your mouth, but NOT ingested WILL register on the breathalyzer machine. For example, if you swish a mouthful of whiskey, then spit, then blow, it will register higher than your actual BAC by quite a bit.

How many times does this happen? You must attend a lot of wine tasting events.
Usually when someone starts to spit out alcohol that they spent good money on they are already drunk. Unless of course they hang out with a pretty funny crowd.

 

[shell007]

How many times does this happen? You must attend a lot of wine tasting events.
Usually when someone starts to spit out alcohol that they spent good money on they are already drunk. Unless of course they hang out with a pretty funny crowd.

Funny

 

[peanut44]

How many times does this happen? You must attend a lot of wine tasting events.
Usually when someone starts to spit out alcohol that they spent good money on they are already drunk. Unless of course they hang out with a pretty funny crowd.

No doubt it's uncommon, and maybe even a bit rediculous. It does lend some credence to the burp factor though.

And wine tasting events...... I'd be willing to bet that the area is a bit more heavily patrolled than usual on wine tasting day.

The question still remains. Do you think per se laws, where the only piece of evidence is a breathalyzer test make sense.

 

[justalayman]

Peanut: just as with all measuring devices, they are check to assure they are accurate, not because they failed. The more often they are checked ,the more likey they will be accurate when used. A machinist that needs a very high degree of accuracy may check a micrometer before every use. This doesn't mean it failed each time, merely the need for accuracy suggests verification fequently.

and as you asked "all machines fail" is another reason to verify their operational status and accuracy. This way they can be depended upon to provide accurate info.

The devices have been tested against other known or verifiable benchmarks. They have proven to be accurate within an acceptable standard of accuracy and operation when verified within a prescribed time.

So the fact that they are checked so often has less to do with the actual dependability of the devices but to assure the courts that they are accurate at the time of use.

and the other thing, the breathalyzer is usually NOT the only evience against you. The officers testimony, in some states, is all that is needed for a dui

.

 

[gawm]

No doubt it's uncommon, and maybe even a bit rediculous. It does lend some credence to the burp factor though.

And wine tasting events...... I'd be willing to bet that the area is a bit more heavily patrolled than usual on wine tasting day.

The question still remains. Do you think per se laws, where the only piece of evidence is a breathalyzer test make sense.

I don't think a breathalyzer test is ever the only piece of evidence. I am not a cop, but I do know they don't go asking people to blow when they pull them over unless there is sufficient cause like the smell of alcohol, erratic driving etc. Those factors along with the breathalyzer test usually justify a DUI charge. You can always explain your case to a jury if you disagree with it.

 

[peanut44]

Peanut: just as with all measuring devices, they are check to assure they are accurate, not because they failed. The more often they are checked ,the more likey they will be accurate when used. A machinist that needs a very high degree of accuracy may check a micrometer before every use. This doesn't mean it failed each time, merely the need for accuracy suggests verification fequently.

and as you asked "all machines fail" is another reason to verify their operational status and accuracy. This way they can be depended upon to provide accurate info.

The devices have been tested against other known or verifiable benchmarks. They have proven to be accurate within an acceptable standard of accuracy and operation when verified within a prescribed time.

So the fact that they are checked so often has less to do with the actual dependability of the devices but to assure the courts that they are accurate at the time of use.

and the other thing, the breathalyzer is usually NOT the only evience against you. The officers testimony, in some states, is all that is needed for a dui

.

A machinist making a part checks his accuracy each time with a micrometer, it makes sense does it not. "Measure twice, cut once". The majority of states only check their machines "periodically" though. Shouldn't a person deserve BETTER accuracy than a wheel bearing?
Sorry, I had to kick that one back at you. The fact remains that the machine is testing air and not blood. That leaves lots of room for error. The law that relies on it has the same error.