DUI Defense Lawyers Challenge Breath Test
CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press Writer
March 11, 2006
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DUI_BREATH_CHALLENGE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
MIAMI (AP) -- Timothy Muldowny's lawyers decided on an unconventional approach to fight his drunken driving case: They sought computer programming information for the Intoxilyzer alcohol breath analysis machine to see whether his test was accurate.

Their strategy paid off.

The company that makes the Intoxilyzer refused to reveal the computer source code for its machine because it was a trade secret. A county judge tossed out Muldowny's alcohol breath test - a crucial piece of evidence in a DUI case - and the ruling was upheld by an appeals court in 2004.

Since then, DUI suspects in Florida, New York, Nebraska and elsewhere have mounted similar challenges. Many have won or have had their DUI charges reduced to lesser offenses. The strategy could affect thousands of the roughly 1.5 million DUI arrests made each year in the United States, defense lawyers say.
 
"Any piece of equipment that is used to test something in the criminal justice system, the defense attorney has the ability to know how the thing works and subject its fundamental capabilities to review," said Flem Whited III, a Daytona Beach attorney with expertise on DUI defense.

The Intoxilyzer, manufactured by CMI Inc. of Owensboro, Ky., is the most widely used alcohol breath testing machine in the United States and is involved in the vast majority of these legal challenges. It is used exclusively by law enforcement agencies in 20 states, including Florida, and by at least some police agencies in 20 other states, according to the company.

Most states have "implied consent" laws for motorists requiring DUI suspects to blow into a breath analysis machine if asked to do so by a police officer.

"The breath test is an integral part of any prosecution," said Earl Varn, an assistant state attorney in Sarasota.
 
In Florida, state law currently considers a breath test valid if the machine is approved by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the person administering the test is qualified. The law also says that a defendant is entitled to "full information concerning the test taken" if such a request is made.

The meaning of that phrase is the key to the DUI challenges in Florida and other states with similar laws.

DUI defense lawyers insist that "full information" means every minute detail about the Intoxilyzer, including the source code used by its computer processor to analyze breath samples, should be subjected to review by expert defense witnesses. Some judges have agreed.

"It seems to us that one should not have privileges and freedom jeopardized by the results of a mystical machine that is immune from discovery," Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal ruled in Muldowny's case, which resulted in his charges being reduced to reckless driving.

Judges in the Florida counties of Manatee, Sarasota, Seminole and Volusia counties are among those who have ruled in recent months that the defense was entitled to the Intoxilyzer's source code to see if the test results are reliable.

There also have been successful legal challenges involving the source code of other machines, including a 2005 case in Bellevue, Wash., in which a defense lawyer obtained the code of the BAC Datamaster testing machine, sold by National Patent Analytical Systems Inc.

But many judges in Florida have ruled the opposite way on the Intoxilyzer, including a panel in Palm Beach County that recently denied challenges by 1,500 DUI defendants who sought the source code under state public records laws.

The tactic has led lawmakers to introduce a measure in the Florida Legislature to clarify that such source codes don't have to be produced for DUI defendants.

Last November, a similar challenge in Omaha, Neb., was rejected on grounds that Nebraska did not have the source code. In Rochester, N.Y., a DUI suspect whose lawyer was seeking the source code was convicted of a lesser charge when the technician who maintained the machine was unavailable to testify.

Because CMI has refused to divulge its source code, Florida officials have argued in court that they cannot produce it for DUI defendants. Although most state judges have upheld that view, others have not.

"The state may not wash its hands of its duty to produce this information by claiming that it does not have it," Volusia County Court Judge Mary Jane Henderson ruled in December.

FDLE officials say that even if the state had access to the source code it would not necessary to test the validity of the breath results. Laura Barfield, alcohol testing program manager at FDLE, said each of the 408 Intoxilyzer 5000s used in Florida - soon to be replaced by the 8000 model - are regularly run through painstaking tests at the state and local levels.

"You don't need the source code to know the machine is providing accurate results," Barfield said.

For its part, CMI said there is no evidence that its Intoxilyzer is inaccurate, noting that a review of 80,000 tests in a 2002 Arizona case produced no evidence of mistakes.

In a statement to The Associated Press, the company said also said the source code is not a crucial element in proving the Intoxilyzer's accuracy and is a proprietary trade secret that could create havoc if computer hackers obtained it.

"Exposure of the source code could not only be detrimental to CMI from a commercial standpoint, but it could also be detrimental to customers of CMI," the company said. "Disclosure of this information could compromise the integrity of test data that is stored in the instrument."

The conflicting decisions around Florida could land the issue before the state Supreme Court. Florida lawmakers may act before that, however.

A bill making several changes to DUI law includes a section clarifying that the "full information" about breath tests does not include the "manual, schematics or software" of the breath machine or any information "in the possession of the manufacturer." The bill is moving through state House committees and could pass later this year.

Prosecutors such as Varn say if the defense challenges prevail it would mean each DUI breath test could be subjected to exhaustive analysis.

"We would have to hire an expert to come in and testify in every case to explain the function of the instrument and what the test results mean," Varn said.

But defense lawyers say DUI defendants have the constitutional right to confront their accuser, even if it is a machine.

"If everything is OK and there's nothing to hide, why do they want to change the law?" said Stuart Hyman of Orlando, a leading DUI defense lawyer who represented Muldowny. "It's ludicrous."

What a load of BS

I really have nothing to say, it is just so sad at how the US justice system works.

Good for them.  Knowing how .gov tends to work, the breathalizers are probably made by the lowest bidder and cannot tell a raging drunk from a guy on cough medicine.

I kind of agree with it to a point. You can't prove the device works if you don't know or can't find out how it works. You blow in this device and it tells the police if your drunk using magic. That doesn't tend to fly.

This also applies to voting machines. You can't be 100% sure of how the process works because there is some voodoo that removes inspection by human beings. Not to mention no paper trail.

Hard to explain this sensibly while I'm tired.

-Foxxz

A charge like that can ruin someones life, they better stand behind their methods\procedures

In TX you can refuse a breathalyzer.  The catch is your DL is suspended for 6 months - however with a decent lawyer you can easily get out of the suspension.  

I tend to agree with the constitutional arguments here, but on a more practical note this could lead agencies to simply do blood draws for all OWI's. Your blood is the slowest part of your body to metabolize alcohol. Thus, blood test results tend to come in with higher readings than breath tests. People who might have been at borderline levels on a breath test could end up with higher levels due to blood being used instead. The defendants might want to be careful what they wish for.

And of course either way, there will still be a way for lawyers to make money.

The breathalyzer companies will have to eventually cough up the 'trade secret' source code, or risk losing business...

The defense knew that tech companies treat the source & internal schematics of their products like crown jewels, so they filed a request they KNEW would not get an answer...

The first breath-tester maker to release code for such cases will suddently get extra business if this becomes prevalent, as the PDs will buy the product that lets them make cases....

I hate drunk drivers.
Selfish bastards.

Of course the way to avoid all this is not to drive a fucking car after you've had alcohol and to call a cab, give the keys to someone who didn't drink at all, walk, take a bus, etc.

Fuck drunk drivers and the assholes who make apologies for them.

Remember the defendent must have been driving badly in the 1st place to be in the position of taking a breath test. Usually all a breath test does is tell me what I already know but at what level.

PS. and to the cough syrup comparison. Wether he got drunk off of cough syrup or Jim Beam makes little difference if you're impaired your impaired.

Some people do pass breathalizer tests.........

And, some people do get dragged downtown without being given a field sobriety test

Quoted: Good for them.  Knowing how .gov tends to work, the breathalizers are probably made by the lowest bidder and cannot tell a raging drunk from a guy on cough medicine.

There's not a difference. Alcohol is alcohol.

Good ruling.

Im all for the cops moving the DUI's along for a blood draw..

Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs.

Please quote the people supporting criminals

Bring em in.  I'll get blood from the Femoral. Heck,  I'll even do vitreous.

Quoted: Good ruling.

It's a bullshit ruling. Scientific or mechanical test methods have long been admissable in trials, under either the Frye or Daubert rules. Judicial notice is all that was ever required. INTOXILYZER TESTS have been ruled valid and are considered beyond scientific dispute by many judges.

My dad's lawyer used the same defense to get him out of a speeding ticket.

Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs.

How can you guage whether the machine is accurately measuring alcohol content if the software being used to guage it cannot be examined by the defense?

The brethalyzer company shot LE in the foot by not releasing the info.  Good ruling.

Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. How can you guage whether the machine is accurately measuring alcohol content if the software being used to guage it cannot be examined by the defense? The brethalyzer company shot LE in the foot by not releasing the info.  Good ruling.

By using it to test a known sample.

Quoted: And, some people do get dragged downtown without being given a field sobriety test

- I don't give people field sobriety tests prior to arresting them.

Quoted: Quoted: And, some people do get dragged downtown without being given a field sobriety test - I don't give people field sobriety tests prior to arresting them.

I thought that was standard these days

Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs.

that's funny......

Quoted: Quoted: And, some people do get dragged downtown without being given a field sobriety test - I don't give people field sobriety tests prior to arresting them.

why is that?


the only thing that seems "unfair" as far as charging someone for DUI (in NC anyway...) is the .08 deal.  

For instance, a typical female non drinker may not be over the legal limit at .06, but stil fail a FST.
And, a seasoned alcohoic male may be over the legal limit at .09, but pass a FST easily.


I'm not bashing you NCPatrolAR...just curious.

Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. that's funny......

But accurate.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. that's funny...... But accurate.

Its a lot funnier than it is accurate

Just another example of dumb ass people that got called upon for jury duty.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. that's funny...... But accurate. Its a lot funnier than it is accurate

yep...Im not cop bashing....  But, Im thinking  Glock Fotey and the Katrina cop looters in wally world are sufficient proof that one doens't need to be an atom splitter to become a cop.

That said, there are plenty of intelligent cops.

Some of you folks amaze me. Don’t you get it? DUI laws are like speeding tickets but only worse. All the DUI laws are a response to the MADD crew pushing politicians around. Laws are passed and everyone wakes up in a semi police state. DUI is a crime before you commit it.  There was a time when drunks were let off the hook when stopped and told to go straight home. This was not always in the best interest of the community when he/she would go on and cause a crash and hurt or kill someone.  Now we set up checkpoints and make everybody blow away their Fifth Amendment rights. But it’s for the children. But we are only looking for drunks. But you should not drink and drive. What bullshit. Do any of you think the founding fathers, who wrote the Bill of Rights, wanted a situation where we blow away of right to self incrimination or search and seizure? Driving in a dangerous manner then yes; pull them over and give them a ticket. A danger to the community then let them spend a night in the drunken tank. Cause an injury or death then lock them up. But shake them down for money for the courts and state is flat out wrong.  Wake up and smell the coffee because some day the police state will come for you.   Of course it will be for the sake of the children.

PS. never in half a century have I had a DUI . No sour grape here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. that's funny...... But accurate. Its a lot funnier than it is accurate yep...Im not cop bashing....  But, Im thinking  Glock Fotey and the Katrina cop looters in wally world are sufficient proof that one doens't need to be an atom splitter to become a cop. That said, there are plenty of intelligent cops.

I certainly didn't get the feeling that the NO Cops looting ON CAMERA were the "best and brightest"

Quoted: Some of you folks amaze me. Don’t you get it? DUI laws are like speeding tickets but only worse. All the DUI laws are a response to the MADD crew pushing politicians around. Laws are passed and everyone wakes up in a semi police state. DUI is a crime before you commit it.  There was a time when drunks were let off the hook when stopped and told to go straight home. This was not always in the best interest of the community when he/she would go on and cause a crash and hurt or kill someone.  Now we set up checkpoints and make everybody blow away their Fifth Amendment rights. But it’s for the children. But we are only looking for drunks. But you should not drink and drive. What bullshit. Do any of you think the founding fathers, who wrote the Bill of Rights, wanted a situation where we blow away of right to self incrimination or search and seizure? Driving in a dangerous manner then yes; pull them over and give them a ticket. A danger to the community then let them spend a night in the drunken tank. Cause an injury or death then lock them up. But shake them down for money for the courts and state is flat out wrong.  Wake up and smell the coffee because some day the police state will come for you.   Of course it will be for the sake of the children. PS. never in half a century have I had a DUI . No sour grape here.

Incredible.

 Two things.  I work in a pathology dept.  We run the morgue. There are three coolers with DWI victims in them at the moment.  None, I'd like to point out, were the drunks. Youngest is 4.  Oldest is 27. There is a fourth one in PICU.  She''ll be here when I come back to work tomorrow.

Next, I'd like you to go over to the police forum and read that thread titled "Officer Down" and tell me that guy should just spend a night in the drunk tank.

Polydude,

Look, I am not trying to get into a pissing contest with you but lets address the core or your argument. That is the state should establish laws and policy to protect some at the expense of liberty. If this is your position then why not have the state disarm the public? The slippery slope concept is a real construct not some alternative reality.
As a human being I feel sadness for the tragic loss of life because of irresponsible individuals. However, we cannot make laws on emotion.
This is not a pedantic exercise in verbal linguistics but a fundamental truth to understanding the concept of liberty. We the citizens need to take the responsibility of liberty and the consequences of our actions. Because the state did not take responsibility for the actions of a few in years past the state will take responsibility for all citizens who have a drink and drive regardless if they are drunk or sober. Think this is not happening? In Washington DC you will get arrested for one drink. Again, I am sorry that anyone is deprived of life for any reason. But life comes with risks and consequences.  Trying to pass laws and policies to protect everybody results in the loss of liberty for everybody. Until the next generation understands this concept we will be in danger of losing it all.

ARSTAF,

You barking up the wrong tree, most people here are Republicans and as such see nothing
wrong with a law for each and everything under the sun.

Quoted: And of course either way, there will still be a way for lawyers to make money.

So there is a happy ending to this story!

Three groups will applaud this turn of events.  Civil libertarians, lawyers and drunks.

Seriously though, even DUI conviction and license suspension/revocation will never stop the dedicated drunk driver.
Only death or imprisonment.

Regards,
Mild Billl

Quoted: Polydude, Look, I am not trying to get into a pissing contest with you but lets address the core or your argument. That is the state should establish laws and policy to protect some at the expense of liberty. If this is your position then why not have the state disarm the public? The slippery slope concept is a real construct not some alternative reality. As a human being I feel sadness for the tragic loss of life because of irresponsible individuals. However, we cannot make laws on emotion. This is not a pedantic exercise in verbal linguistics but a fundamental truth to understanding the concept of liberty. We the citizens need to take the responsibility of liberty and the consequences of our actions. Because the state did not take responsibility for the actions of a few in years past the state will take responsibility for all citizens who have a drink and drive regardless if they are drunk or sober. Think this is not happening? In Washington DC you will get arrested for one drink. Again, I am sorry that anyone is deprived of life for any reason. But life comes with risks and consequences.  Trying to pass laws and policies to protect everybody results in the loss of liberty for everybody. Until the next generation understands this concept we will be in danger of losing it all.

This is a law not made on emotion.  It's cold hard fact.  Drunk drivers kill people.  LOTS of people.  Enable and protect them if you wish,  I'd rather see them executed alongside their car when caught.

Quoted: ARSTAF, You barking up the wrong tree, most people here are Republicans and as such see nothing wrong with a law for each and everything under the sun.

Okay,  YOU give me a workable solution to this problem.  Something that does not involve pie-in the-the-sky libertarian/anarchist nonsense.

Quoted: I kind of agree with it to a point. You can't prove the device works if you don't know or can't find out how it works. You blow in this device and it tells the police if your drunk using magic. That doesn't tend to fly. This also applies to voting machines. You can't be 100% sure of how the process works because there is some voodoo that removes inspection by human beings. Not to mention no paper trail. Hard to explain this sensibly while I'm tired. -Foxxz

Let me guess. You voted for Gore and Kerry.  Right?

tagged for after coffee

tagged for ensuing shit storm follies.

This is going to be a good one. Got cops with low IQs, MADD maniacs, Second Amendment slippery slope, "doit for the chilluns' crowd", Republican bashing Libertarians, and possibly even a DUhland troll slipped into the mix. And I also get the first IBTL post due to CoC violations due to personal attacks outside of the Pit.

Now just where is the smiley eating popcorn gif?

wganz
¶

Quoted: Some of you folks amaze me. Don’t you get it? DUI laws are like speeding tickets but only worse. All the DUI laws are a response to the MADD crew pushing politicians around. Laws are passed and everyone wakes up in a semi police state. DUI is a crime before you commit it.  There was a time when drunks were let off the hook when stopped and told to go straight home. This was not always in the best interest of the community when he/she would go on and cause a crash and hurt or kill someone.  Now we set up checkpoints and make everybody blow away their Fifth Amendment rights. But it’s for the children. But we are only looking for drunks. But you should not drink and drive. What bullshit. Do any of you think the founding fathers, who wrote the Bill of Rights, wanted a situation where we blow away of right to self incrimination or search and seizure? Driving in a dangerous manner then yes; pull them over and give them a ticket. A danger to the community then let them spend a night in the drunken tank. Cause an injury or death then lock them up. But shake them down for money for the courts and state is flat out wrong.  Wake up and smell the coffee because some day the police state will come for you.   Of course it will be for the sake of the children. PS. never in half a century have I had a DUI . No sour grape here.

I hate to be the devils advocate and get jumped by a ton of Arfcom members,but
this guy is right.
The DUI /DWI laws have been set up to entrap people and produce MASSIVE amounts
of revenue ,and help people very little.
Many states have a "buy your way out" system in which the rich can choose an
option  to pay a huge some of money to be place on the
"Advanced Rehabilitation and Development "program.
ARD means -You pay X amount of dollars,and it's off your record in a year.
Sometimes sooner if you pay more .
Sounds like the F#@$ing mafia to me.
Sitting accross the street from a bar with a list of cars/plates in their parking lot
following each one as they leave is entrapment in my book.
You guys who are screaming about drunk drivers ,if you've EVER drank one alcoholic
beverage within a day of driving,your state laws may have a way of charging you with
DUI if they can prove you drank it.

"I'd never do that" !
Ever drink a single beer when you get home from work ,then go to work the next morning ?
In some states that's technically a DUI.
Drink a beer while working on your kids bike in your front yard ?
That's a DUI.
Same for a riding mower,tractor,or horse.

Do we need DUI/DWI laws ?   Hell Yes !

Have they gone overboard ?   Hell Yes !

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. How can you guage whether the machine is accurately measuring alcohol content if the software being used to guage it cannot be examined by the defense? The brethalyzer company shot LE in the foot by not releasing the info.  Good ruling. By using it to test a known sample.

Intoximeter EC/IR's and the previous Intox 5000's were programmed to perform a test sequence

Blank
Breath
Blank
Accuracy Check
Blank
Breath
Blank

Every "blank" is the machine testing what should be an empty chamber. If the test result is anything other than .000 the test is stopped.

Breath, is the intoxicated subject's breath. There has to be a certain amount of breath, at a certain velocity, in ONE exhale blown into the machine. The machine is "real time" testing the breath sample to detect mouth alcohol. If mouth alcohol is detected, the test is stopped.

The accuracy check is the machine testing a known concentration of alcohol. If the test os .005 off what a lab has determined that control to be, the test is terminated.

The machine will compare both of the subject's breath samples if, rounding down to .XX, instead of .XXX. If the samples are more than .01 off from each other, the machine will not accept that test, and will ask for 2 more breath samples.

The computer also runs checks on itself before and after each test.

So aside from making sure the test chamber is "clean", running an accuracy test during the test sequence, while scanning for mouth alcohol, and correalting the 2 subject breath samples, it's really just a guess whether or not the machine is accurate.................

Blood always show a higher BAC. The person who did almost all the research on blood, breath, and urine testing, supposedly did a lot of the testing, and correlating the results (he would drink then take blood-breath-urine samples, and compare the BAC's for each), did so while exhaling VERY forcefully, and virtually emptying his lungs. Most intoxicated drivers don't come close to that kind of forceful complete exhale.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. How can you guage whether the machine is accurately measuring alcohol content if the software being used to guage it cannot be examined by the defense? The brethalyzer company shot LE in the foot by not releasing the info.  Good ruling. By using it to test a known sample. Intoximeter EC/IR's and the previous Intox 5000's were programmed to perform a test sequence Blank Breath Blank Accuracy Check Blank Breath Blank Every "blank" is the machine testing what should be an empty chamber. If the test result is anything other than .000 the test is stopped. Breath, is the intoxicated subject's breath. There has to be a certain amount of breath, at a certain velocity, in ONE exhale blown into the machine. The machine is "real time" testing the breath sample to detect mouth alcohol. If mouth alcohol is detected, the test is stopped. The accuracy check is the machine testing a known concentration of alcohol. If the test os .005 off what a lab has determined that control to be, the test is terminated. The machine will compare both of the subject's breath samples if, rounding down to .XX, instead of .XXX. If the samples are more than .01 off from each other, the machine will not accept that test, and will ask for 2 more breath samples. The computer also runs checks on itself before and after each test. So aside from making sure the test chamber is "clean", running an accuracy test during the test sequence, while scanning for mouth alcohol, and correalting the 2 subject breath samples, it's really just a guess whether or not the machine is accurate................. Blood always show a higher BAC. The person who did almost all the research on blood, breath, and urine testing, supposedly did a lot of the testing, and correlating the results (he would drink then take blood-breath-urine samples, and compare the BAC's for each), did so while exhaling VERY forcefully, and virtually emptying his lungs. Most intoxicated drivers don't come close to that kind of forceful complete exhale.

Actually, I believe YOU just made the case for exposure of the source code
the other guy that pointed out that you can test the unit with a known sample
made the case for accepting the use of the machine without access to the code

DUIs, Speeding tickets, Seat Belt laws, its not about making us safer, but is merely a means of revenue.$$$$$.

Quoted: DUIs, Speeding tickets, Seat Belt laws, its not about making us safer, but is merely a means of revenue.$$$$$.

It just amazes me how often this silly and wrong argument is repeated on this forum.

Just amazing.

Probably the only thing worse than a drunk driver is some motherfucker apologist.


One of my uncles got a DUI/DWI and guess what, I had and still do not have any sympathy for him. I only thank God he didn't hurt or kill anyone.


Ever notice that almost without exception, the drunk piece of shit driving walks away without a scratch, but the person/people who he smashes into are the ones who are injured, maimed, burned, paralyzed, or killed?

Again, please quote the people supporting criminals

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell cares what kind of code the machine uses as long as it's accuratly measureing the alcohol content. I really believe some here will support anything that helps criminals and hinders LE because they wanted to be a cop when they were a kid but couldn't pass the IQ test or physical so now they have some anymosity towards LEOs. How can you guage whether the machine is accurately measuring alcohol content if the software being used to guage it cannot be examined by the defense? The brethalyzer company shot LE in the foot by not releasing the info.  Good ruling. By using it to test a known sample.

How do you know that your known sample demonstrates the machine's accuracy over the whole range?  How do you know that it doesn't miscalculate under some circumstances and not others because of the way the data is sampled or processed?

You know this by carefully examining the apparatus and any algorithms or computer code used to analyse the samples.

Jim

Quoted: DUIs, Speeding tickets, Seat Belt laws, its not about making us safer, but is merely a means of revenue.$$$$$.

another zinger from the ignorant peanut gallery.