Slashdot Mirror

I can hardly wait for the day when I can command my car to drive my drunken ass home....

Don't worry. You'll still get a DUI if you get pulled over even if the car is doing the actual driving....

In my state, you will get a DUI for simply being sober and sleeping in the passenger seat in a parking lot over night.

http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/12/how-to-drive-under-the-influence-while-sleeping/

I was also threatened with a DUI charge and arrest for being the designated driver and having two drunkards in my back seat, after being pulled over for going 5mph UNDER the limit (cops own words, my speedometer showed much slower than that), simply due to the reality that one of those said friends would not shut up or keep the window up.

Due to MADD, I can not even safely be a designated driver without risk of arrest.
So I simply do not do that anymore.
If those mothers against drunk driving truly want more drunks on the road, as they seem to, then job well done!

Being one of those unlucky individuals who medically speaking can not consume alcohol, I never dreamed I would run into DUI issues in my life, let alone twice!
Of course I have no doubts a court would have dismissed both cases, just the fact that police are trained to issue such tickets even knowing the person is sober ends in such results.

Maybe that's because you can get a DUI for sleeping drunk in your car too.

The "letting a few..." comment is not necessarily directed narrowly at breath tests, and you write well enough that you should know better than to claim it is. It is in response to a comment you made referencing more than just a breath test, in an article about something more than just a breath test. Though I have my doubts whether you'll actually read it with an open mind, you may want to read this for a bit more perspective on why there might actually be some substance to concerns over the any means necessary approach to the problems with drunk drivers. Or, perhaps you don't have an issue with using any means necessary. If that's the case, please speak up and I'll stop bothering to reply to you.

Objecting to a rubber-stamp warrant on the side of the road, the publicly advertised purpose of which is to remove the ability to exercise a right, is akin to supporting a traitor? Interesting take on things certainly. Note, since they don't have to have probable cause at a checkpoint, they can do this to people who show absolutely no sign of being intoxicated. Have a legitimate concern about the accuracy of a breathalizer (in my city two years ago, they threw out a month's worth of cases because of faulty calibrations) and refuse even though you're provably not intoxicated? Sucks for you if the cop is a dick or having a bad day. "Oh, I'm sorry I rolled your vein 15 times. We only got 40 hours of training..." I've had a lots (probably nearing 3 digits) of veins stuck, and even people who have only been doing it every day for their first several months can cause serious pain. I don't know that the 40-hour peace officer IV cert is necessarily how they'll do it in Florida, but that's how Minnesota is planning it, so it's not some wild and crazy theory. People can be serious assholes, especially authority figures who think (rightly or wrongly) that someone is not respecting their authority by failing to submit immediately. Couple that with a procedure that can easily be very painful when done even a small bit incorrectly, and you have a recipe for major abuse. Letting a few drunk drivers slip is an acceptable price to pay in order to prevent that from happening. There are lots of other things that this money could go toward that actually have valid, scientific data to back up their efficacy. But arguing for that instead of this is anti-change, right? I wouldn't want to impede progress by asking that things change in that direction. That would be too much like complaining about change because I'm secretly longing for things to stay exactly as they are forever and ever because absolutely nothing is wrong with how the world is at exactly this moment. Or something...

For the record, patriotism is overrated. My arguments are not from a "patriotic" perspective, and I shudder almost every time the term is used since most people who use it have either proven themselves to be idiots or are getting ready to do so.

>>I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test.

Then you're either a fool, or you've done no honest research at all.

First off, let's start with the fact that there's a variety of "illegitimate" reasons to--including the fact that you may be intoxicated. This is America--criminals have rights. Respect them. It's what sets us apart from the fucking barbarians in the rest of the world. If you are guilty, you're probably better off--you know...exercising the 5th and not providing incriminating evidence against yourself. For the record, I call that a legitimate reason. It's America. Criminals have rights. They should.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's assume that...unfortunately...there are jurors like yourself out there. Damn you all.

1) In some states you are not allowed to challenge a breathalyzer--sounds like a good reason not to use it to me
2) In most states, the result of a breatherlyzer is considered evidence.

3) Now the fun part. And I don't just get this from the internet--I know somebody who works for a company that makes them. Breathalyzers...are full ... of shit. In theory and in practice. They can't work. They're based upon a statistical model that holds true for the average person. I've *heard* that the error follows a normal distribution...but...they don't read in terms of +/-. So...for you know...about 68% of the population. They're wrong. For 32% of it--they read too high.

Those numbers of course, assume they are used *correctly*. If you watch an officer administer one--particularly "in the field"--they don't use them correctly. Probably deliberately. There are ways to force a person to blow higher on them--and guess what cops are routinely caught doing?

And that's before you get into issues like auditing the code and seeing that there's conditions in the software that will cause erroneous readings!

Of course, because they're trained and certified in it--again, you can't question this in court. And the recording on dash cams (in states that have them) doesn't provide sufficient detail to challenge it. And because the breathalyzer is often considered evidence--you can't even ask them to demonstrate it's accurate. It's presumed correct. Great--we've got a legal system assuming that something which is known to be substantially wrong nearly 1/3 of the time--and you aren't even allowed to challenge the reading thanks to lazy fucking judges.

It gets worse than that though. The labs that do the testing--if they actually do it in a lab--routinely fuck the chain of custody. This usually also isn't allowed to be questioned, unless you can categorically prove that they measured the wrong person's blood. They might also fuck up the handling. *especially* if they actually...have a cop pull blood.

http://www.duiblog.com/

In short--there's a ton of reasons to refuse a breathalyzer. Mostly because they're not legitimate and can only possibly be used to provide evidence against you.

What will likely happen is that the SCOTUS will say "You can't retract self-incriminating evidence you provided on your own, but you can refrain from providing any more at any time

I hope they say exactly this. It would finally knock down one of the DUI Exceptions To The Constitution -- in this case, the one to the 5th amendment.

...and it means that just because some sicko has sexually explicit cartoons, drawings or stories involving children doesn't mean that we just toss the First and Fifth Amendments out the door.

Why not? We already tossed out the fifth amendment by thinking "what about the children?".

The DUI Exception to the Constitution

Have you been paying attention to DUI law recently? I don't think MADD needs any help getting their message across. In fact, they've had far too much success.

So what. Why does anyone pay attention to MADD? They have many times demonstrated they are out of their minds, so why do people continue to care what they have to say?
--

Well unfortunately our SPINELESS politicians pay attention, they pay so much attention to MADD that they rubber stamp every constitutionally right violating DUI law MADD wants. Go here... http://www.duiblog.com/ and take a look at MADD's handy work.

I'll tell you something, once you get caught up in a BOGUS DUI conviction come back and tell me your solution is so simple. People have been convicted of DUI on eating such things as Rolaids, eating bread or just being diabetic. Go here for further enlightenment. http://www.duiblog.com/

What they want to do here is NO different than what is already being done in DUI law http://duiblog.com/. Ever hear of 'DUI Roadblocks'? They clearly violate your right against unwarranted search and seizure but are done anyway. I guess our government is looking for yet another source of revenue and are taking DUI law's lead in throwing out your constitutional rights in copyright infringement law.

The article states that the opposite is what occurs.
from http://www.duiblog.com/2007/09/04/secret-breathaly zer-software-finally-revealed/ - 10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported... . So yes, they did look over the source code, they had a judge approved expert witness (aka someone who works with this stuff as their job)

"You seem to be complaining because their have been no significant bugs found in the firmware of a particular breathalyzer since 1999. Good hardware does not need firmware updates every 6 months, or ever for that matter"

This like saying computers NEVER need BIOS upgrades or firmware revisions.

"You are not the first person to question the results of a Breathalyzer test and won't be the last. If the courts went through the process of proving the accuracy of breathalyzer tests every time someone was arrested for a DUI we would have a back up in the courts so long that many people would die before their case came around. At some point you take previous case law as enough proof, and move on with the case."

Like I said, this is legalize horse shit that discourages my due process to question the machines results. Just because someone else takes the machines 'word' for it doesn't mean I have to. Secondly, if our courts weren't so concerned about making revenue with countless questionable DUI and drug convictions the courts wouldn't be so swamped. You can thank this on our governments 'WAR ON DRUGS' and MADD's WAR ON DRUNK DRIVING.

"You are guilty the moment a trained professional (police officer) has determined that you are to impaired to be operating a motor vehicle. The breathalyzer test is just to determine if that guilt is due to alcohol consumption, and if so how to what extent (many states have separate charges of DUI and QWI)"

To be a 'trained professional' you need to know how the machine works what the process entails and know how to repair the thing when it breaks. Police officers are just 'appliance operators'. Police officers have no idea how the machine works or could tell if it is returning erroneous results let alone repair the thing. My guilt is being resolved my some arbitrary line drawn in the sand by MADD, where's the due process? Last time I checked I was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not at the police station at the breathalyzer machine.

"Keep telling your self that and you might not be so upset when your drinking causes you to wipe out an entire family. Look up the statistics, Drunk driving is clearly a major factor in a large portion of fatal automobile accidents. Utah has the Lowest alcohol related deaths which is still greater than 20% of all auto accident fatalities. Alcohol related accidents have a high cost to citizens including, medical costs, property damage and lost productivity. The fines from DUIs do not come close to covering the total loss"

Keep this in mind when you get pulled over or stopped at some so called 'DUI Checkpoint'. Drunk driving is NOT the major factor in a large part of fatalities, it's just the one that gets the most attention because it's such a political hot button. Get your facts straight before you open your moth and insert your foot. Let's turn the tables here, do you remember when Senator Ted Kennedy got into an accident that killed his passenger. Or how about this one MADD: OK to Let .14% Driver Go If He's a Politician or even this one Bush an inadmissable person
Do us all a favor and visit duiblog.com and educate yourself. Because you'll never understand till you have your constitutional rights put on hold in the name of DUI.

"You seem to be complaining because their have been no significant bugs found in the firmware of a particular breathalyzer since 1999. Good hardware does not need firmware updates every 6 months, or ever for that matter"

This like saying computers NEVER need BIOS upgrades or firmware revisions.

"You are not the first person to question the results of a Breathalyzer test and won't be the last. If the courts went through the process of proving the accuracy of breathalyzer tests every time someone was arrested for a DUI we would have a back up in the courts so long that many people would die before their case came around. At some point you take previous case law as enough proof, and move on with the case."

Like I said, this is legalize horse shit that discourages my due process to question the machines results. Just because someone else takes the machines 'word' for it doesn't mean I have to. Secondly, if our courts weren't so concerned about making revenue with countless questionable DUI and drug convictions the courts wouldn't be so swamped. You can thank this on our governments 'WAR ON DRUGS' and MADD's WAR ON DRUNK DRIVING.

"You are guilty the moment a trained professional (police officer) has determined that you are to impaired to be operating a motor vehicle. The breathalyzer test is just to determine if that guilt is due to alcohol consumption, and if so how to what extent (many states have separate charges of DUI and QWI)"

To be a 'trained professional' you need to know how the machine works what the process entails and know how to repair the thing when it breaks. Police officers are just 'appliance operators'. Police officers have no idea how the machine works or could tell if it is returning erroneous results let alone repair the thing. My guilt is being resolved my some arbitrary line drawn in the sand by MADD, where's the due process? Last time I checked I was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not at the police station at the breathalyzer machine.

"Keep telling your self that and you might not be so upset when your drinking causes you to wipe out an entire family. Look up the statistics, Drunk driving is clearly a major factor in a large portion of fatal automobile accidents. Utah has the Lowest alcohol related deaths which is still greater than 20% of all auto accident fatalities. Alcohol related accidents have a high cost to citizens including, medical costs, property damage and lost productivity. The fines from DUIs do not come close to covering the total loss"

Keep this in mind when you get pulled over or stopped at some so called 'DUI Checkpoint'. Drunk driving is NOT the major factor in a large part of fatalities, it's just the one that gets the most attention because it's such a political hot button. Get your facts straight before you open your moth and insert your foot. Let's turn the tables here, do you remember when Senator Ted Kennedy got into an accident that killed his passenger. Or how about this one MADD: OK to Let .14% Driver Go If He's a Politician or even this one Bush an inadmissable person
Do us all a favor and visit duiblog.com and educate yourself. Because you'll never understand till you have your constitutional rights put on hold in the name of DUI.

"You seem to be complaining because their have been no significant bugs found in the firmware of a particular breathalyzer since 1999. Good hardware does not need firmware updates every 6 months, or ever for that matter"

This like saying computers NEVER need BIOS upgrades or firmware revisions.

"You are not the first person to question the results of a Breathalyzer test and won't be the last. If the courts went through the process of proving the accuracy of breathalyzer tests every time someone was arrested for a DUI we would have a back up in the courts so long that many people would die before their case came around. At some point you take previous case law as enough proof, and move on with the case."

Like I said, this is legalize horse shit that discourages my due process to question the machines results. Just because someone else takes the machines 'word' for it doesn't mean I have to. Secondly, if our courts weren't so concerned about making revenue with countless questionable DUI and drug convictions the courts wouldn't be so swamped. You can thank this on our governments 'WAR ON DRUGS' and MADD's WAR ON DRUNK DRIVING.

"You are guilty the moment a trained professional (police officer) has determined that you are to impaired to be operating a motor vehicle. The breathalyzer test is just to determine if that guilt is due to alcohol consumption, and if so how to what extent (many states have separate charges of DUI and QWI)"

To be a 'trained professional' you need to know how the machine works what the process entails and know how to repair the thing when it breaks. Police officers are just 'appliance operators'. Police officers have no idea how the machine works or could tell if it is returning erroneous results let alone repair the thing. My guilt is being resolved my some arbitrary line drawn in the sand by MADD, where's the due process? Last time I checked I was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not at the police station at the breathalyzer machine.

"Keep telling your self that and you might not be so upset when your drinking causes you to wipe out an entire family. Look up the statistics, Drunk driving is clearly a major factor in a large portion of fatal automobile accidents. Utah has the Lowest alcohol related deaths which is still greater than 20% of all auto accident fatalities. Alcohol related accidents have a high cost to citizens including, medical costs, property damage and lost productivity. The fines from DUIs do not come close to covering the total loss"

Keep this in mind when you get pulled over or stopped at some so called 'DUI Checkpoint'. Drunk driving is NOT the major factor in a large part of fatalities, it's just the one that gets the most attention because it's such a political hot button. Get your facts straight before you open your moth and insert your foot. Let's turn the tables here, do you remember when Senator Ted Kennedy got into an accident that killed his passenger. Or how about this one MADD: OK to Let .14% Driver Go If He's a Politician or even this one Bush an inadmissable person
Do us all a favor and visit duiblog.com and educate yourself. Because you'll never understand till you have your constitutional rights put on hold in the name of DUI.

As someone who has been railroaded through the DUI "presumption of guilt" gulag, I had mentioned this to my attorney. However, I didn't have the money to pay a software engineer (code monkey) to grep the code looking for flaws. When I blew into the machine it printed out the results along with the last firmware update done in 1999! I had questioned the reliability of the results but the state just blew it off and said they were satisfied the results were forensically accurate.

As far as the DOL is concerned, you are GUILTY based on some arbitrary number the machine spits out. Your right to "due process" is bypassed at that point, a person who works for the DOL then becomes prosecutor and judge and inevitably suspends your license. When you have little or no money, you just flat out get fucked in the ass with a un-lubricated utility pole. DUI law today has NOTHING to do with curbing drunk driving, it has everything to with nothing but raking in revenue. duiblog

We need responsibility in DUI Laws. Drunk driving is a terrible problem, but the way the states are dealing with it is not good. The BAC limits have been creeping ever so lower, as to raise the revenue from someone having a glass of wine after dinner when stopped at a roadblock. This is not actually helpful in impacting road safety.

Also, breathalyzers have a +/- 20% error, which is rather unfortunate.

Ignition interlocks have a .02 BAC margin of error, so they are set to legal_limit - 0.02, so in a 0.05BAC state, they are set to 0.03. Go on a date and take the girl home on a bus. This is why you should not support mandatory ignition interlocks.

We need to deal with the drunk driving problem responsibly: provide good public transportation options (Boston, extend trains until after 2am, you listening?), encourage designated drivers, and provide massive roaming police enforcement, looking for erratic driving and dangerous behavior (substantially more effective than roadblocks).

IANAL, but I've been told that in some jurisdictions you can refuse to take a breathalyzer based on the fact that the cop is not a medical professional and that many are not well-trained in the use of their equipment. They have you tested, then, by piss and/or blood (usually blood).

I, for one, am diabetic and the methods by which many breathalyzer tests can show erratic results for me if my system's out of whack. I was used as an example once, showing that I could be staggering (not driving, mind you, just an example) and blow pretty much stone cold sober. I could, theoretically, also blow sloppy drunk while sober, and this would be about the time my speech might start to slur from low sugar. Now, granted, it's not a good idea to drive while passing out for medical reasons either, but a couple of crackers and some orange juice and I'm fine in a couple of minutes.

The breathalyzer, then, is not the best way to test some people. It's a great tool for most people most of the time. Field sobriety test training and liquid samples (blood and/or urine) should not be ruled out in favor of a breathalyzer exclusively, though. The police should be trained to know this, but chances are many do not.

If I was pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint and they asked me to take a breathalyzer test, I would submit gladly to a field test, blood test, or urine test, but not to the breathalyzer, and I would explain (as calmly as possible) why.

http://www.duiblog.com/ MADD is trying for a new Prohibition, of that there is no doubt. The gov loves it, as it's an excuse to ignore the Constitution.

Here: http://www.duiblog.com/

DUI Blog is a blog of a DUI defense lawyer, a former US prosecutor who was appalled at the Constitution trampling being done in the name of MADD and other pro-prohibition groups.

Cheers

This is a blog of a former U.S. prosecutor who decided defending the constitution was more important work at this point. Very enlightening, and also quite frightening, IMO.

Evil cowardly turds indeed.

> But if the breathalyzer's accuracy has been tested and verified...

What ever makes you think the breathalyzer's accuracy has been tested or verified? These things are amazingly broken. Hell, they come with a little slip of paper full of legal disclaimers. The manufacturer won't even warranty them as being accurate or useful for any purpose.

Read up on http://www.duiblog.com/ under Breath Alcohol Testing: "State of the Art"?

Clue: Amongst many, many other problems, BREATHALYZERS DON'T CHECK FOR ALCOHOL. They check for compounds containing methyl groups via spectral absorption. Sure, alcohol is one such compound. One of many thousands, hundreds of which are normally found in, on, or around the human body.

Clue: If you burp within half an hour before taking a breathalyzer test, you're screwed. Similarly if you have recently filled your gas tank (gas fumes in lungs create a false positive). Painted your house. Eaten certain types of flavored chocolates (or other foods). Been around car exhaust fumes (say, in the bumper-to-bumper traffic leading up to the DUI road block). Or if you've had the misfortune to be tested just after several slightly (still legal) intoxicated people (fumes building up in the machine is a confirmed problem).

Clue: Once you test positive on a breathalyzer, nothing else is required for your guaranteed conviction. You are now screwed! As in your driver's license is immediately confiscated. You are booked. You go directly to jail. You are denied trial by jury. Attempting to present evidence that the breathalyzer is flawed will get you charged with contempt of court. The police have every incentive to PREVENT you from obtaining secondary testing, which could prove your innocence and upset their little applecart. You can expect to be anally gang-raped. You can expect to be infected with HIV. Our prison system is truly horrifying. There's a reason we've been on Amnesty International's watchlist for so many decades.

Clue: You're not required to do anything wrong to get tested. The police frequently set up road blocks, and check everyone on the road.

Clue: You are not required to drive under the influence. Testing positive within three hours of driving is sufficient. As in driving to the bar and getting drunk is sufficient for a DUI conviction even though you haven't been intoxicated behind the wheel.

Clue: You know how the cops yell at you: "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!" That's because the last part of your breath from the bottom of the lungs near the alveolar sacs is the richest in alcohol. It can be over 50% above your blood alcohol level. And once you test positive, it's game over. You are screwed.

Clue: Need I mention how the machines assume you have a standard (fixed) lung capacity? Ignoring how humans vary from 50% to 200% of their default value... Ignoring how even the same human can vary considerably over a period of hours... Ignoring the impact of temperature and barometric pressure changes.

I could go on and on and on here. (We haven't even touched on RFI issues, etc.) Read up on this topic. We are getting seriously fucked.

A. C.
Yes, I'm posting Anonymously. Live with it. Color me paranoid. Put me in the tin foil hat crowd. Whatever. While this topic desperately needs to be openly discussed and debated, I'm not going to screw up my life, and my future employability, over it. I can work around it for myself by forcing a blood test. I'll do what I can to inform others. But in the end, my family's interests come first.

Yeah, but thanks to our warped laws, and some really broken hardware, you can get your third DUI without ever touching a drop of alcohol.

What, haven't you heard of the DUI Exemption to the US Constitution?

The current presidential administration has already found a Terrorism Clause in the Bill of Rights. I'm sure there is a child pornography clause if you look hard enough as well.

But hey, we already know that anyone accused of pedophillia, drunk driving, or terrorism is automatically guilty, so its no big deal, right?

You seem to want to make the Consitutional rights of people be conditional on the kind of crimes they are accused of committing. Are you sure you'll want to live in such a society?

Welcome to the modern United States of America, we already do this. Check out DUIBlog's ""The DUI Exception to the Constitution"" For examples for just one type of crime. You might also check out examples relating to criminal tax fraud and drug crimes for more cases where the consitution is outright ignored. Don't forget about child protective services, which can hide the identity of your accuser in a court of law, and convict you on their testimony, which is clearly and aggriegiously a violation of one of the most important rights this country was founded over.

I won't start splitting hairs about whether abstinence is effective. It is even more off topic than my original post, and other people seem to have covered it pretty well.

Okay... I can't help it... here's a little more off-topic stuff: you can get charged with DUI without driving after you have been drinking. I can think of two different ways. 1) False readings due to eating bread or other reasons. 2) Some states laws are written such that you can be charged with DUI just for sitting in your car listening to the radio drunk. It's considered "operating a motor vehicle."

<apology sarcasm=FALSE>Sorry for jumping on the second half of your analogy; I know it's bad form.</apology>
Let me know if you have some facts to back up that "100% effective" argument, though. As you said, we can't argue with numbers.

I won't start splitting hairs about whether abstinence is effective. It is even more off topic than my original post, and other people seem to have covered it pretty well.

Okay... I can't help it... here's a little more off-topic stuff: you can get charged with DUI without driving after you have been drinking. I can think of two different ways. 1) False readings due to eating bread or other reasons. 2) Some states laws are written such that you can be charged with DUI just for sitting in your car listening to the radio drunk. It's considered "operating a motor vehicle."

<apology sarcasm=FALSE>Sorry for jumping on the second half of your analogy; I know it's bad form.</apology>
Let me know if you have some facts to back up that "100% effective" argument, though. As you said, we can't argue with numbers.

Actually, I suspect part of the reason why cops and prosecutors don't want this discussed in open court is because breathalizers do not test for ethanol. They test for other chemicals created by metabolizing alcohol.

They also are based on the fiction of the average person, and are generally pretty dodgy devices, capable of giving wildly divergenct readings for similar amounts of alcohol consumption depending on the person, timing, how deeply the person breathes, whether they've had a cigarette recently, etc.

Check out duiblog, which is run by a DUI defense attorney. Lots of really interesting articles on the topic.

It is my opinion that the legal system doesn't want to set a precedent by admitting that Breathalyzers don't actaully measure ethyl alcohol. They measure chemicals that contain methyl groups and ethanol is one of them. There are many others. See: 1 2 3 4 5