Slashdot Mirror
SFPD Breathalyzer Mistake Puts Hundreds of DUI Convictions In Doubt
Mr. Shotgun writes "According to CBS, 'Hundreds, or even thousands, of drunk driving convictions could be overturned because the San Francisco Police Department has not tested its breathalyzers, officials said Monday. For at least six years, the police officers in charge of testing the 20 breathalyzers used by the Police Department did not carry out any tests on the equipment. Officers instead filled the test forms with numbers that matched the control sample, said Public Defender Jeff Adachi, throwing countless DUI convictions into doubt.' Apparently this has happened before."
Especially things involving Drunk Driving which are routinely based on emotional appeals rather than real evidence and metrics.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
Perhaps this will also lead to revelations about the myths of "drugged" driving as well. Reality: Just because you can test somebody's urine and find XYZ doesn't necessarily follow that they're under the influence of XYZ. Technically a blood test can reveal alcohol consumption up to 14 days later, but no serious person above the age of 5 really believes that means that you're drunk for 14 days...
Who did what now?
...this doesn't surprise me in the least. You have a few that respect and understand technology, and all it can do for the dept, but most resent it and try to deal with it and little as possible.
This won't even change anything, really.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Will officers face sanctions for falsifying records?
The DA said:
Gascon said there did not appear to be any malicious intent behind the police officers’ actions. He said the coordinators were apparently just too lazy to perform the test required every 10 days.
Can I use that excuse when I get pulled over for rolling through a stop sign? "But I was just too lazy to stop, officer! Surely you can understand that!"
The judicial system worked in this case, they threw out the doubtful convictions. It's the executive branch, the one's tasks with law enforcement, that are having the doubt cast upon them.
This is fraud: A police officer accepted a paycheck for work and services he did not perform. That's fraud, and the officer should be relieved of duty and terminated from employment. Cops aren't above the law, or accountability, and it sounds like whoever fraudulently filled out the forms using the baseline measurements engaged in fraud.
Who did what now?
A mistake would have been using the wrong calibration procedure or something. Deliberately NOT PERFORMING the required calibration and falsifying the report forms is not a "mistake", it is outright FRAUD, and the pig or pigs responsible need to be held responsible.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen here in the United Police States of Amerika...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Even though you'll most likely have your driver's license suspended if you refuse a breathalyzer, it's best to refuse it anyway if you're drunk.
Once you refuse the breathalyzer it gets complicated for the police and the clock starts ticking to get that blood test done in a timely fashion.
Unless, of course, you're guilty and looking for plausible deniability......
But then, if you aren't guilty, take the breath test and if you fail, ask for the blood test.......otherwise, you have to take a ride to the station for the blood test, and all of that other inconvenience.
That a police department would use questionable tools and tactics to secure large numbers of convictions that also result in large fines.
take THAT offfficeer i-know-everrything
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What idiots. Any time you use a piece of scientific equipment regularly, you have to be sure you're calibrating it. Even better if you're checking your calibrations multiple different ways.
I hope they get their ASSES sued! If it happen to me, and I had to pay fines, spend time in jail, lose my license, my job, reputation, etc. etc., I'd get the best lawyer and SUE them!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
IMHO, testing ought to be done by the vendor and calibration ought to be done by cognizant, technical individuals who have a minor amount of ethics. For a test person to fill in "sample data" is evidence that (a) these things don't work, or (b) the test person was either incompetent or unethical (and neither of these is acceptable in an industry related to the security of the public like law enforcement).
Unless, of course, you're guilty and looking for plausible deniability......
But then, if you aren't guilty, take the breath test and if you fail, ask for the blood test.......otherwise, you have to take a ride to the station for the blood test, and all of that other inconvenience.
If you fail you'll get a ride to the station anyway. The advisability of refusing a test aside; it's still not that hard to get convicted of DUI based on other evidence. I served on a DUI jury, and all a breath test would have done is shorten the time it took to reach a verdict from 2 days to probably 2 hours. We took our job seriously and debated each piece of evidence, so not having a breath gets probably helps a case but it is not a slam dunk acquittal by a long shot.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Unbelievable. I worked for Phoenix Police for nine years doing computer work. We had implemented an optical document management system when DUI attorneys started subpoenaing Intoxilyzer maintenance records as SOP when it came to cases, so we started scanning all calibration and maintenance records as part of our SOP. It also made it ridiculously easy to fulfill the subpoena. Our Intoxilyzers were calibrated by the crime lab, so it was actual chemists with a vested interest in accuracy, so it was done right. And this was back in the 90's!
Just unbelievable that SFPD could be so stupid. There's no excuse for this, whoever is in charge of that calibration really needs to get their heads handed to them. And so does the prosecutor's office for not checking this.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
No. Fire them. File charges of official misconduct. Take their pensions. Ruin their lives any way you can.
They did not "forget" to do some thing. They deliberately did something WRONG and tried to hide it.
The "to lazy to change his password" equation doesn't fit. More like he changed his password to "password" told every one and had someone else punch him in and out for work.
Counsel them on how to pick up trash and buy them matching D.O.C. jumpsuits.
--
Being smug just makes you less informed than some one who watches TV.
-- Sig under construction...
How about something even simpler?
Breathalyzer devices create a paper trail. Every time a sample is run, the results are printed out. The cops need this paper trail if they want to use the result in court.
If they want to use the calibration sheet in court, they should need the same paper trail. The calibration sheet should have the paper printout stapled to it for each calibration sample they ran. If it doesn't, no calibration was done. Simple.
I'll be officials are scared shitless they'll have to refund all that fine money they took in from these folks!!!
Geez, this could be a significant loss of revenue!!!
At least, that's likely the first thoughts going through their heads....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ya know what else doesn't get calibrated?
The scanners run by the SA at airports. At any point of time there could be a mechanical failure and the machines start bombarding passengers with lethal (or cancer-causing) doses of X-rays and nobody would ever know, because the machines are not regularly tested (as is required in hospitals and doctors' offices). I don't think I will ever voluntarily step through one of those things.
There's a reason the European Union banned their use. I wish OUR union would wake-up and ban them as well (but of course the CEO of the scanner company has bought the politicians that make those decisions).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
If I get pulled over (and this does vary by state)...and I know I'm toast, on his advice, I won't say a thing, won't answer a question, I will NOT take any roadside tests (that's just letting them gather evidence against you on camera) and refuse breath or blood tests.
I'll politely hold my hands out for them to put the cuffs on me, and quietly go with them...and call my atty when I get to the police station.
The main thing to do...is NOT give them any evidence....or as little as possible.
In many states, at worst on first offense, refusing any tests might get you license yanked for 6mos up to a year, but with good atty, you can get temp license to drive to/from work and for food, etc.
A PITA, of course, but much better than getting a DWI on your record...which can then keep you out of jobs, kills your insurance rates...and cost $$$$.
Ever since they lowered the BAC to the ridiculously low 0.08....a grown man, having 2 drinks with a meal, can be dangerously close to the so called legal limit.
So, it pays to know what to do....the govt these days seem to be into any kind of traffic stop mostly for revenue these days...safety is usually second place.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Which is why the quantity matters.
Also, is there no second test done by a different method? In the UK you can blow positive by the roadside, but a second test by entirely different methods is done back at the police station on a non-portable unit, and then a blood test an be requested.
Holy crap I'd be pissed off if my lawyer let something like this slide.
I think you're missing the point. The defense attorney's would have asked for proof that the devices had been calibrated. And the falsely filled-out paperwork would have been turned over, showing just that. You're saying that the defense attorney's should have asked for proof that the documentation wasn't fraudulent. Which would have been ... what? Paperwork from a non-existing third party auditor? That's why the cases are in question.
Mind you, most cops know exactly when they're dealing with a drunk. And the drunks know when they're drunk. I would hope that this blunder only impacts very questionable/marginal cases, and not those where the driver was obviously and aggregiously under the influence.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Dude, you've seen the crap that came out of congress lately and you STILL don't believe that you can be drunk for 14 days straight (and much, much longer, for that matter)?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here is better legal advice: Don't drink and drive, asshole.
If a grown man is dangerously-close to the legal limit, he needs to hand the keys over to someone more responsible. Chances are, if he does choose to DUI, nothing will happen. However, there's always a chance he will cause an accident and seriously injure or kill someone. DUI is a serious crime and 100% preventable, all you have to do is act like a responsible adult and hand your keys to someone who is not under the influence. In that case you will not have to worry about getting that DWI on your record. The only person who is to blame for a DUI/DWI conviction is the person who gets drunk or high and gets behind the wheel of a car.
But at least a new job processing refunds and overturning conviction records will be created, and isn't that what really matters?
no comment
Nearly all of the states have signed onto 2 of the 3 compacts dealing with out-of-state drivers licenses. Each state agrees to honor decisions like license suspensions from another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Resident_Violator_Compact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement
if you have an alcohol level of say 0.08 or what ever the limit is where you are, you have been drinking and you are drunk period.
.08 BAC is not drunk, regardless of your "period". It is above the legal limit for driving, but it is not drunk. How intoxicated you are does not vary by the jurisdiction's local laws.
Actually, testing for alcohol consumption 14 days later makes perfect sense.
If the incident happened on a Friday night, 14 days later is again a Friday night. If you go drinking with the guys (or girls, or whatevers), you'll most likely test positive again. :)
Honestly though, you're right. You'll can register a BAC up to about 12 hours after drinking. That's an extreme, and you'd probably be in the hospital (or morgue).
An EtG test (testing to if you did metabolize alcohol) is reported to be viable up to about 80 hours (3.4 days) after consumption. That only says you were exposed, not how much you drank. That's only useful if you are forbidden from drinking, and can give false positive reports from using alcohol based mouthwash or hand sanitizer (among other things).
Labs can report how much was present, or if a trace was present. There are plenty of people who function normally, that will test positive for a variety of drugs. Unfortunately, the prosecution will use any detection as proof of impairment. It's up to the defense to show that it wasn't an amount for impairment.
I've seen this in the workplace too. Someone tested positive for opiates. They were prescribed opiate based pain killers, and were not taking them in excess. Because the company had a zero tolerance policy, that person was fired. They did not allow introduction of evidence to counter the drug test report. As the rumor mill retold the story, she tested positive for "heroin", but as the drug tests aren't that specific, that was an incorrect assertion. I don't know if she sued or not, but I hope she did.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I wouldn't necessarily trust the vendor further than I could throw them "Yeah, sorry guys, our testing indicates that our product is broken and we need to replace it under warranty". In the context of criminal justice, where we use the 'adversarial' legal system under the theory that the contesting sides provide the best chance of achieving the correct answer, it would seem more appropriate for the testing and calibration of forensic apparatus and technique should really be the job of an independent entity whose performance is judged on the basis of how effectively they represent the 'accuracy interest' of the apparatus and technique...
I'm guessing(and the fact that nobody noticed that the calibration data were eerily perfect and uniform, because individual units were just getting cut-and-paste numbers re-enforces my suspicion) that there is no professional accolade to be had for being 'that guy who is always pointing out problems with the gear' within the police department. Ideally, you'd want the department of exacting assholes to be in charge of testing the stuff, and distinct from the officers in charge of using it...
Police officers are generally polite, respectful, and concerned for your safety.
Police departments are generally corrupt, bureaucratic, and don't give a shit about your safety.
For every asshole, rights-stomping cop there are several good ones. Unfortunately, they're powerless to do their sworn duty and protect you from the asshole cops and the department as a whole.
So, will they be paying the defendant's legal fees, cost of DUI school, lost work time and reasonable compensation for slandering their good name? How about lost employment opportunities?
I recall that the US Supreme court is something of a political game now: Whenever one of them dies or retires, the president make sure to appoint someone sympathetic to his ideology to their place - and if congress doesn't approve them, to pick another sympathetic replacement until they do. Both parties do it now, because they each know that to cease this dubious practice would just hand a massive advantage to their opponents.
Your username and your advice seem to be at odds
Technically a blood test can reveal alcohol consumption up to 14 days later
Assuming that this is true (and I don't know that it is) ... if you're measuring the amount of alcohol in the blood, that will tell you how drunk they guy was when it was taken. If it's 0.08 or higher, the guy was legally drunk. (And he could be legally drunk if it was lower, but then it becomes a judgement call.)
Perhaps the blood test can measure the compounds that show up in the blood for 14 days after the liver has metabolized the alcohol, or it can measure the trace amounts of alcohol that could remain, but it should be completely clear just how intoxicated the guy was when the blood was taken (the BAC will be obvious -- the effect on the guy won't be quite so clear, but educated guesses can be made.) If the test gives a BAC of 0.01 -- he's probably not drunk.
When they do a urine drug test, they're looking for trace amounts of various compounds -- not just seeing if the guy is high *right now* (well, when the urine was taken.) If you're looking for their current state -- blood is probably better than urine or hair anyways. But if you're looking for any use at all in the recent past, then urine or hair will give you better data.
no serious person above the age of 5 really believes that means that you're drunk for 14 days...
And similarly, no serious person thinks that if a normal sized adult drinks 1 ounce of beer that they'll be drunk at all.
Falsification of a government record by an officer is a crime under California law pursuant to Government Code 6200-6203 and may also constitute unlawful forgery under Penal Code 470. If one officer showed another how to do it, that would constitute conspiracy to commit one or both of the above offenses, which would be a separate charge.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6200-6203
A friend of mine driving a Jaguar XKS was pulled over by a Scottsdale cop who claimed he was doing 50+ in a residential zone. I was working at Phoenix Police at the time and had told him that motorcycle cops were supposed to check their radar guns at the start of every shift, then they were calibrated during routine maintenance once or twice a year and I think a copy of those maintenance/calibration records traveled with the bike. I'd told my friend all of this, and he knew he hadn't been speeding, so he asked for the calibration records. The cop eventually called his supervisor, the supervisor pointed the radar gun at a tree and clocked it at 30 MPH and told my friend to leave.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
In my state, you have the right to demand a blood test.
By refusing an alcohol test, you will have your license revoked, and the refusal will be considered an admission of guilt. I've been told by numerous defense attorneys to demand the blood test if I *ever* get stopped for suspicion of DUI. It doesn't matter if I haven't touched alcohol in weeks.
And yes, you will get handcuffed, dragged down to the station, processed, and then taken to the hospital for the test.
There are two reasons for demanding the blood test. The first is to avoid inaccuracy with the breath test. The second is that time passes between the road-side stop and the blood being drawn. If you were drinking, and you would have been a borderline fail when you were stopped, you'll have metabolized enough to allow for a pass at the hospital.
There are folks like me, who have a high tolerance for alcohol. I pick the safe alternative, getting a ride rather than driving even still, if I have a few drinks and get pulled over, I will pass the general roadside tests (walking a line, reciting the alphabet, etc).
There are plenty of days which I would fail the physical parts, because I have back problems. Because of this, it is in my best interest to demand a blood test. For example, right now the herniated disks in my back are killing me. I haven't touched any alcohol for months. I couldn't pass a road side test. I'd find it difficult to stand up straight. I have a well documented history of this, but it would mean I'd end up unjustly arrested, and it would cost me money to fight it in court.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Not really. The legal limit is a fraction of what it takes to actually be significantly impaired. Your BAC is over the limit long before you are drunk.
I fully agree that it would be quite unacceptable to drive while ACTUALLY drunk.
I'll politely hold my hands out for them to put the cuffs on me, and quietly go with them...and call my atty when I get to the police station.
"No, your honor. I didn't want to arrest him. I was just going to ask him for directions. That's when the suspect insisted I put cuffs on him, said he wasn't going to say another word, and then made his way into the back seat of my police car. "
A PITA, of course, but much better than getting a DWI on your record...which can then keep you out of jobs, kills your insurance rates...and cost $$$$.
Jobs: If you're driving under the influence, you've showed you're either negligent, or actively willing to endanger yourself and others for a night's entertainment. I understand your argument about "a grown man, having two drinks with a meal"--but it's just a drink. Most restaurants have something else you can quench your thirst with that won't make you unable to drive. If you're so (pardon the term) drunk on the taste and sensation of a beer with your dinner that you're in danger of going over, maybe you can't be trusted to know the limit in the first place.
Go figure that people might not consider you a pristine employee. I mean sure, you might do a very good job at whatever it is they hire you for. You might also be a surly, insensitive jackass that ends up breaking property or assaulting people, which may in turn cost them more than you'll ever be worth.
Insurance: Drunk drivers kill a lot of people every year. In addition to it being a tragedy, for the insurance co.s, it's a business matter. How do YOU propose that they tell the difference between a person who drives drunk (or tipsy) but have been lucky so far, and people who might die, kill, create enormous medical bills, or wreck expensive property tomorrow?
Fines: These are laws about public safety. You're complaining about paying money because you were caught endangering others. I'm not sure I trust you behind the wheel in any event, knowing that. Let alone that you consulted a lawyer about how to act if (when eventually?) you get caught doing something that could kill people, and took the advice to heart.
It's not like there's no corruption and malevolence in the police, or that there's nowhere that police do a shitty job of keeping people safe. But if you want to make an argument like that, pick something other than harsh drunk driving laws.
In the UK, refusing/failing to provide a specimen of blood or breath carries the same punishment as providing a positive sample. This gets around people like you trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.
In the US, our Constitution explicitly says that you do not have to incriminate yourself, and providing a breathalyzer or blood sample does so.
(Some states have gotten around this to some degree by giving you an "administrative" sanction by taking your license if you don't, which is still way better than DWI -- but they can't give you criminal charges for it.)
You can see it as "avoiding responsibility for their actions" but others see it as exercising their legal rights. Both views are likely correct.
If either country, if the police think you are guilty of a crime -- and you actually are or it could be easily believed that you are, and you want to minimize the penalties that could befall you, I'd suggest cooperating to the barest possible minimum that the relevant law requires unless otherwise advised by your legal counsel.
(Now, if you don't care what happens to you, if you want to "take responsibility for your actions", then by all means -- sing like a canary. But don't be surprised if the legal system screws you over royally.)
The only person who is to blame for a DUI/DWI conviction is the person who gets drunk or high and gets behind the wheel of a car.
So you are saying .02% == drunk? Or are you saying no one is to blame in those cases, since a drunk person did not get behind the wheel; in my opinion, you and legions of MADD women are to blame for using emotionally charged tragedies to set ridiculous and arbitrary limits that would not have prevented the tragic outcome in the first place. This is what the temperance movement has become now that everybody knows you are all naive, up-tight retards.
The center of New Mexico is actually over 5000 miles from the center of Jersey.
And no, no judge in New Mexico has the right to suspend a license issued in Jersey. It's doubtful that even a judge in London would have the rights to do that. I'm pretty sure any request would have to be passed through the Bailiff of Jersey's office.
tl;dr: New Jersey is not Jersey any more than New York is York.
Call me naive and over trusting, but I generally figure if you are driving poorly enough to warrant a cop pulling you over in the first place.. you probably should be off the road ... Are there cases where police have abused this power? Pulled someone over who was not drunk and driving just fine, did the breathalizer...
Have you completely forgotten about DUI checkpoints? Everyone gets stopped, and they either take the breathalyzer or they get arrested for failing to give a sample. Yes, they're a blatant violation of our rights, but courts all over have ruled in favor of the practice.
The reason for this is, of course, your assumption is quite incorrect: the legal limit is SO DAMN LOW that you won't be "driving poorly enough to warrant a cop pulling you over". That's why they have to pull everyone over and use the breathalyzer.
The thing is though, the legal limit has little relation to being impaired. The AMA said 30 years ago that a BAC of .15 would make someone impaired. At .08, the vast majority of people aren't impaired. The law used to be that you got arrested if you were driving while impaired. Now, you get arrested if you are over .08 even if you aren't impaired.
More importantly, I figure if you have enough alcohol in you to be driving poorly enough to get pulled over, you are probably drunk and way over the 0.08. If you are a naturally shitty driver, probably a good idea to avoid any alcohol at all before driving (or not drive at all..).
The 0.08 thing is just the magic number they need to convict you. I can't imagine there are too many borderline cases. Most probably fall under either:
- just a bad driver, no alcohol
- totally and obviously drunk, not even close to 0.08
With any luck that happened in at least some of these cases and the prosecutors can hang perjury charges on the individuals responsible.
*Could* hang perjury charges on the cops. But won't. The prosecutor/cop relationship doesn't work that way.
Just sayin'
I would hope that would be no more possible than flashlight emitting a lethal dose of visible light.
The GP is right. Take a flashlight, focus the light into a point (into an image of the LED crystal, to be precise) and point into your eye. You'd lose vision in that eye pretty quick.
X-ray scanners are scanning you with a medium power (? no data) beam. Each spot of your skin is exposed to that beam for a fraction of a second; an average exposure is supposed to be low. Imagine that I take a hot soldering iron and slide its tip across your chest. Each patch of the skin under the iron's tip heats up to 450F, but since there are many of those patches the average temperature is only, say, 45F - which is totally harmless. Would you like to lay down here, please, while I heat the iron up?
A catastrophic fault will stop the beam of the scanner. The entire output of the X-ray tube will be directed at a single spot of your body, wherever it happened to be at the time of failure. There could be many causes of that, from mechanical (insufficient grease; plastic gear stripped; motor burned out; the MOSFET controlling the motor is blown; motor's power supply failed) to programming (the software crashed in mid-scan.) That would be analogous to me starting to slide that hot soldering iron across your chest, but then just stopping the movement half-way, leaving the iron's tip on your skin, and going for a dinner. It'll burn a hole all the way through you by the time I'm back...
Nobody knows how reliable the X-ray scanner is. For all I know, it may be controlled by a Windows 95 box. You'd need to be awfully reckless to step inside one of those scanners. Technically illiterate people may see scanners as an opaque magic box and go through them without a second thought. But an engineer knows how dangerous those things are.
sumarized: you may be able to beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
don't fight or struggle and just go peacefully. don't give them ANY reason to mess with you.
also, here's a tip I learned from reading a cop forum: there are new rules for when they can search your vehicle. one way they try to trap you is to pull you over and then then sit in THEIR car an extended period of time. they watch you. they look for your movements and try to use that against you ('he was hiding something or trying to cover something up'). so, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY AMMUNITION FOR THIS! sit there motionless, perfectly still. don't move until they walk up to your car and they ask for your papers.. tell them your license and papers are in such and such pocket and that you are going to retrieve them. tell them every move you are going to make and give them NO reason to say that they were at risk of danger due to your behavior.
if you do not give them a reason to 'turn your car over' (search it) then you have a bit more power in court, should it get to that.
this is a trick the cops are now trying; to get you to be impatient so that you can 'look suspicious' to them and that gives them the right (in their eyes) to search you 'for dangerous weapons'.
sit there and do not move. helpful advice I learned from a cop forum online! (thanks for tipping your hands, guys. 'preciate it!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
AVOID DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTIONS BY NOT DRIVING DRUNK.
Considering the kinds of things that can fall under "drunk driving", easier said than done.
Not to mention that being over the limit does not translate the same to all people. I'm not talking about "oh it's just a little buzz, I'm alright to drive." I'm talking about a genuinely safe to drive, 100% feeling of sobriety, that won't change no matter how much longer you wait, but according to Johnny Law, you are unsafe to drive.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
For a test person to fill in "sample data" is evidence that (a) these things don't work, or (b) the test person was either incompetent or unethical (and neither of these is acceptable in an industry related to the security of the public like law enforcement).
Well, maybe. But it's well known in the software industry that a large percentage of users of most software will handle "fill in the form" situations by copying the examples in the manual. When you talk to those users, they usually think that the manual was telling them that those were the correct values, so of course they used them. If they make up their own values, chances are they'll get them wrong, but if they use what the manual says, it has to be right, doesn't it?
I was tempted to end that with a ;-), but unfortunately, it's not that much of a joke. What it is, really, is usually an example of how atrocious most of our documentation is. In a few cases of the above, I've checked the "manual", and found that their actions were actually a very reasonable interpretation of what the manual said to do. It's often quite easy to read many examples as "Here's exactly how you should do it." For users who aren't geeks and don't understand half (or more) of the jargon, it can be very difficult to determine what parts of the text you need to copy exactly, and what parts are variable character strings to be filled in with appropriate data. Often the documentation just uses different fonts for literal and variable text, but the fonts aren't consistent, and it's difficult for a user facing a failing system to stop and locate the section saying what those fonts mean in that document. And most of them don't understand that fonts are being used this way, because they don't even know what a "font" is.
So in my experience, the cops in question could easily be total non-geeks who are intimidated by that strange and mysterious computer stuff, and honestly think that the documentation they used was telling them exactly what data to fill in when presented with those forms.
Or they could have just been lazy, knew what they were doing, and thought that they could get away with it. It's hard to know from what we've been told. Maybe the courts will sort it out a deliver an appropriate punishment to the guilty. But I wouldn't bet any amount of money on it. That's not how our "justice" system usually works. Criminals working "inside the system" are rarely punished. The best we can usually hope for is what has been reported here: The victims of the police misbehavior have been set free (but not compensated for their time).
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The 0.08 thing is just the magic number they need to convict you. I can't imagine there are too many borderline cases. Most probably fall under either:
- just a bad driver, no alcohol
- totally and obviously drunk, not even close to 0.08
That number has been continually dropping since the introduction of DUI laws. That indicates that law enforcement feels there have been enough borderline cases affecting their bottom line that it was worth changing the laws more than once to keep the gravy flowing.
Unless you have diabetes or other metabolic disorders. It's not nearly as clear cut as the authorities try to put across. Frankly, the only test that really determines severe enough inebriation to effect driving is pretty much the old sobriety test.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Please tell that to the families of the thousands of people who are killed in DUI-related traffic accidents every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
In the UK, refusing/failing to provide a specimen of blood or breath carries the same punishment as providing a positive sample. This gets around people like you trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.
In the US, our Constitution explicitly says that you do not have to incriminate yourself, and providing a breathalyzer or blood sample does so.
(Some states have gotten around this to some degree by giving you an "administrative" sanction by taking your license if you don't, which is still way better than DWI -- but they can't give you criminal charges for it.)
It's called "implied consent," which means that, as a condition of having a driver's license, you automatically consent to the cop's request for a breathalyzer or other test. A lawyer friend explained it to me like this. Driving is a privilege, not a right (there's no Constitutional right to drive a car). As such, you are bound to follow all of the laws which govern that privilege. One of the laws is implied consent. You are, of course, allowed to refuse to take the breathalyzer test (that is your right), but the law states that refusal to do so results in the severe penalties they enumerate.
The problem is that blood-alcohol level isn't a good measure of actual inebriation. It's the wrong metric. I posit that a good old fashioned sobriety test probably is far far better and determining the degree of inebriation at which the operation of an automobile becomes dangerous. Of course, it is possible that that too would nail people who weren't drunk, but then again, I don't think there should be a separate criminal offense for driving drunk. If someone high, drunk or sober, cannot pass a sobriety test, they shouldn't be driving. At that point, you do the blood test to determine if there was criminal intent (ie. he had a high amount of alcohol in his system so obviously got into the car pissed) or has some nasty metabolic disorder, in which case it isn't a criminal charge, though at the very least the license should be suspended until the medical condition has been resolved.
MADD, an organization that has been for a few decades now basically been guilting politicians into a sort of temperance through the back door scheme, has a vested interested in promoting unreasonably low limits. Of course, if you object, you're clearly some vile drunk driver who can't wait to operate a vehicle completely smashed and kill CHILDREN!!!!
I think .08 limit is utter bullshit, and I drink maybe four or five alcoholic beverages a year (I really do not look booze at all). But what I am is a reasonable person, and a reasonable person cannot look at the BAC limits in place in most Western countries and see anything about them that has anything to do with solid scientific research. It's just a magical incantation ".08 is drunk, .08 is drunk" that is not based on evidence in the least. And remember, the guys charging you with driving drunk are the same guys who have invented other whoppers like "smoking crystal meth once makes you addicted forever!" and "once you start smoking marijuana you will inevitably and eventually do heroin and cocaine".
It's called job security.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
0.o
Appropriately graphic analogy... now get the hell away from me with that thing you sadist!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I did some research on this a while ago for the lawyer I was working for at the time. The new machines can tell the difference between the breath chemistry that results from diabetes and that which comes from intoxication. I don't recall my research on the subject exactly, but I think the model in question could actually prompt the officer to tell the suspect to go get their blood sugar checked.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
It isn't like a magic fairy will drive it home for you overnight.
If they didn't mean for you to drink and drive, I'd have to think there would not be public places, with LARGE parking lots, to allow people to drive to said establishment, and partake of the beverages they are offering for sale.
I mean, you can't possibly think even a significant minority of people leaving bars, getting into their cars and leaving are anywhere near the legal limit do you?
I sure don't ever see many cars left in the parking lot after a bar closes....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Tolerance -- The idea of putting up with beliefs differing from one's own.
Zero Tolerance -- What liberals have for anyone who doesn't agree with them...
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
There are different warrants for arrest.
Bench warrants are issued by courts and judges. Last time I checked those do not cross jurisdictional lines, and certainly do not apply to different states.
I have had the same issues with some tickets in the past in different states and I just ignored it and threw it in the trash. Have one that is in debt collection now that is over 10 years old. Good luck.
It's just a game with those bastards. They know they can fuck with you because you are out of state and don't have the time and money to fight it. Glorified tax collectors for their county with guns.
P.S - Before anybody posts to tell me that I am wrong to do so, those tickets were highly, highly questionable. Not a simple 10 mph over the limit type ticket where I know I screwed up. I have always paid tickets where I knew I was wrong and got caught speeding.
The machines could be off both ways...In a city that size I bet a few of them who should have been off the streets later went on to cause an accident or fatality.
If the machines were passing people with a real BAC of, say, 0.09, I'd bet against you. And I'm reasonably certain I'd win.
Realize: If someone has a 0.13 and the breathalyzer registers 0.07, it's likely that the cops would notice that the figure was erroneous. The reverse is not true: If someone had a 0.03 and the breathalyzer registered 0.09, there is no way that any cop could tell the difference. I'm reasonably certain that they were not letting drunks go simply because the breathalyzer said they were okay.
That would explain why a cop claimed he measured me at 91,
Yes, a failure to calibrate the breathalyzer would explain this.
even though my cruise control had been set to 79 (plus four over the speed limit).
If you are going to rely on your cruise control, you should be aware that they don't always keep you from going faster than they are set. They will try to accellerate if the car starts to slow, but I don't know of any of them that will put on the brakes if you are going too fast.
You can easily override the speed by resting your foot on the accellerator. The one in my car actually does worse at controlling speed going downhill than just letting the car control itself. I.e., cruise control on, downhill, I can pick up 20MPH, but with it off, the natural engine braking keeps me close to speed.
His equipment was probably not calibrated and giving false readings.
If you are ever stopped for a radar violation, ask to see the equipment calibrated in front of you. It's really easy to do, all they do is hold a tuning fork in front of the antenna. If they refuse, then you have good grounds to claim failure to calibrate as required.
Wikipedia would say "Citation needed." on that.
The first result of a search for "increase in risk of accidents with blood alcohol content" - http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/t2002/actes/pdf/(06a).pdf - indicate a best estimate of 169% increase in risk at .08% BAC. That's a 2.69x higher risk. They're referring other research showing it at 1.88x.
My personal experience with alcohol impairment is that my juggling gets impaired at about half a pint of beer; it doesn't affect anything that I can do well, but it affect all tricks at the edge of my ability. I'm an adult male of over 200 pounds (90+kg). I can't feel that amount at all, but it clearly affect my ability.
Is the 2.69x risk difference something you count as "not sigificantly impaired" (and we just disagree on the definition of significant), or is this a question of difference in research (is there other research I should be aware of) or were you not aware of the actual research levels and may be changing your mind?
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
The problem I have with that scenario is having a law enforcement officer performing a medical procedure without a license. That would result in an instant lawsuit from me. LICENSED Nurse/MD = ok. Anyone else? Not ok.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Hey...you got to get your car home for work the next day somehow.
It isn't like a magic fairy will drive it home for you overnight.
I'm undoing mod points by posting this extremely insightful comment: you're an idiot.
http://www.responsiblechoice.ca/index2.htm
That's just one example, that happens to operate in the city I live in. I know for a fact that similar services are available in London, UK (have seen it on Top Gear), and also several other major metropolises, including several in the US. If I felt so inclined, it probably wouldn't take long to find a similar service in whichever city you live in.
Google is your friend.
The reason that the legal limit isn't 0.0 is because they want to be reasonable with the people who have a glass of wine with dinner. It is not because they expect you to tie one on and then drive home. And the reason bars have parking lots is so that you can park there, not so you can find your car and drive home after drinking. Most bars don't have parking lots anywhere near large enough to handle 1 car per patron... perhaps this means they expect you to carpool with a DD, too? Perhaps the lack of cars when you leave the bar is because enough other people are smart enough to plan ahead and either have a DD or a ride, and not need to take their car to the bar?
It's really simple: if you're going to get behind the wheel of a car, then don't fucking drink. Amazingly, not consuming alcohol really doesn't actually impair a night's entertainment, unless the purpose of the night out is to consume alcohol. And quite bluntly, if you intend to consume alcohol as your sole source of entertainment, then you can do it a *lot* cheaper by stopping by the liquor store and buying a few bottles, then taking them home to drink. If you *really* want to go out for a night on the town and get drunk for the purpose of getting drunk, then plan ahead. Take a taxi or a bus. It's really not that hard, and it doesn't put the lives of everybody else on the road at risk.
Instead of fuzzy and non-attributed "laws", how about the specifics?
Gascon's comment that there was "no malicious intent" is simply ludicrous coming from the mouth of the official in charge of prosecuting criminal actions. It's not like someone said, "whoops, got the radar from the un-calibrated shelf by mistake - better make the appropriate report and nullify the incorrectly issued citations." This is a case people tasked with an important duty that rests at the core of investigating and prosecuting drunk driving instead wilfully and intentionally falsified reports for over half a decade. If Gascon were a competent prosecutor he would be familiar with California Penal Code section 118.1. Since he apparently is not, I quote:
"118.1. Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other person."
Any questions other than how many counts they are guilty of or how the "miracle never-emptying bottle of calibration gas" went unnoticed by supervisors?
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
"Run, Forrest, run!"
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Why should anyone believe the SFPD, though, that it was that professional experience and not the fact that the cop in question thought the person being arrested was a royal jackass?
The breathalyzer and blood tests remove the qualitative and moves things into the quantitative domain. And no matter how good the quantitative results can be, they are still inherently weaker than qualitative.
And now that the department has been shown to engage in systematic deception, it weakens the quantitative aspects substantially.
Check your premises.
You presume that cops pull people over based on observations of poor driving.
That's really pretty silly. Technically it may even be FUCKING silly.
A cop won't pull over a shitty driver because it's unlikely a cop will be found anywhere that isn't a DUI checkpoint, or a speed trap.
A cop will use shitty driving as an excuse to pull someone over they suspect is drunk or has drugs, but in those cases the cop has already determined that it's likely that someone in that area will be guilty of something -- just needs a reason to pull someone over and check them out.
So far as your question? Not that I personally know of, although many years back my father was pulled over 3 times by the same officer over the period of just a few months. Y'see, where he was working, he got off around 3am. Cop sees someone driving at 3am, pulls him over. And again. And again. Every time, "I saw you swerving back there" -- 'No, I was not.' -- "I smell alcohol" -- 'You do? Have YOU been drinking? I've been at work. Get your breathalyzer.'
After the 3rd time my dad got pretty upset, told the cop that by this time he should recognize the same truck he's been pulling over, and told the cop to stop profiling him or he'd file a complaint about the racist cop out to settle a score (cop was black).
And then there was the time he antagonized police at a DUI checkpoint... "Where are you going?" -- 'On down the road' -- "Where are you coming from?" -- 'Behind me'
Still not sure how he never got arrested pulling that shit, walking the fine line between being respectful and showing utter contempt..
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
The problem is that blood-alcohol level isn't a good measure of actual inebriation. It's the wrong metric.
Bullshit. This has been researched to death and is why almost every country has a limit from 0.02 to 0.08.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa25.htm
The problem with intoxication, is you actually FEEL more competant than you actually are.
The USA at 0.08 has the highest legal level of countries that enforce alchohol intoxication while driving.
46137
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hi, conjecture, this is fact speaking. Laws depend on the wording in your state, and enforcement depends on the officers and their training in your state, and how cases go depends on the local rulings and people selected for the jury.
In other words, you might as well shake the magic 8 ball as opposed to rely on your comment.
If the officer screwed up the test, you are not factually drunk. Once you are ruled guilty, it is a fact. If the conviction (or plea) is thrown into doubt, it is no longer a fact, and must be proven by the prosecution. If the only evidence they have is the Breathylazer result, and that is doubted by undocumented (or explicitly falsified) testing, you are no longer factually drunk. The prosecution must rely on other evidence, which will probably be presented, if it exists, at another trial.
Most juries will be instructed to evaluate the evidence presented, with the Breathalyzer results supressed. Given that, there is no way for you to say how they would likely rule it.
I prefer to ask them "which god". :) There are thousands of active religions world wide, and more "gods" than that. There are plenty of older religions, which are not actively followed.
If you ask a conservative who "god" is, they will most likely describe the Christian "god". Propose it as I did, and they will be confused, as in their mind there is only "one god", and yes, your statement of zero-tolerance applies perfectly.
Florida just passed a bill allowing prayer in school, which is in direct violation of federal law and the US constitution. In other actions, they have defined non-secular activity as allowing those of "other" faiths to lead prayers before events (city council, school board, and county commission meetings specifically). All of the "other" faiths were Christian faiths of other denominations. Those of other faiths were explicitly excluded from such events.
There is some tolerance for other Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). According to the 2008 US Census, there were over 680,000 who identified their religion as "Pagan" or "Wiccan". There were over 34 million who identified as no religion (Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, "No religion", and "Other no religion". Over 11 million refused to answer the question. That does not account for error in the tabulations cause by social pressures. Plenty of people who believe other than the local norm will claim the local norm rather than risk being identified as believing otherwise.
Citations:
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf [PDF]
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.