"Given that the "temporary" code produced exactly the same results as the revised code, why is it important to this case?"
How do you know the "temporary" code produced "exactly the same results"? Where does it say that? I didn't see that anywhere.
"For a 0.085, it's so close it's almost not worth it, and in most cases, by the time you got to the station and did another breathalyser, normally the number would go down not up."
Oh, boy, here we go again. This is what I'm talking about when I say so many people believe myths about the drunk driving laws. When you finish drinking, you BAC actually continues to rise for up to two hours before it starts going down. That's because your body is continuing to absorb the alcohol that you drank that's been hanging around in your stomach.
Prosecutors love to try and say that a person's BAC is lower by the time they get the breathalyzer test for those cases where a person is just below the legal limit, so that they can extrapolate backwards and say that their BAC was actually higher while they were driving. You can't say this with any certainty whatsoever unless you can know exactly when the person stopped drinking and if you can know (which you can't) that particular person absorption rate which is different for everyone. Which is exactly why the breathalyzer's are inaccurate as they assume an average absorption rate that they apply to everyone and that can and does skew the results almost all the time.
Jeanne Pruett
President and CEO
Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc.
R.I.D.L.
http://www.ridl.us/
This is true. You are under no obligation to take the FST's and they are in fact only used to build a case against you. I'm always surprised by how many...I guess you could call them myths...that people believe when it comes to the drunk driving laws. Many people truly believe that if you are sober, you won't get arrested. There are many cases of completely sober people getting arrested for DUI, even if they blew 0.00 and a urine test later showed them to have no drugs in their system.
Fact is, if a cop wants to arrest you for DUI, you're going to get arrested. Now MADD has been quoted as saying that they think the average person would not mind the "slight inconvenience" of being arrested for DUI given the opportunity to "prove their innocence".
Prove their innocence??? Say what? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And a DUI arrest is hardly a "slight inconvenience". It totally consumes your life and costs thousands of dollars to fight. And if you get pressured into accepting a plea bargain it will come back to haunt you for the rest of your life. That's hardly a "slight inconvenience".
It's our goal to educate people about the current state of DUI laws. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.
Jeanne Pruett President and CEO Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. http://www.ridl.us/
I disagree with this. The whole concept of "privilege" is one created by the state in order to get us to voluntarily give up our God-given rights. Those rights are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States. They include the right to travel and move freely across the country. Driving is defined as something one does for commercial purposes. But when we sign our licenses we agree to give up our right to travel freely.
There is a solution. You can sign your license "Without Prejudice" above your name. If you do that, then you are saying that you do not give up your constitutional rights to travel freely.
There is no law that says you MUST given up your constitutional rights in order to drive a car. They just want you to THINK that there is.
We HAVE "an organization that provides some rational input on this debate". Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. Come join us. We were listed in the post. http://www.ridl.us
Slashdot Mirror
"Ridiculously low? I think I can drink three glasses of Bushmill's Malt and not blow .08."
Then I think a rude awakening is in store for you.
"Given that the "temporary" code produced exactly the same results as the revised code, why is it important to this case?" How do you know the "temporary" code produced "exactly the same results"? Where does it say that? I didn't see that anywhere.
"For a 0.085, it's so close it's almost not worth it, and in most cases, by the time you got to the station and did another breathalyser, normally the number would go down not up." Oh, boy, here we go again. This is what I'm talking about when I say so many people believe myths about the drunk driving laws. When you finish drinking, you BAC actually continues to rise for up to two hours before it starts going down. That's because your body is continuing to absorb the alcohol that you drank that's been hanging around in your stomach. Prosecutors love to try and say that a person's BAC is lower by the time they get the breathalyzer test for those cases where a person is just below the legal limit, so that they can extrapolate backwards and say that their BAC was actually higher while they were driving. You can't say this with any certainty whatsoever unless you can know exactly when the person stopped drinking and if you can know (which you can't) that particular person absorption rate which is different for everyone. Which is exactly why the breathalyzer's are inaccurate as they assume an average absorption rate that they apply to everyone and that can and does skew the results almost all the time. Jeanne Pruett President and CEO Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. R.I.D.L. http://www.ridl.us/
This is true. You are under no obligation to take the FST's and they are in fact only used to build a case against you. I'm always surprised by how many...I guess you could call them myths...that people believe when it comes to the drunk driving laws. Many people truly believe that if you are sober, you won't get arrested. There are many cases of completely sober people getting arrested for DUI, even if they blew 0.00 and a urine test later showed them to have no drugs in their system.
Fact is, if a cop wants to arrest you for DUI, you're going to get arrested. Now MADD has been quoted as saying that they think the average person would not mind the "slight inconvenience" of being arrested for DUI given the opportunity to "prove their innocence".
Prove their innocence??? Say what? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And a DUI arrest is hardly a "slight inconvenience". It totally consumes your life and costs thousands of dollars to fight. And if you get pressured into accepting a plea bargain it will come back to haunt you for the rest of your life. That's hardly a "slight inconvenience".
It's our goal to educate people about the current state of DUI laws. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.
Jeanne Pruett
President and CEO
Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc.
http://www.ridl.us/
I disagree with this. The whole concept of "privilege" is one created by the state in order to get us to voluntarily give up our God-given rights. Those rights are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States. They include the right to travel and move freely across the country. Driving is defined as something one does for commercial purposes. But when we sign our licenses we agree to give up our right to travel freely. There is a solution. You can sign your license "Without Prejudice" above your name. If you do that, then you are saying that you do not give up your constitutional rights to travel freely. There is no law that says you MUST given up your constitutional rights in order to drive a car. They just want you to THINK that there is.
We HAVE "an organization that provides some rational input on this debate". Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. Come join us. We were listed in the post. http://www.ridl.us