Roadside breath tests not always accurate

[grammafreddy]

The key to all this is the accuracy and dependability of the screening device. As with any new law, it needs time to work cases through the courts to be challenged. In the case of the 90 day IRP, a successful challenge was made and the law needs to be re-worked. The accuracy and dependability of the ASD's will also become a legal challenge at some point, and then it will be up to the courts (not the Castanet forums) to decide if the devices are indeed sufficiently dependable to be used as evidence of an infraction.

As far as the consequences after someone has been issued a 90 day IRP (and lets assume that the new law will have an avenue to dispute the IRP), I don't really have any sympathy for whatever the "potential" challenges may be to be able to continue to drive. At that point (again, assuming the new law gives you an opportunity to challenge the IRP), you have been found to have had a BAC of over .10 and the legal limit being .08. You're lucky to be able to drive again period!

Do you have a problem with it being a private company who gets all the say in whether you are "fit" to drive or not and a private company who can shut down your vehicle and lock it up tight in any given legal situation? Is it okay with you that a private company gets to make the judge, jury and executioner decision and not the courts?

[Ken7]

Many people don't know this, and if the cop doesn't tell them like he/she should, this strips the person being tested of their right.

It's a requirement that they get told that. That fact actually forms a part of the prohibition that is read to them. If they aren't read the prohibition notice in it's entirety, including their right to a second breath test the IRP will be pulled upon appeal.

Sorry KL, but you're wrong on this one.

Do tell.

Sorry, it may be a requirement, what I meant is that it doesn't mean the officer will actually convey the information.

It also could be that the drunk driver was too inebriated to pay attention or to understand what he/she was being told, too. Or too angry and belligerent.

_________________________________

I'd agree "too angry and belligerant." If there is obvious evidence of driving and physical evidence of impairment, there is no need to use a ASD.

It is also like the usual impaired saying they only had two drinks and puffed 210 mgs. NOT possible!!

[Ken7]

and makes them blow with a faulty screening device and the red light comes on...that person who does not know the rules just got shafted to a cost of thousands of dollars...

I'll be brief, the RED light I believe would be an indicator that you exceed the 100 mgs, the instrument is set upon. You would then be blowing on a Breathalyzer, at that time the fact the ASD was malfunctioning would be recognized and the suspension would be withdrawn.

I once picked a guy up who was by all observations, driving, open liquor, slurred speech and unsteady on his feet, his balance was impaired also. He blew the equivalent of 2 drinks. Under further questioning, he had MS and that was the cause of his impairment signs, which were very strong evidence to an impaired charge. He was driven back to his vehicle, and I only charged him with open liquor.

[goatboy]

Do you have a problem with it being a private company who gets all the say in whether you are "fit" to drive or not and a private company who can shut down your vehicle and lock it up tight in any given legal situation? Is it okay with you that a private company gets to make the judge, jury and executioner decision and not the courts?

No problem at all. They're not judge, jury and executioner, that will have already occurred. They are now monitoring and enforcing the conditions that have been put on you by the Superintendent of motor vehicles. The other option, of course, would be to suspend your license for 1 year instead of 90 days and then you couldn't drive at all, even if you didn't eat spicy foods. I for one don't want the police to have to take on the responsibility of babysitting these drivers. Again, you now know the potential consequences of blowing over (Once the IRP is valid again) so one further reason not to.

[grammafreddy]

Do you have a problem with it being a private company who gets all the say in whether you are "fit" to drive or not and a private company who can shut down your vehicle and lock it up tight in any given legal situation? Is it okay with you that a private company gets to make the judge, jury and executioner decision and not the courts?

No problem at all. They're not judge, jury and executioner, that will have already occurred. They are now monitoring and enforcing the conditions that have been put on you by the Superintendent of motor vehicles. The other option, of course, would be to suspend your license for 1 year instead of 90 days and then you couldn't drive at all, even if you didn't eat spicy foods. I for one don't want the police to have to take on the responsibility of babysitting these drivers. Again, you now know the potential consequences of blowing over (Once the IRP is valid again) so one further reason not to.

Just out of curiosity ... are you a cop?

[goatboy]

Do you have a problem with it being a private company who gets all the say in whether you are "fit" to drive or not and a private company who can shut down your vehicle and lock it up tight in any given legal situation? Is it okay with you that a private company gets to make the judge, jury and executioner decision and not the courts?

No problem at all. They're not judge, jury and executioner, that will have already occurred. They are now monitoring and enforcing the conditions that have been put on you by the Superintendent of motor vehicles. The other option, of course, would be to suspend your license for 1 year instead of 90 days and then you couldn't drive at all, even if you didn't eat spicy foods. I for one don't want the police to have to take on the responsibility of babysitting these drivers. Again, you now know the potential consequences of blowing over (Once the IRP is valid again) so one further reason not to.

Just out of curiosity ... are you a cop?

No, I'm not. Wanted to be when I was younger, but life took me in a different direction. I am involved in law enforcement but I'm not a cop.

[MAPearce]

and makes them blow with a faulty screening device and the red light comes on...that person who does not know the rules just got shafted to a cost of thousands of dollars...

I'll be brief, the RED light I believe would be an indicator that you exceed the 100 mgs, the instrument is set upon. You would then be blowing on a Breathalyzer, at that time the fact the ASD was malfunctioning would be recognized and the suspension would be withdrawn.

I once picked a guy up who was by all observations, driving, open liquor, slurred speech and unsteady on his feet, his balance was impaired also. He blew the equivalent of 2 drinks. Under further questioning, he had MS and that was the cause of his impairment signs, which were very strong evidence to an impaired charge. He was driven back to his vehicle, and I only charged him with open liquor.

Let me be brief... If an ASD is faulty, the colour of the light after the sample is taken means NOTHING...It certainly can't mean an accurate reading and the person used in you example was only spared when he was tested on a breathalyzer and he divulged to you that he suffered from MS...Someone who blew a "warn" or an amber light doesn't get the opportunity to blow into a breathalyzer UNLESS they demand it...I mean request it..

And KL will tell you he gets treated with dignity and with the presumption of innocence while being transported to the detachment ....... Yeah ....right.

[TyrianQuill]

The key to all this is the accuracy and dependability of the screening device. As with any new law, it needs time to work cases through the courts to be challenged. In the case of the 90 day IRP, a successful challenge was made and the law needs to be re-worked. The accuracy and dependability of the ASD's will also become a legal challenge at some point, and then it will be up to the courts (not the Castanet forums) to decide if the devices are indeed sufficiently dependable to be used as evidence of an infraction.

As far as the consequences after someone has been issued a 90 day IRP (and lets assume that the new law will have an avenue to dispute the IRP), I don't really have any sympathy for whatever the "potential" challenges may be to be able to continue to drive. At that point (again, assuming the new law gives you an opportunity to challenge the IRP), you have been found to have had a BAC of over .10 and the legal limit being .08. You're lucky to be able to drive again period!

In regards to "(not the Castanet forum") I say that's a great relief 'cause if it was up to the Castanet forum things would really be in a jumbled tangle! Earlier, I was expressing my "feeling" not "thinking" ... so I discovered.

[Ken7]

and makes them blow with a faulty screening device and the red light comes on...that person who does not know the rules just got shafted to a cost of thousands of dollars...

I'll be brief, the RED light I believe would be an indicator that you exceed the 100 mgs, the instrument is set upon. You would then be blowing on a Breathalyzer, at that time the fact the ASD was malfunctioning would be recognized and the suspension would be withdrawn.

I once picked a guy up who was by all observations, driving, open liquor, slurred speech and unsteady on his feet, his balance was impaired also. He blew the equivalent of 2 drinks. Under further questioning, he had MS and that was the cause of his impairment signs, which were very strong evidence to an impaired charge. He was driven back to his vehicle, and I only charged him with open liquor.

Let me be brief... If an ASD is faulty, the colour of the light after the sample is taken means NOTHING...It certainly can't mean an accurate reading and the person used in you example was only spared when he was tested on a breathalyzer and he divulged to you that he suffered from MS...Someone who blew a "warn" or an amber light doesn't get the opportunity to blow into a breathalyzer UNLESS they demand it...I mean request it..

And KL will tell you he gets treated with dignity and with the presumption of innocence while being transported to the detachment ....... Yeah ....right.

__________________________________

You are correct, my comment was regarding the "RED" light, which used to be fail. The subject would then be required to blow on the breathalyzer.


The further story was a example of how the breathalyzer would show lack of consumption. Sorry to have mixed you up..

[Ken7]

No, I'm not. Wanted to be when I was younger, but life took me in a different direction. I am involved in law enforcement but I'm not a cop.

Must ask, what part of enforcement are you involved in, I was well aware you were not a cop.