Talk to the hung jury, as it’s all in the details. She was already going 45 (72km/h) in a 30 (48km/h) zone when another officer stopped her. She was also caught driving at .10 blood alcohol content — that’s .02 above the legal limit. Sounds simple enough, even if you want to call it niggly on the alcohol thing.
But Paul Miranda, an Idaho-based chemist who was brought in as an expert witness, argued that the breathalyser test could be compromised by a number of factors, including elevation and body temperature. He even cited his sister-in-law’s bachelorette party as evidence of real people getting real drunk. Heh. Been there. Taking all that into consideration, the judge deemed it a mistrial.
Lesson learned. The next time you’re in trouble, give them the old razzle dazzle in the form of expert testimony. They’ll never get wise. [Billings Gazette]
LucasF
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 1:44 PMMiranda Right – no police officer has the scientific skills to deem you drunk therefore it is an unprosecutable offence. BWahahaha.
Ogre
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 1:54 PMIsn’t someone caught drunk driving supposed to be given a blood test if they contest the breathalyser test? That way, these so called compromising factors are minimised.
Also, your BAC limit in the US is 0.08? Here in Australia it is 0.05. I wonder what logic allows lawmakers to determine what level is appropriate.
Phil
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 10:36 AMAnd the breathalyser is 0.035 per 100ml breath in the UK….no mid, low and high range. It is an absolute offence and you will be punished the same regardless of how high the reading.
Brett
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 1:57 PMThis is the sort of thing that leads the rest of the world into thinking that Americans are dumb.
Ian
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 3:24 PMThis is why in Australia, once you have blown over the limit with the breathalyser you are taken in to custody for a blood test.
Some people end up walking away as the blood test may show you as being under. The breathalysers are not considered accurate by any stretch and if you’ve just finished your drink you will skew the reading.
Pat
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 9:52 PM@Ian
Ian that’s absolute rubbish. Blood tests are only done at the behest of the suspect, after the breath test is done. The only time police require them is if the breath instrument is unable to get a reading because the suspect is mucking around. A breath analysis is considered by the courts to be accurate unless evidence to the contrary is accepted (which is rare). If you have just had a drink, the evidentiary breath test instrument will detect the mouth alcohol and not continue the test.
Tom
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 6:30 PMactually, once you blow ‘over’ on a roadside machine, you’re taken into custody for a second breath test on a calibrated one at a station/booze bus setup.
You can opt for a blood test but the second machine they put you on is pretty accurate (legally speaking).
You cannot be compelled to give a blood sample.
Mot
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 10:03 AMActually in Victoria, you’re not taken into custody at all for drink driving matters.
a guy
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 8:55 PMit used to be 0.08 in oz a couple of decades ago.
sounds like a pretty epic precedent fail; nothing can be proven 100%, therefore all evidence admitted ever is invalid.
Queenslander
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 10:33 PMI’m a qualified breath operator in QLD. In this state at least, blood is only taken in very specific circumstances (e.g. physically unable to supply breath, medical condition etc), you can’t just request it. From experience though, a blood test will produce a higher reading anyway.
The 2nd test is on a calibrated instrument and if operated in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines and Australian standards, it’ll produce an accurate result. The example given by Ian of having “just finished a drink” doesn’t apply as there are waiting periods required before a person can be put on the calibrated instrument to negate this.
You can be required to provide a breath or blood specimen, but no-one will force a needle into your arm if you refuse – you’ll be charged with Fail to Supply Breath or Blood which carries a penalty equivalent to the highest range drink driving offence.
Sam
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 12:24 PMWhy the hell isn’t there a zero tolerance for it though? that’s my thought (and yes, I do drink so don’t try to fire off on me for saying I am biased or whatever)