To blow or not to blow...

Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.

For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
below the legal limit.

I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
record.



--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.

For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
below the legal limit.

I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
record.





You are in Texas right? Even if you aren't most states are pretty much
the same. Read this.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...d=oid%3A262995


When you accept the drivers license you agree to follow the laws that
regulate the license. One of those happen to be to submit to the
Breathalyzer. As far as them being subjective BS. They are quite
effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

As far as wanting to wait and take the one later in hopes that your BAC
will have dropped. Don't count on it. I have a friend that blew 0.09 and
then when they got him to the station an hour later he blew a 0.11.

Suspension of your DL for failure to take the test is a civil matter not
a criminal one. It is pulled because you failed to keep up your end of
the bargain that you made when you were granted the license. The 5th
Amendment is not in play.

There are also certain states and I'm pretty sure Texas is one of them
that have forced blood draw laws in effect. If you refuse the
Breathalyzer they can get a warrant and force you to have blood drawn.

And since this is aviation newsgroup let's see what the FAA has to say
about it. Please note where I added the

Reporting Requirements
Under 14 CFR 61.15, all pilots must send a Notification Letter to FAA’s
Security and Investigations Division within 60 calendar days of the
effective date of an alcohol-related conviction or administrative
action. In 14 CFR 61.15(c), alcohol-related convictions or
administrative actions refer to motor vehicle actions (MVA).

Notification Letters
Note: Each event, conviction, or administrative action, requires a
separate Notification Letter. For example, an airman’s driver license
may be suspended at the time of arrest for driving under the influence
of alcohol for either:

Failing a blood/breath test
Refusing to test

The airman must send a Notification Letter for the suspension, then send
a second Notification Letter if the alcohol related offense results in a
conviction. Even though the airman sent two notification letters, FAA
views the suspension and conviction as one alcohol-related incident.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
error. One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.

From Wikipedia:
Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will
give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient
or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also
very important.

Breathing pattern can also significantly affect breath test results. One
study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11 to 14% after
running up one flight of stairs and 72¡V75% after doing so twice. Another
study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or
hyperventilation. Hyperventilation for 20 seconds has been shown to lower
the reading by approximately 32%. On the other hand, holding your breath
for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 28%.[citation
needed]

Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of
47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to
47% in women. A person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC
reading.

Failure of law enforcement officers to use the devices properly or of
administrators to have the machines properly maintained and re-calibrated
as required are particularly common sources of error. However, most states
have very strict guidelines regarding officer training and instrument
maintenance and calibration.

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual
blood alcohol concentration. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will
have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC. Police in Victoria,
Australia use breathalyzers that give a recognized 20 per cent tolerance on
readings. Noel Ashby, former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner
(Traffic & Transport) claims that this tolerance is to allow for different
body types.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer

--
Dallas

On Feb 8, 1:11*pm, Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
error. *One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.



Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.


From Wikipedia:
SNIP

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
On Feb 8, 1:11?pm, Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
error. ?One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.



Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.


From Wikipedia:
SNIP

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

They already have.

Why do you think there won't be anyone prosecuted based solely on a
borderline breathalyzer test?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:50:27 -0800 (PST), Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.

:- )


--
Dallas

On Feb 10, 9:50*am, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

One defense that I know attorneys have used is that claim the
defendant burped before the test thereby invalidating the results.
Perhaps who get DUIs, don't hurt people, and have attorneys don't
usually get convicted. In California the first DUI is usually reduced
to a wet-reckless anyway.

-Robert

On Feb 7, 12:16*pm, Dallas wrote:
Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. *and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.


In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
your driver's license. Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 12:16 pm, Dallas wrote:
Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.


In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
your driver's license. Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

In Massachusetts, refusing a breathalyzer is an automatic 180 day
suspension.

You cannot apply foir a hardship license (to and from work only) when it's
pulled for refusing the test. One common condition of bail for a DUI arrest
is weekly breath tests. How you get to and from the test is your problem.
Tough nuts if it's not on a bus line, cuz you can't drive.

Another interesting fact I learned is that (in Massachusetts) you are under
no obligation to take a field sobriety test.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Feb 7, 12:16*pm, Dallas wrote:
Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. *and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.


In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
your driver's license.

Yep.

Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

Doubtful.