06-28-2006, 05:37 PM
According to "drunkdrivinglawyers.com" Breathalyzers are admissible in court. Also, according to Hanson v. Miller breathalyzers are admissible in court as long as they adhere to the guidelines in place. Funny how that guidelines thing keeps popping up... need one to have a breathalyzer admitted as court evidence, don't you think you'd need a set to pull somebody over?
Oh, and RJ, the theoretical scenario hinges on the fallibility of breathalyzers, not their infallibility. Further, it again was not the point of the example. But if we wanted to address their fallibility we could point out that in at least 5 states if you even bring up the fact that breathalyzers use an average population partition ratio (which actually changes person to person during the day) for estimation you'll be held in contempt of court. OR, if you want to address Evan's point of them being reliable - how about the state of California, for the use of their breathalyzers in the field only need to be repeatable within .02%... .02% margin of error and that's the difference between a conviction or not. If you're going on a .08% scale that's 25% right there. But, of course, that's an OJ defense.
This is way off track, though, the idea is the guidelines in place for officer conduct. What makes it acceptable to be pulled over for no reason what so ever?
Edit: Here's that OJ Evidence
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/401.pdf">http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/401.pdf</a><!-- m -->
But, you're right, it's OK to avoid the idea of statistical reliability because you're a fucktard in the first place.... right?
Oh, and RJ, the theoretical scenario hinges on the fallibility of breathalyzers, not their infallibility. Further, it again was not the point of the example. But if we wanted to address their fallibility we could point out that in at least 5 states if you even bring up the fact that breathalyzers use an average population partition ratio (which actually changes person to person during the day) for estimation you'll be held in contempt of court. OR, if you want to address Evan's point of them being reliable - how about the state of California, for the use of their breathalyzers in the field only need to be repeatable within .02%... .02% margin of error and that's the difference between a conviction or not. If you're going on a .08% scale that's 25% right there. But, of course, that's an OJ defense.
This is way off track, though, the idea is the guidelines in place for officer conduct. What makes it acceptable to be pulled over for no reason what so ever?
Edit: Here's that OJ Evidence
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/401.pdf">http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/401.pdf</a><!-- m -->
But, you're right, it's OK to avoid the idea of statistical reliability because you're a fucktard in the first place.... right?
When it comes to Ryan Jenkins, the story ends with me putting him in the wall.
2009 Speed Triple | 2006 DR-Z400SM | 1999 CBR600F4 | 1998 Jeep Cherokee
-Ginger
2009 Speed Triple | 2006 DR-Z400SM | 1999 CBR600F4 | 1998 Jeep Cherokee
-Ginger