How to get your bike tires to the shop....

[stevegula]

I hate that goddamn song.

Its worse than the owls that haunt the internet.

[.RJ]

Are you going to avoid the point on everything I say?

Well if you'd make a valid point, I'd stop avoiding it.

there are a lot of ways for an officer to screw up a sobriety test... blow into a breathalyzer... take off your helmet and blow into this thing

You have this whole argument based on the infallibility of Breathalyzers.

Well good for you captain, thats why they are inadmissable in court and the only evidence that is, is a blood test thats taken after you get taken back to the station. If the officer really fucked up that bad, I have a feeling they'd throw whatever ticket he wrote you in the shredder and send you on your way with a ride home.

[Evan]

You have this whole argument based on the infallibility of Breathalyzers.

Well good for you captain, thats why they are inadmissable in court and the only evidence that is, is a blood test thats taken after you get taken back to the station. If the officer really fucked up that bad, I have a feeling they'd throw whatever ticket he wrote you in the shredder and send you on your way with a ride home.

Was about to post this but RJ beat me to it.
A breathalizer is considered a field test and no more proof than an officer's personal observation. But even so, breathalizers are reliable enough that if you blow over the legal limit, you're a fucktard for driving regardless of whatever bullshit OJ defense you try to pull.

[mpg9999]

Are you going to avoid the point on everything I say?

Well if you'd make a valid point, I'd stop avoiding it.

there are a lot of ways for an officer to screw up a sobriety test... blow into a breathalyzer... take off your helmet and blow into this thing

You have this whole argument based on the infallibility of Breathalyzers.

Well good for you captain, thats why they are inadmissable in court and the only evidence that is, is a blood test thats taken after you get taken back to the station. If the officer really fucked up that bad, I have a feeling they'd throw whatever ticket he wrote you in the shredder and send you on your way with a ride home.

Your ignorance on the subject is impressive . Actually not only are they admissable, but its a per se law. The crime isnt being under the influence, its being over .08, and not even in your blood, but on your breath.

[mpg9999]

well... if it isnt in the constitution... and i know for fucking sure its not an amendment... guess what... its not a fucking right.

I guess you havnt heard of that thing called the "courts". Ya know, common law and all that?

"Years ago, yeah, years ago the argument was, "We can do anything we want because driving is a privilege, not a right." You must have heard that over and over again. "Driving is a privilege, not a right." A decision in the Warren court years ago said, "Wrong; it is a right." Or to put it another way, "You have no right to it, but you have to give due process before you take it away." In that sense, it is a right, not a privilege."

[Ginger]

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?

[mpg9999]

The error rate is actually closer to 50%. If you blow a .1 (legally drunk) you are actually somewhere between .05 (well below legally drunk) and .15.

[.RJ]

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.

Every time your argument gets closer and closer to this:



Might as well quit while you're behind.

average population partition ratio

what the fuck is that one supposed to mean? I googled that phrase and came up with a bunch of hits about Genetics.... surely you can do better than copy and paste from some website.

You keep reaching



And grasping at straws trying to come up with some sensible argument that backs up your claim that we should not be pulled over unless there's a valid reason - and from what I gather, running your plates or telling you that you have a turn signal out (or in your case, fell off) is completely unacceptable.

But, you're right, it's OK to avoid the idea of statistical reliability because you're a fucktard in the first place.... right?

If you're drunk, and you're on a vehicle, and you blow anywhere close to .08 then you're going to go back to the station for a little talk and a blood test. Even if you had one beer, and you're at .02 - they cant do any thing to you. .02 isnt magically going to error or misrepresent itself into .20. Follow the rules (i.e. dont drink and drive, dont steal someone's vehicle, dont hide illegal mexicans in your trunk), and you dont have a problem. No statistical reliability needed.

[mpg9999]

[
If you're drunk, and you're on a vehicle, and you blow anywhere close to .08 then you're going to go back to the station for a little talk and a blood test. Even if you had one beer, and you're at .02 - they cant do any thing to you. .02 isnt magically going to error or misrepresent itself into .20. Follow the rules (i.e. dont drink and drive, dont steal someone's vehicle, dont hide illegal mexicans in your trunk), and you dont have a problem. No statistical reliability needed.

Actually even if you blow a 0.0 they can still charge you. Seriously, just because you say we are wrong doesnt make it so. You can keep posting pictures, but how about some facts? Did you click on the link andrew provided? Links to studies from universties.

[mpg9999]

And yes the police have to have a reason to pull you over. I can't believe you don't know this.

[Ginger]

Every time your argument gets closer and closer to this:



Might as well quit while you're behind.

If you knew a damn thing about how breathalyzer worked you'd know what I was talking about.

And every time you respond there's less and less content, and more name calling. I'm glad you can discredit anything I say with by decree, Oh Great One.

I'm not reading farther in this thread.

[mpg9999]

Even if you had one beer, and you're at .02 - they cant do any thing to you.

Woman sues after arrest despite passing DUI breath test

By BRENDAN SMITH Staff Writer, Daytona Beach news Journal

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES ÔÇö Even though Debra Alise Griffey blew a .00 on two alcohol breath tests, she still got arrested for driving under the influence after a traffic stop here in May 1996. Griffey, 31, of Holly Hill now is suing the city, claiming false arrest and malicious prosecution. Her attorney, George S. Pappas of Daytona Beach, filed the lawsuit in circuit court last week. Pappas had sought a $100,000 settlement, which the city refused.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages exceeding $15,000. Police stopped Griffey at 3:37 a.m. May 28, 1996, on South Atlantic Avenue for "failing to maintain a single lane." After passing two alcohol breath tests, she agreed to a urine test which later proved negative for the presence of drugs, the suit states. Even though her traffic citation stated "DUI - Pending Urine," Griffey was arrested that morning and sent to the Volusia County Branch Jail on $500 bond. "We can't keep them," said Public Safety Director Frank Daraio. "They have to go to the jail."

In Griffey's case, the State Attorney's Office dismissed both the DUI charge and a citation for failing to maintain a single lane three months later for lack of evidence. Daraio said the alcohol breath test isn't the deciding factor many people think it is. A person can be arrested after a traffic stop based solely on his or her performance on videotaped field sobriety tests. If the alcohol breath test proves negative, then a urine test is ordered. The driver is then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence based on the officer's observations, Daraio said.

"Their driving is impaired," he said. "That's already been determined (by the officer)." By this point, a person who hasn't consumed any alcohol and possibly no drugs now has a criminal record and a trip to the jail.

The policy isn't an isolated one. Daytona Beach and Ormond Beach police follow a similar procedure. It's up to the officer in the field to decide if the results of the field sobriety tests constitute probable cause for an arrest, said Mike Judd, Ormond Beach police spokesman. Even if the alcohol breath tests and urine test are negative, that doesn't get the driver off the hook, Judd said. It's then up to the State Attorney's Office to decide whether to prosecute the case.

"We wouldn't let the person go," Judd said. "A lot of cases boil down to what the officer observed. If an officer wanted to, for whatever reason, he could manipulate that."

According to Griffey's arrest report completed by Officer Michael Fowler, Griffey failed four videotaped field sobriety tests. Griffey kept her balance in the tests but lost points for things like counting the number 14 twice in the one-leg lift and not keeping her eyes closed during the finger-to-nose test.

Even though the alcohol breath tests confirmed Griffey hadn't been drinking, Fowler wrote in his report Griffey smelled of alcohol and had red eyes and slurred speech. Griffey also appeared to be "confused and nervous," Fowler's report states. Fowler couldn't be reached for comment on his report Thursday.