ID: Not sure what machine CR is using. In US, so many problems with the Intoxilyzer 5000 and 8000 (most popular with USA local PD's) but are presumed reliable for evidentiary purposes. That means in the US, if you are trying to beat the blow, you need to hire an expert to show its scientific defects and unreliability, or how false teeth or belching or certain respiratory problems skew it, or the effect of the officer telling you to blow harder, or how other issues like police radios and other electronics in its vacinity affect it. Experts are expensive so most guys can't. Defendant's with the big bucks can beat the blow, but can they also beat the testimony of the officer who says you were in a ditch, passed out, couldn't walk, reaked, mumbled, resisted arrest, called the police a no good mf, pissed in his pants, etc, now alot of this often supported by dash mounted videos? No.
It's the guys with the "just over" the limit blows with moderate field visuals and have the $$$ to hire an expert that can walk on a DUI. If it were me, and i knew i wasn't that messed up, I wouldn't blow. added penalties in most states for not blowing, but you are giving the prosecutors their dui case on a silver platter if you blow over. Don't do any of the field visual tests (walk the line, stand on one leg, touch your nose, say the alphabet--no penalty for refusing those, and even if you do fine they'll say you didn't). Be polite, say as little as possible, just get locked up and and deal with it in the morning.
But, California S Ct finally made the maufacturer release its algorythms, which they fought for 10 years on proprietary issues. Don't know what machine CR locals are using, but I see where they were substituting parts in your quoted article.
Last night, they grabbed a gorgeous 34 y.o. former Ms CR and she blew 3x over. She is/was sweet, see story and her foto.
http://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynew ... 082205.htmPS: In the thread you cite there was a reference to police use of horizontal gaze nystagmus tests which is an eye exam administered by the officer focusing on the eye/pupil with a flashlight. Last time I noticed, only admissable in half the states. I saw a study that over half of 50 doctors who were tested on their technique and conclusions of the HGN failed, and these were in lab conditions. Now apply that to a roadside, in the dark, or whatever by a "trained" officer of the law. Pure trash. They will always say your pupil deviated, etc.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
Pura Vida 
