Posted on 04/03/2011 3:47:30 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
Laura Barfield spends a lot of time these days swinging around Florida in her state-issued Chevy to defend the technology that the state uses to catch drunken drivers.
As the state's chief defender of the breath-testing Intoxilyzer, her job is to assure everyone that the most challenged of all forensic tests is accurate and reliable. In recent weeks, she has been called to testify in Sarasota, Hillsborough and Port St. Lucie counties. In the weeks ahead, she has dates with courtrooms in Taylor, Lake, Leon, Pinellas and Escambia. It has gotten to the point where the state's breath-testing machine is never not in litigation.
"It's never going to go away," Barfield says. "It's always going to be something."
The technology has evolved over 73 years, but it's more vulnerable to legal challenge than ever. Partly because of doubts about the Intoxilyzer, prosecutors have struggled to get convictions in some counties. Judges in two counties won't even allow Intoxilyzer evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
You know that if one test says “violation” and another says “no violation” the driver still has his life ruined because the police will charge him with something.
The police where I’m at put up unconstitutional illegal roadblock checkpoints occasionally... Why are you OK with that sort of behavior?
How many tea tottling diabetics flunk a field sobriety test, which is usually administered first.
***********************************************
ALL OF THEM if they have neuropathy.
And if they are suffering from diabetic neuropathy or amyotrophy, they probably should not be driving in the first place.
False premise. Your question assumes that everyone who ever drives while over the legal limit will eventually kill someone, which is not true.
When such a tragedy hits close to home it is easy to overlook rational analysis of the facts. In almost all fatal or critical injury accidents caused by a drunk driver the drunk driver has an alcohol content of .18 or above, and most of them are repeat drunk drivers at .18 or above. The current draconian .08 standard is nothing more than a money maker for the states and the insurance companies. Ohio has close to 80,000 DUIs a year. Consider all the related cost per DUI and do the math. Its not about preventing drunk drivers anymore.
Further, only about 1% of all drivers passing though DUI checkpoints is arrested for DUI. The state and federal governments foisted this gestapo tactic on the pubic by claiming that at any point and time at least 10% of the drivers we driving drunk. The DUI checkpoint do not justify the cost, unless of course they are doing it for other=er reasons like conditioning the sheeple to accept more heavy handed government and 4th Amendment violations.
When such a tragedy hits close to home it is easy to overlook rational analysis of the facts. In almost all fatal or critical injury accidents caused by a drunk driver the drunk driver has an alcohol content of .18 or above, and most of them are repeat drunk drivers at .18 or above. The current draconian .08 standard is nothing more than a money maker for the states and the insurance companies. Ohio has close to 80,000 DUIs a year. Consider all the related cost per DUI and do the math. Its not about preventing drunk drivers anymore.
Further, only about 1% of all drivers passing though DUI checkpoints is arrested for DUI. The state and federal governments foisted this gestapo tactic on the pubic by claiming that at any point and time at least 10% of the drivers we driving drunk. The DUI checkpoint do not justify the cost, unless of course they are doing it for other=er reasons like conditioning the sheeple to accept more heavy handed government and 4th Amendment violations.
The professional drunks with high blood alcohol levels are safer drivers than the amateur drunks with lower blood alcohol levels. People who can prove that they are more or less always drinking should be given more slack than the crazy amateurs.
Idiocy.
Nope. As I said, if a drunk driver breaks the law, arrest him for that crime. Reckless driving is a crime, whether you are drunk or not.
I see this issue the same way as the leftist “hate crime” legislation. If they actually break the laws, then it’s redundant, and if they don’t break the law, then it’s tyrannical.
You put an awful lot of faith in the “field sobriety test.” That is totally a judgment call on the part of the cop, who as often as not doesn’t know what he is doing. I have a neuropathy in my lower legs that badly impairs my balance. I have seen the way I walk in therapy when my trainers give me balance strengthening exercises. I would fail a “field sobriety test” in the judgment of the average cop, even cold sober (me, not the cop).
DWI is a crime because there is a well proven propensity for drunk drivers to cause accidents and kill people, far beyond what sober people do.
Would you let a very drunk person walk down the street waving a loaded gun around.
A 4400 pound car is a lot more deadly than a .44 magnum.
The tech is not sound. Independent peer-reviewed science says the machines are unreliable. In fact, the underlying basis for establishing BAC is flawed.
Also, FST’s are bogus as well. Even the DOT research shows cops find 60% of 0.00 BAC folks impaired.
Lowering the DUI BAC level is causing all the defense bar push back. What states should concentrate on is locking up the high BAC drunks those folks are ones that kill people.
I tend to agree with your reasoning. Similar overreaching patterns also exist in gun & tobacco regulations.
Driver fatigue is also deadly.
the defense should ask the judge to blow into the little tube to demonstrate the machine...
that should get a quik dismissal.
Driving drunk has been shown to drastically INCREASE the chances of killing others.
Please, let's not get tempus absurdum here
But you were in favor of arrest and prosecution of people who haven't yet committed a crime.
As mentioned above, one's ability to drive can be variable depending on that person's ability to handle his alcohol.
A particular BAC for everyone is not a good test.
“It’s rather difficult to arrest him in the half second he needs to weave across the road and kill everyone.”
I don’t know what sense this makes. It’s tough to stop a lot of crimes in the time it takes to commit them, but that doesn’t mean we arrest someone because “they seem like the type that will rob a bank”, for example.
“DWI is a crime because there is a well proven propensity for drunk drivers to cause accidents and kill people, far beyond what sober people do.”
Like I said, it’s “pre-crime”. You think someone is likely to commit an actual crime (infringing on the rights/life/property of others), so you are arresting them in advance.
“Would you let a very drunk person walk down the street waving a loaded gun around.”
No, because brandishing a weapon is already an actual crime. If they just had it holstered, which would be more analogous to driving over the legal limit but not violating the rules of the road, then yes, I have no problem with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.