How to beat a DUI in Florida

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/06..._out_duis.html

Judges toss out DUIs because breathalyzers' source code is secret
Florida judges are tossing out DUI cases when defendants ask to see the source code for the breathalyzers that busted them -- the manufacturers won't turn over the source, and since the machine's correct operation is critical to establishing the case against the DUIers, the case is dismissed when it can't be produced.

All four of Seminole County's criminal judges have been using a standard that if a DUI defendant asks for a key piece of information about how the machine works - its software source code, for instance - and the state cannot provide it, the breath test is rejected, the Orlando Sentinel reported Wednesday...

Seminole judges have been following the lead of county Judge Donald Marblestone, who in January ruled that although the information may be a trade secret and controlled by a private contractor, defendants are entitled to it.

One of my family members where kill'd by a stupid teen who thought he could drive drunk.

Don't they take a blood or urine test after a positive breath sample in Florida?. They have the right to ask and a refusal to give a sample is the equivalent of a positive test. I guess they should start to do it in all cases from now on.

I also have lost loved ones due to a drunk driver. My condolences Ziggy.

I believe procedure should be followed to ensure a fair trial, however it seems that the source code for these machines is not really relevant if it is proven they are accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Don't they take a blood or urine test after a positive breath sample in Florida?. They have the right to ask and a refusal to give a sample is the equivalent of a positive test. I guess they should start to do it in all cases from now on.

I also have lost loved ones due to a drunk driver. My condolences Ziggy.

I believe procedure should be followed to ensure a fair trial, however it seems that the source code for these machines is not really relevant if it is proven they are accurate.

---

There is a case for seeing the source code. Especially if you are not happy with the the method of testing the machines or the result in your particular case. The source code contains the upper and lower limits for displaying results. If you think that the machine is not working properly then you should have the right to see the source code, in case there is a flaw in it.

Speed trap machines are tested(Or should be) before and after each day of use. Failure in the end of the day test negates all readings taken that day.

If they are looking for volunteers to test the breathalizer I would be willing to put my name forward.:lol:

I'll have to tell my uncle about this when I go down on the 30th.

Due process can be a bitch sometimes.

However, if as boab says there is a doubt as to the accuracy of this evidence then the defendant has a right to question it. Particularly when the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

If the judges think the right to commercial confidentiality outweighs the consequences of letting drink drivers walk away from the case then it is a shame indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Due process can be a bitch sometimes.

However, if as boab says there is a doubt as to the accuracy of this evidence then the defendant has a right to question it. Particularly when the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

If the judges think the right to commercial confidentiality outweighs the consequences of letting drink drivers walk away from the case then it is a shame indeed.

---

they should just do away with the breath test and take blood. Problem is it takes time for the reslts to come back, so perhaps use the breathalizer to hold someone overnight, take the blood while they are in custoday, then have the results ready for court. I too lost a friend who decided to drive drunk one night, 1 month after I had taken his keys from him on a business trip in Pennsylvania that we took together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Due process can be a bitch sometimes.

However, if as boab says there is a doubt as to the accuracy of this evidence then the defendant has a right to question it. Particularly when the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

If the judges think the right to commercial confidentiality outweighs the consequences of letting drink drivers walk away from the case then it is a shame indeed.

---

they should just do away with the breath test and take blood. Problem is it takes time for the reslts to come back, so perhaps use the breathalizer to hold someone overnight, take the blood while they are in custoday, then have the results ready for court. I too lost a friend who decided to drive drunk one night, 1 month after I had taken his keys from him on a business trip in Pennsylvania that we took together.

---

I agree, I think someone said it earlier. If there is a positive breath test then take a blood test as a matter of course. That way the result is available for examination and the whole problem with questionable results from the breath test / commercial confidentiality is obviated.

I don't know the situation in the USA, however I believe in the UK some things like taking such samples can only be carried out by medically trained people. That would mean getting a Doctor or Nurse to do it, and getting the sample analysed. Rather than just producing a result from the machine itself.

Sadly I think the limiting factor may be cost. In taking the sample, analyzing it and producing the evidence. As opposed to the result of a breath test taken by a Police Officer on duty.

The Hippocratic Oath requires physicians to put their patients’ needs and desires first, to defend their patients’ privacy, and to respect their decisions to decline medical procedures. Therefore, the American College of Emergency Room Physicians opposes permitting, much less requiring, physicians to give blood test results to police because it conflicts with the appropriate and fundamental role of physicians in the physician-patient relationship.

Can't police take a small blood sample like diabetics do all the time? No need for needles, Nurses or Doctors.

If the people that gave a positive test were so sure they were innocent why didn't they ask for a blood or urine test... I know I would

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

If the people that gave a positive test were so sure they were innocent why didn't they ask for a blood or urine test... I know I would

---

Some people are frightened of a little prick. Just look at Hitler.:)
As far as urinating is concerned, they might have Prost(r)ate trouble.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Can't police take a small blood sample like diabetics do all the time? No need for needles, Nurses or Doctors.

---

Diabetics take samples of their own blood, mate.

That is an entirely different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

If the people that gave a positive test were so sure they were innocent why didn't they ask for a blood or urine test... I know I would

---

Some people are frightened of a little prick. Just look at Hitler.:)
As far as urinating is concerned, they might have Prost(r)ate trouble.:)

---

In addition, as I understand it, the presumption of innocence is integral to the legal system in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Can't police take a small blood sample like diabetics do all the time? No need for needles, Nurses or Doctors.

---

Diabetics take samples of their own blood, mate.

That is an entirely different thing.

---

Well blood is blood, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Diabetics take samples of their own blood, mate.

That is an entirely different thing.

---

Well blood is blood, no?

---

I see what you mean, a droplet of blood should be as representative of the whole bloodstream as a syringe-full. I don't know the specifics but it certainly seems to stand diabetics in good stead. However, I think it's the taking of the blood that JP was referring to. The legal issues of a policeman taking a tiy specimin of blood and then using rudimentary apparatus to discern the alcohol level is bound to be fraught with difficulties. The practicalities would also cause concern. For example when a needle is used, the blood doesn't come into contact with air plus there is less chance of it being tampered with.

Also, there would be ethical points to consider. One can do what they like to their own body. For example you could pick your nose right now, if you wanted - but if someone else tried to insert a digit into your nasal passage, you'd be less than pleased.

Taking blood is an invasive procedure and as such should be carried out by a trained professional, imo.

Drunk driving is an invasive procedure when the car hits you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Drunk driving is an invasive procedure when the car hits you.

---

The purpose of the blood test is to discern whether the driver was actually drunk or not.

Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. You can't just go poking needles in people willy nilly, things must be done properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Drunk driving is an invasive procedure when the car hits you.

---

The purpose of the blood test is to discern whether the driver was actually drunk or not.

Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. You can't just go poking needles in people willy nilly, things must be done properly.

---

I guess you haven't seen just how drunk some people are on the roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

The purpose of the blood test is to discern whether the driver was actually drunk or not.

Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. You can't just go poking needles in people willy nilly, things must be done properly.

---

I guess you haven't seen just how drunk some people are on the roads.

---

Now why would you say something like that.

I'm saying that every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a man does not get wrongly accused of a crime and you're saying to cut corners.

My point about the blood or urine test was that they have already given a positive test. If they are going to challenge the accuracy of the breath test device then they should (my opinion) opt for a different test to prove their innocence at the time of the offence and not at a later date once the "evidence" has left the body. The option is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

My point about the blood or urine test was that they have already given a positive test. If they are going to challenge the accuracy of the breath test device then they should (my opinion) opt for a different test to prove their innocence at the time of the offence and not at a later date once the "evidence" has left the body. The option is there.

---

The option is there but the onus cannot be left soley on the accused. Some people may not know of the option.

If only a breath test was administered then altho' fault can be found with the accused for not insisting on a blood test, the prosecutor must be mainly at fault if the breath test's reliability cannot be proven.

I think the burden of proof was mentioned earlier so I'm basically recapping here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

I guess you haven't seen just how drunk some people are on the roads.

---

Now why would you say something like that.

I'm saying that every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a man does not get wrongly accused of a crime and you're saying to cut corners.

---

well then, you should be in defense of the blood test :P
breath-a-lyzers can be fooled by mouthwash, cough syrup, etc.
I've seen it first hand
so say you take a swig of Nyquil, then make a run to the store,
you forget to fully stop at an intersection, get pulled over,
hit with a breath-a-lyzer.....BAM! DUI

the taking of blood or urine in addition to breath...
would be taking further steps to insure an accurate reading

but we dont wanna be poking ppl with needles
or askin em to demean themselves by pissing in front of an officer into a cup

meh.

and I didnt see VB say corners should be cut :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Now why would you say something like that.

I'm saying that every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a man does not get wrongly accused of a crime and you're saying to cut corners.

---

well then, you should be in defense of the blood test :P
breath-a-lyzers can be fooled by mouthwash, cough syrup, etc.
I've seen it first hand
so say you take a swig of Nyquil, then make a run to the store,
you forget to fully stop at an intersection, get pulled over,
hit with a breath-a-lyzer.....BAM! DUI

the taking of blood or urine in addition to breath...
would be taking further steps to insure an accurate reading

but we dont wanna be poking ppl with needles
or askin em to demean themselves by pissing in front of an officer into a cup

meh.

and I didnt see VB say corners should be cut :blink:

---

Try reading the text, Brian.

I said that a blood test should be administered by a professional rather than buy a non-medical person. VB said otherwise - this is what I meant by cutting corners.

Given that I posted about not cutting corners, every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a man does not get wrongly accused of a crime and the burden of proof being on the accuser, it obviously follows that I think people should have blood tests in order to determine culpability. The bit when I said we should not be poking needles in people willy nilly didn't mean that I'm morally against syringes (for fuck's sake) it meant that I think someone with some medical training should be the one to extract the blood.


You bleeding heart liberals are all the same :dry:

I agree that the person taking blood (if that is the choice) should be fully trained to do so. If the expense of using a doctor or tax collector to get the sample is prohibitive then I don't see a problem with training some law enforcement officers so that there is always someone at "headquarters" on duty to perform the procedure once the accused arrives.

The accused should (my opinion) be given a choice. Accept the breath test as final or give a blood or urine sample unless they can produce a valid medical reason not to (I can't think of any).
If they wish to dispute the breath test after refusing the secondary tests then they should be charged with refusing to give a test which should be the same from a legal standpoint as a positive test.
The accused should be informed of all his rights and should be allowed to have a lawyer or independent witness present before the test is carried out. If a lawyer cannot be provided in the time-scale needed before the alcohol leaves the body then the accused or the law enforcement officers should have the right to have the test done at the nearest available healthcare facility.

It is the fault of the system having failures that lawyers are possibly going to get guilty people off. Some lawyers specialise in DUI cases, I wonder how many have lost loved ones due to someone driving impaired due to the effects of alcohol or drugs. The system needs tightening so that the guilty have no way to avoid justice..... protect the innocent, punish the guilty.


@ fkdup74.

I believe you can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of things like nyquil. The charge is something like "driving while impaired". Usually there will be a warning on the label about causing drowsiness and not to operate machinery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I agree that the person taking blood (if that is the choice) should be fully trained to do so. If the expense of using a doctor or tax collector to get the sample is prohibitive then I don't see a problem with training some law enforcement officers so that there is always someone at "headquarters" on duty to perform the procedure once the accused arrives.

The accused should (my opinion) be given a choice. Accept the breath test as final or give a blood or urine sample unless they can produce a valid medical reason not to (I can't think of any).
If they wish to dispute the breath test after refusing the secondary tests then they should be charged with refusing to give a test which should be the same from a legal standpoint as a positive test.
The accused should be informed of all his rights and should be allowed to have a lawyer or independent witness present before the test is carried out. If a lawyer cannot be provided in the time-scale needed before the alcohol leaves the body then the accused or the law enforcement officers should have the right to have the test done at the nearest available healthcare facility.

It is the fault of the system having failures that lawyers are possibly going to get guilty people off. Some lawyers specialise in DUI cases, I wonder how many have lost loved ones due to someone driving impaired due to the effects of alcohol or drugs. The system needs tightening so that the guilty have no way to avoid justice..... protect the innocent, punish the guilty.

---

Seems like a sensible approach to me. I am not sure whether it would be feasible / ethical to train Police Officers to carry out such tests, but if it is your ideas seem sensible and (as importantly) workable.