The thing is BAC breath testing machines in bars are famous for giving high readings because frequently they aren’t cleaned very well between uses. If drunk no. 1 blows a high reading reading and Sister Mary Catherine uses the machine right after him and before it is well cleaned then the results of her test are heavily influenced by the previous user’s breath sample. I’m not saying Inigo wasn’t drunk, only that I doubt the accuracy of the machine that took the reading. YMMV.
Seems to depend on which chart you’re loking at. It’s possible my memory isn’t so good. 
I’d also suspect that a bar machine would have a tendency to read high anyway, since if Happy Harry uses the Sot-O-Matic and it says he’s OK, and then Harry meets up with Mr. Telegraph Pole on the way home, Harry’s lawyer will complain that the machine was partially causal.
12 years ago I was a bad boy and got a ride in the back of a car with no inside door handles.
What the nice officer has in the car with him is an alka-sensor. I was told this is not calibrated and is inadmissable in court. IIRC it doesn’t even give numbers just a yes/no to the odor of alcohol. A short time later I got to blow in the big ass machine at the police station. At the time it was a box the size of a two drawer filing cabinet. I can see why this is impracticle to have in each cruiser.
In New York refusing to blow is an admission of guilt and you will be charged and found guilty.
What I was told by my many friends in law enforcement is when in doubt blow in the silly machine and get a good lawyer to deal with the aftermath.
-
-
- We went into this bit before, when someone else said the same thing: that someone in law enforcement (it was a prosecutor they worked for, I thinks) told them to blow and then get a lawyer. Which is really exactly what they’d want you to do. …I had a relative who was a heavy drinker for some years, had multiple accidents due to driving drunk. Her high-priced DUI lawyer told her the exact opposite: never, never blow the machine, no matter what scary stuff the police tell you will happen if you don’t. The reasoning is that it is basically an admission of guilt, and many judges will not accept any further arguments if you provide that data and it shows that you were legally intoxicated–but if you refuse to blow the meter, a good lawyer can argue in court with a number of different reasons why you couldn’t or wouldn’t, and can often tear many of those “automatic punishments for not blowing” down. So if this is a problem one is likely to suffer, you should probably ask a lawyer beforehand, because it is your lawyers job to try to defend you, not the police, and certainly not the prosecutor.
-
Also: semi-on-topic–
~
If you’re thinking of the UK, I think that would be because the portable breathalysers aren’t used as evidence in court. If I remember rightly, the procedure here is that if you fail a roadside breath test, you’re taken down to the station and requested to provide a sample of urine or blood, and another after a set period of time (30 or 40 minutes, or thereabouts). It’s these samples that are tested for alcohol and used as evidence – the breathalyser simply serves the same purpose as the sobriety test.
I don’t believe that this is the case. If there is an exception, I’d be interested to know about it. Some states are more lenient than others. In Oklahoma, you can be charged with Driving While Impaired if BAC is 0.05% or higher. 0.08% or more constitutes Driving Under the Influence.
Depending on the driver’s condition and the jurisdiction, they may do blood draws at the jail. Some places have jail nurses that do it. The ambulance service I work for does blood draws for our local police departments.
It depends on how much practice you’ve had. When I was doing clinicals at detox, we had 2 people walk in with BALs >.50 :eek:
I never knew that! Thanks - it makes a lot more sense now
An ex-cop told me the opposite. The breath test is a legal requirement for conviction in most states. (Or if someone refuses and an officer testifies that he exhibited signs of intoxication. That’s why getting a license in most states is also an agreement to submit to a breath or blood test by a law enforcement officer under any circumstaces.) He also said that all the walking a line and stuff is unnecessary. It’s mainly just to bolster the credibility of an arrest if someone should refuse a breath or blood test–they can tell if someone is drunk (or on drugs) just by an eye test alone. He said that once they see the eyes, they decide whether it’s worth it to take someone to the station for a breath test, which, as noted above has to be done there because the machine has to be calibrated/inspected to avoid a challenge in court.
I believe the offense is defined by the alcohol level (or refusal). The statute doesn’t say “being uncoordinated, or having an odor of alcohol is such and such a misdemenor, etc.” It says, “having so much alcohol in your system (or refusal) is such and such a misdemenor, etc.” He also admitted to me (without batting an eye) that, absent the possibility of any strong, contrary testimony, they really “embellish” their reports, because if it goes to jury trial, most people just believe whatever a cop says.
The field sobrierty tests are nothing but evidence against you in a court. You’ll be videotaped and shown “failing” the tests. If the officer gives you the test, they have already decided to arrest you. You can refuse the field sobriety tests without penalty and many lawyers will tell you to do so. Even someone completely sober will be nervous while performing these tests with the flashlight in your eyes on the side of a busy road.
There are penalities for refusing the breath test. It is up to you to decide whether you should refuse or not. Many DUI lawyers advise you to refuse. In some states, you can also be charged (but not convicted of both) with driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level. See this for more information.
To answer the OP more directly, the portable breathalizers are not accurate enough to stand up in a court of law. The actual machine used is to big to be carried in a squard car, although mobile DUI trailers may have one.
And which statute are you referring to? I’m interested.
If you’re talking about Florida Statute 316.193 Driving under the influence, then what it specifically says is:*
(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;
(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or
© The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
*
If you are in control of a vehicle (could even be a bicycle) and you are found to be (a), (b), or © then you can be prosecuted for DUI.
How does one prove (a)? He does it with a Field Sobriety Excersise. So absent (b) or ©, there can still be a conviction.
YSMV