more on Breathalyzers and Open Source

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Thompson <jim () netgate com>
Date: October 25, 2005 5:48:51 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: br2 () u washington edu, andrew () swart com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source


which test to take is largely one time 'time since your median  
drink'.  Alcohol levels will tend to show up in blood test (including  
breathalyzers) first, then in urine tests.

the police know this, and *will* let you soak in the drunk tank for a  
while in order to get the number in your urine test 'up'.

they will also tend to videotape your behavior both at the scene (in- 
squad) and in jail, for use in court.

In any case, there are at least 5 requirements on law enforcement  
officers in most (perhaps all) US states:

The officer must have had a reasonable suspicion that you were  
violating the law.
The officer must have either had probable cause to arrest you or  
needs your consent for roadside tests.
The officer must tell you that you have a right to refuse a portable  
breathalyzer test.
The officer must have probable cause before he arrests you and before  
he requires you to take a chemical test.
The officer must give you your Miranda rights after you are arrested,  
if he is going to interrogate you.

Most states prohibit the use of portable breath testing results as  
evidence at trial in a DUI case, in these states, once you are  
arrested and taken to the courthouse/jail, you will be administered a  
second, more reliable test for evidence, and the 'portable test' will  
be used to establish 'probable cause'. Most states also require that  
a driver be observed continuously for a minimum period, such as  
twenty minutes, prior to a breath test in order for the results to be  
considered admissible and valid.

IANAL, and please don't drink and drive.

jim

On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:14 AM, David Farber wrote:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Bradley Roberts <br2 () u washington edu>
> Date: October 25, 2005 4:04:40 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: "Andrew D. Swart" <andrew () swart com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source
>
>
> A friend got pulled over in front of me for some minor infraction  
> (into a bike lane too early for a right turn, if I remember  
> correctly).  I knew he had come from a bar and had probably had at  
> least one drink.  They started in on the normal dui tests (speech,  
> eye, coordination, etc) in front of me.  I had enough time before  
> this to tell him not to submit to a breathalyzer as they're  
> inaccurate - he said that he was probably above the limit, so I  
> told him that he could expect that they'd figure this out and he'd  
> be taken to the police station for a blood test if he refused a  
> breathalyzer.
>
> By refusing to submit to the breathalyzer, under CA law (or at  
> least in San Luis Obispo), the officers have the option to place  
> the person under arrest and take them in for more thorough  
> evaluation.  They did this - unfortunately for my friend, he didn't  
> take well to being handcuffed and started to argue/resist.   
> Probably would have been treated better had he not.  Ultimately his  
> blood was tested and was found above the legal limit.  He made a  
> bad choice and is still paying the consequences but no one was hurt.
>
> However, it should be clear that if you refuse to take a  
> breathalyzer test, you MAY be arrested.  Whether or not you've ever  
> had a drop of alcohol in your life.  Refusing the test is within  
> your rights, but an officers suspicion will quickly place you in  
> shackles and you'll be subjected to the more reliable (and  
> repeatable) tests.
>
>
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Andrew D. Swart" <andrew () swart com>
> > Date: October 24, 2005 4:30:21 PM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net, 'Ip Ip' <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > Subject: RE: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source
> > Reply-To: andrew () swart com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ...I mention all these factors because they are common in many
> > > measurement instruments...
> > > ...No amount of viewing the code will tell you that.
> >
> > A local attorney (Santa Barbara) regularly takes out full page ads in
> > local papers seeking DUI clients, but also advising people of their
> > rights during a suspected DUI stop.  One of his biggest pieces of
> > advice:  refuse under all circumstances an invitation to take a
> > breathalyzer test.  He points out that the portable technology is  
> > flawed
> > and the results can't be verified independently (only a single  
> > sample).
> > Instead, do no resist, if law enforcement insists, taking a blood or
> > urine test.  More reliable and samples remain for independent  
> > testing at
> > later stage.  Warning: refusing a breathalyzer test (but not the  
> > other
> > tests) in California is reportedly within our rights; this may not be
> > the case in all other states.
> >
> > Andrew Swart
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > You are subscribed as br2 () u washington edu
> > To manage your subscription, go to
> >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/ 
> > interesting-people/
>
>
> --
> Bradley Roberts (br2 () u washington edu)
> Graduate Student, Department of Materials Science & Engineering
> Roberts Hall 302 Box 352120
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195
> 206-616-7485 lab
> 206-543-3100 fax
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as jim () netgate com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/