Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Government

Alcohol Breath Tests, a Linchpin of the Criminal Justice System, Are Often Unreliable (nytimes.com) 136

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
A million Americans a year are arrested for drunken driving, and most stops begin the same way: flashing blue lights in the rearview mirror, then a battery of tests that might include standing on one foot or reciting the alphabet. What matters most, though, happens next. From a report: By the side of the road or at the police station, the drivers blow into a miniature science lab that estimates the concentration of alcohol in their blood. If the level is 0.08 or higher, they are all but certain to be convicted of a crime. But those tests -- a bedrock of the criminal justice system -- are often unreliable, a New York Times investigation found. The devices, found in virtually every police station in America, generate skewed results with alarming frequency, even though they are marketed as precise to the third decimal place. Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight. Across the country, thousands of other tests also have been invalidated in recent years. The machines are sensitive scientific instruments, and in many cases they haven't been properly calibrated, yielding results that were at times 40 percent too high. Maintaining machines is up to police departments that sometimes have shoddy standards and lack expertise. In some cities, lab officials have used stale or home-brewed chemical solutions that warped results. In Massachusetts, officers used a machine with rats nesting inside.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alcohol Breath Tests, a Linchpin of the Criminal Justice System, Are Often Unreliable More

Alcohol Breath Tests, a Linchpin of the Criminal Justice System, Are Often Unreliable

Comments Filter:

  • I'm not actually sure which is worse... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Moryath ( 553296 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @01:58PM (#59384134)
    The coverups by the companies, or the coverups by the cops themselves.

    What do you want to bet not ONCE of those criminal cops will get disciplined or arrested for the criminal destruction of evidence their departments have now admitted to? For railroading innocent victims time and time and time again?

  • This has never come up for me, but aren't you allowed to request a blood test instead?

    • Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:10PM (#59384196) Journal

      Its never come up for me either but my understanding is that; yes you are allowed to ask for blood test. Lawyer friends have told me that, that is infact what you should do IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GUILTY. There exists at least a chance that by the time the test is administered you will have dropped below the legal limit. You may be able to avoid a criminal charge this way.. HOWEVER the law in most states is also such that refusal to submit to breathalyzer carriers with it the requirement your license be suspended for about the same amount of time it would be for a first time DUI offense anyway, irrespective of what results emerge from a blood test. So if you don't believe you are legally impaired and the cop is just a jerk for pulling you over for changing your radio station and wiggling a bit at the moment he was watching you want to go with the field sobriety test unless driving is really just a luxury for you!

      Again that is all second hand information so take it with grain of salt.

      • The old punish someone for daring to defend themselves, plan. Works 50% of the time, every time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        There exists at least a chance that by the time the test is administered you will have dropped below the legal limit.

        If the content is not 0.0%, then they can still charge the driver was impaired at the time of driving. They might also infer that the BAC in fact decreases by a predictable figure between the time of being pulled over and the time the actual samples were taken -- thus the lower reading would still be evidence supporting the impairment due to intoxication.

        • Re:Alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @03:04PM (#59384386) Journal

          I said the same thing; but my the folks I was talking to said this.

          Its supporting evidence but its evidence you can challenge a lot easier than a specific over the statutory limit reading. You can bring in your own experts to testify how 'unlikely' it is your BAC could have been more than .08 however much time before that, etc. Again this isn't about "getting off", you already accepting a suspended license is in your future.

          This about avoiding the criminal charge. Just back making the cops wake a magistrate to approve a blood test and going thru all those motions you have shown to the prosecutor you will probably fight him; so if those numbers grant you any leeway at all they might just be interested enough to avoid all that and looking stupid and let you plea down to some civil offense like "distracted driving" in addition to your suspended license. The goal at this point isn't to evade direct punishment its make sure when someone does a background check on you in the future they don't see a DUI.

        • If the content is not 0.0%, then they can still charge the driver was impaired at the time of driving.

          That depends on where you happen to be pulled over, there are many different laws, but generally it's a lesser charge if you're under .08 but still impaired. I'd much rather have reckless driving on my record than a DUI.

      • HOWEVER the law in most states is also such that refusal to submit to breathalyzer carriers with it the requirement your license be suspended for about the same amount of time it would be for a first time DUI offense anyway

        This just reminds me of a wreck I was witness to several years ago. A head on collision in front of me that flipped one of the vehicles (an SUV) upside down, and caused the other one to smash a lady in with the door so tight that they had to use the jaws of life to get her out, and she was unable to work for months due to it crushing her arm (she had some kind of factory job). There were also children in the car that suffered minor injuries as well.

        The driver was so drunk you could smell the alcohol

      • HOWEVER the law in most states is also such that refusal to submit to breathalyzer carriers with it the requirement your license be suspended for about the same amount of time it would be for a first time DUI offense anyway, irrespective of what results emerge from a blood test.

        Just makes it imporant to know the laws of your state and your rights in general.

        And if you lawyer up, don't take the tests....even a suspend license might have exceptions for work and food, etc......they might even get you just to

      • The consequences for refusing to take a breath test or submitting to a blood test are generally less severe than the consequences for a DUI conviction. One of the first legislators who introduced DUI and breath test laws was caught driving drunk, and stubbornly refused to do a breath test or allow police to draw blood. He got off due to lack of evidence.

        My cousin got convicted of a DUI (first time). The licenses suspension is nothing. The increase in his auto insurance premium will probably cost him

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Strider- ( 39683 )

        The other thing to remember is that having a DWI on your record makes you inadmissible into many countries, including Canada. If you ever hope to travel internationally, you need to avoid that conviction at all costs.

      • There exists at least a chance that by the time the test is administered you will have dropped below the legal limit.

        A process that in my state results in a nurse being in attendance at every random breath test setup. Just the thing you want in the days of hospital staff shortages.

    • Does the American system really only rely on the handheld device reading?

      In the UK, the handheld device is used to arrest you on suspicion, but you will only be charged with an offence if you then subsequently exceed the limit in two breath samples given on a constantly calibrated machine at the police station within a set period of time.

      And then you can request a blood sample to be taken.

      • Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:23PM (#59384248) Homepage

        That's how it is in most states. The roadside test isn't used in court - they have a machine back at the station that's supposed to be better. In most places you can force a blood draw, which is what you should do. Same with the "field sobriety test". It's only used for probable cause.

        • >"That's how it is in most states. The roadside test isn't used in court"

          And there is the problem, in a nut shell. Your alcohol level doesn't take into account a zillion factors that actually can affect your PERFORMANCE driving. A roadside test DOES. Unless a good sobriety test is done first, you could be caught by a false positive.

          Just as importantly, blood alcohol doesn't test for impairment from, for example:

          * Illicit drugs
          * Legal prescription medications
          * Over-the counter medications
          * Supplements
          *

          • What is needed is something that tests coordination and reaction time objectively. I believe this could be done. It would make a lot more sense, and it wouldn't matter what impaired the person.

            Plenty of old people wouldn't pass that test totally sober. Of course they really shouldn't be driving to begin with, but taking licenses from old people isn't something we really do in the US due to AARP and other lobbyists. We instead have to wait until the day they confuse the gas with the brake and drive through a store front.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cederic ( 9623 )

            What is needed is something that tests coordination and reaction time objectively.

            You're skipping decision making, ability to drive in a straight line, observation and awareness.. many things that are necessary for safe driving.

            Shit, coordination is less important than any of those.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        Does the American system really only rely on the handheld device reading?

        In the UK, the handheld device is used to arrest you on suspicion, but you will only be charged with an offence if you then subsequently exceed the limit in two breath samples given on a constantly calibrated machine at the police station within a set period of time.

        And then you can request a blood sample to be taken.

        That's generally how it works in most US states too, but this article says in many police departments are not properly calibrating or maintaining the field and office breathalyzer devices, and some devices had programming code errors that would skew results, regardless of proper calibrations and maintenance.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by rat7307 ( 218353 )

          and some devices had programming code errors that would skew results, regardless of proper calibrations and maintenance.

          Well, that means the calibrations AREN'T properly done by definition.

          Source: I calibrate stuff.

      • It really depends on the state, there is no single American system.
        Lots of state go with a system where you can take a breath test or a field test on the spot and if you pass that then you are good. if you fail them you are arrested, provided there is other evidence, and you will get taken to the police station for additional test. Some states also allow you to pay for a blood test.
        Most states do have a clause when you have to sign when you get your driver license where you acknowledge that if you refus
      • Depends on the state. You'll get the handheld device at the scene. Then back at the station go through two or three tests with a much bigger (therefore better!) machine.

      • One important thing about the American system is that if you refuse the handheld device you lose your license, usually for a year. This is under the theory that driving is not a right; it is a privilege.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        That's how it is in many U.S. jurisdictions, but as noted in TFA, the handheld machine may be un-calibrated and the one back at the station may be infested with rats.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fintux ( 798480 )
        In Finland, the blood test is always done if the breathalyzer test is positive - no need to request it. But the breathalyzers are also kept well calibrated, and as far as I know, it is quite rare that the tests differ. In some cases they do, however - for example if the driver has just had a small but strong drink - or even eaten a liqueur-filled candy.

    • In the uk the way this works is that the road side breath test gives the cops enough suspicion to arrest you. To convict you though, they need to get a reading on an evidential breath test machine at the station, or a blood test. Those evidential machines are much more precise than the road side ones, and calibration records must be meticulously kept to get a conviction.

      • I my particular state in the USA... The officer can pull you over if your driving makes them suspicious. The officer can then ask you to do one or both: physical field sobriety test (walk the line, touch nose, etc) and/or portable breath test. In my state there is no automatic penalty if you do not cooperate with field tests. You must get out of the vehicle if the officer tells you to, but you don't have to do the walk/turn, nose touch, look at the light, etc. If the officer believes your driving and/or beh

  • Speed measurements as well (Score:5, Informative)

    by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @01:59PM (#59384146)

    I saw a story a few years ago of a guy that got pulled over on his motorcycle for speeding. He was certain he hadn't been speeding, and he happened to know about the laser gun they use for measuring your speed. So he asked when it was last calibrated.

    After a while of back and forth the cop finally called the chief out for assistance. The chief had no idea when the gun had been calibrated either, but he aimed it at a tree to test.

    The tree, apparently, was going around 20 MPH. The guy on the bike was allowed to leave without a fine.

    • the police should have paid the fine and more out of their own pockets as punishment.

    • There were several slashdot discussions 12 or so years back about the inner workings of the breathalyzer machines in use here in the US, and the lack of source code audit to determine exactly how they are computing the BAC.

      https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

    • Re:Speed measurements as well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:35PM (#59384286)

      The chief had no idea when the gun had been calibrated either, but he aimed it at a tree to test.

      This could be done with Alcohol Breath Tests, as well. Just ask the policeman to blow into the machine too. Since policemen never drink while on duty, it must read 0.00. If it reads more, just subtract his level from yours.

    • ...So he asked when it was last calibrated...

      I was in court last Friday and saw someone try the "when was the radar last calibrated" trick. The cop and the prosecutor immediately went into a back and forth dialog they clearly knew by heart.

      "When was the radar last calibrated?"
      "The radar was calibrated at the start and end of my shift using the tuning forks."
      "When was the last time the tuning forks were checked?"
      "The tuning forks were tested last August and are tested again every six months."

      Neither even looked up from their paperwork or even blinked

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        I tried the "tuning fork" defense for a speeding ticket in high school (~20 years ago), I was told that they no longer use tuning forks to calibrate. That leads to one of two conclusions: 1) They were using a laser device. 2) They are full of shit.

      • ...So he asked when it was last calibrated...

        I was in court last Friday and saw someone try the "when was the radar last calibrated" trick. The cop and the prosecutor immediately went into a back and forth dialog they clearly knew by heart.

        "When was the radar last calibrated?" "The radar was calibrated at the start and end of my shift using the tuning forks." "When was the last time the tuning forks were checked?" "The tuning forks were tested last August and are tested again every six months."

        Neither even looked up from their paperwork or even blinked during the dialog.

        Guilty!

        There are books on this. You can't just ask them when it was last calibrated. If you go to trial then you have the right to have the judge issue a subpoena for various records. You need the engineering study that was used to set the speed limit (this may vary by jurisdiction but I think there are federal rules for roads up to 55MPH), the calibration info for the radar gun, and perhaps other data (been a while since I've fought a speeding ticket). If the actual speed limit does not match the federal rule

        • A better choice is to show up with a local lawyer who knows the judge, apologize for breaking the law, and ask for a reduced sentence in return for taking a defensive driving class. If you were so far over the speed limit that that wouldn't help, you're probably going to jail whether the radar gun was calibrated or not.

    • My understanding is that laser speed devices rely upon reflection to function. Police are told to aim them at a shiny portion of the vehicle. I believe the license plate is best as those are generally retroreflective (designed to bounce light back roughly to where it originated). I don't doubt that a laser gun might not register an accurate result when pointed at a tree - most of which don't seem to be good at reflecting light (the odd tree with smooth, white bark probably being an exception). Why the o

  • By now i realize i do not know the procedure in my state. Funny . Long ago, in my country of origin, if you were positive to a breathalyzer test you had a blood test to confirm. Authorities knew very well breath tests were not very reliable.

    • Maybe the authorities in your former country actually cared about justice. Unlike American cop scum who mainly care about robbing the public.

  • We change models a long time go... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:00PM (#59384152)

    You are guilty until proven innocent and if you are innocent of this you are likely guilty of something else bad enough to warrant being punished anyways... just pay your fine & debt to society and move along.

    Individually, you are worthless unless you are someone in power. There is always a caste system, where do you belong inside of it is the answer you need to be intimately familiar with so that your expectations are set level as possible.

  • Normally they are additional aspects as well. (Score:3)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:04PM (#59384172)
    The police don't normally stop every driver to give them a breath test. They are often showing additional signs of impaired driving.
    That and while the results may be off, still give a good ball park of the BAC. So if they are at a .07 BAC and the breath tester says it is .085 and the driver is showing signs of impaired driving. They probably shouldn't be driving.

    That said, Drunk Driving Laws in America are very harsh. Knowing the technology may not be accurate should be considered in applying judgement for drunk drivers, figuring that if a person BAC was around the legal limit, they could have been legal. And probably let them off with a fine/warning especially for a first offense.

    I know Drunk Driving is Dangerous, and for general public safety it needs to be controlled. However breaking these laws and getting caught can drastically change someones life.

    • Re:Normally they are additional aspects as well. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:35PM (#59384278)

      >However breaking these laws and getting caught can drastically change someones life.
      And? Breaking those laws and NOT getting caught until you injure or kill someone can change someone's life far more drastically.

      It's the people who *don't* break the law, and get caught anyway, that I feel for.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Holi ( 250190 )
      "Drunk Driving Laws in America are very harsh"

      They are?

      Maybe that is because drunk driving is the #1 cause of death on US highways.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

        Maybe that is because drunk driving is the #1 cause of death on US highways.

        How many other causes of death would you expect to be prevalent on highways? It's basically drunk driving, inattentive driving, and aggressive driving. Most other major causes of death will primarily happen elsewhere.

    • So if they are at a .07 BAC and the breath tester says it is .085 and the driver is showing signs of impaired driving. They probably shouldn't be driving.

      In my state (VA) if the police officer's opinion is that you are showing signs of impairment, you get a DUI. Doesn't matter the BAC. But, if the BAC is over .08, it's an automatic DUI.

      • Virginia is the most fascist of US states. Criminal defendants have essentially no rights. You're guilty if the cop says you are, and that applies to more than just DUIs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Holi ( 250190 )
      "probably let them off with a fine/warning especially for a first offense."

      Wait let them drive home? Just a "be careful driving home"? I mean they did something to call attention to themselves so the cop had a reason to pull them over, but it's their first time (getting caught), so we'll let them jump back in the driver seat and drive their car home, I mean what could possibly go wrong? I mean besides them killing someone which would invariably lead to the state being sued for allowing them to drive drun

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      The police don't normally stop every driver to give them a breath test. They are often showing additional signs of impaired driving.

      Anecdote: There was a sheriff's deputy (somewhere back East, IIRC) that was the champion of his department in apprehending drunks. He got several times the citation count of any other deputy. Finally, one day he goes to court for the contested cases (courts usually line up all of one officer's cases on the same day). One case comes up and a smart defense attorney questions the deputy as to what his probable cause was for stopping his client.

      "He was driving too slow."

      The judge interjects, "You stopped him

      • Unless it was like 15 mph under the limit, obeying the law shouldn't be probably cause for some crawling worm of a cop to harass you. Good on the judge for reading that cop the riot act. A slight increase in safety doesn't justify the reduction in liberty.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          Nevertheless, it turns out to be an excellent indicator of impaired driving. Do whatever you want with that information.

          • Doesn't matter. Freedom is more important than safety, unless you're a stinking coward.

            • Freedom is more important than safety, unless you're a stinking coward.

              Trivially that is not true. If you have no safety at all you don't have liberty because every action will be driven by the need to preserve your life. I mean hey why not be free to murder people? It's hell for safety but that's unimportant and not being allowed to curtails your freedom.

              Yes that is extreme, it's called reductio ad absurdum. If your argument leads to absurd conclusions then your argument must be flawed. The actual quote is

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        "Driver was not driving appropriately to the conditions, and/or was obstructing other drivers, and/or was failing to properly observe the environment and surroundings"

        Come on, it's not hard to put 'driving too slow' in other legally acceptable terms.

    • The police don't normally stop every driver to give them a breath test. They are often showing additional signs of impaired driving.

      They don't have DWI checkpoints in your state?

      • DWI checkpoints don't give a breath test to everyone -- I think they only test if someone is showing other signs of impairment or smells like alcohol.

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:21PM (#59384246) Journal

    1. What does "often" mean, in terms of millions each year?

    2. Which law firms are prepping a class action lawsuit over this to pocket tens of millions?

  • I used to design breathalysers (Score:5, Informative)

    by labnet ( 457441 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @02:58PM (#59384370)

    There are two types of breathalysers used by law enforcement.
    The hand held units are normally platinum based catalytic cell.
    When you blow, a flow meter makes sure you have blown at least 1 litre of air, it then uses a bellows pump to take a few ml of sample into the reaction cell. The cell takes a few seconds before it reaches a peak and generally you integrate the result. One side effect of this, is high readings force you to stop taking further samples for up to several minutes as the previous samples takes a while to complete the reaction.
    Police evidentiary units are normally infrared analysers that have a reference gas. Before blowing, the unit performs a black level cal, then measures the reference gas, then takes the specimen. The printed docket will display both the cal gas and user BAC level.
    Note it takes a bit of expertise to make an accurate cal gas.

    So at least in Australia, we don’t hear about evidentiary samples being thrown out, because they can’t use the road side unit, but have to use an evidentary unit for court enforceable testing.

    • The hand held units are normally platinum based catalytic cell.

      Sounds a lot like an automotive oxygen sensor. [howstuffworks.com]

      Police evidentiary units are normally infrared analysers that have a reference gas. Before blowing, the unit performs a black level cal, then measures the reference gas, then takes the specimen. The printed docket will display both the cal gas and user BAC level.

      Sounds similar to a laboratory grade exhaust gas analyzer. [wikipedia.org]

  • It's long been known that DUI laws are nothing but revenue generators for local municipalities, criminalizing people for what's in their blood rather than what they've actually done. This just solidifies what was already known, though couldn't be completely proven. That cops aren't interested in safety, they just want their money and will extort whomever they have to in order to get it. In the end this report will likely have little significance as bootlickers will still rush to defend cops and how they d

    • It's long been known that DUI laws are nothing but revenue generators for local municipalities, criminalizing people for what's in their blood rather than what they've actually done.

      Endangerment is a thing. If you spray a machine gun into a crowd, you haven't managed to not commit a crime if you happened to not hit anyone. Drink driving is a massive cause of accidents often involving other people.

      Don't be a cunt and endanger other people under the guise of "personal liberty".

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Just had my car stolen (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @03:37PM (#59384490)
    when I went to the police impound lot to get it back there was a women there. They pulled her over for drunk driving. She was a nurse in scrubs on her way home from work. She blew clean, so they arrested her and dragged her to a hospital for a blood draw. Also clean. They're still charging her with a DUI.

    Why yes, she is black. Why do you ask?

    • DUI laws are about *impairment* not being drunk. People who are excessively tired/fallign asleep at the wheel, diabetics with blood sugar issues at the moment, other medical issues, etc can all get someone stuck with a DUI charge.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        This.

        Blowing 0.08% is prima facie evidence of being under the influence. It's an easier case for cops to make because you have to refute the machine. But they can still make a case based on other observations. But that's more difficult for them to defend.

      • she didn't have a drop of alcohol in her system. Not. One. Drop. No medical conditions. No impairment. Nothing. She also had no signs of impairment.

        What she did have was a slight Ebonics accent and a working class demeanor. And the aforementioned skin color.

        If she can afford a good lawyer it'll get tossed. I didn't ask, but she's a nurse, so it's 50/50. Either way it'll cost her thousands to fight it. They'll drag her into court and try and get her to plead down to something. The cop gets an easy no
    • That's even more irregular than the implicit racism might indicate... nurses I've known have said that cops generally refuse to ticket nurses in case they end up in need of medical care in the line of duty. I'd guess if she was driving erratically it was from being tired from the kinds of shifts nurses work.

    • I sincerely hope that the cop who charged her gets T-boned by a drink driver that he missed while harassing her, ends up trapped in a burning car, and spends the next year screaming for MOOOOOOORPHINE! NURSE! MOOOOOORPHINE! in a burn ward. (Hopefully, one of her colleagues will take real good care of him.)

      Then comes out looking like Jason Schechterle....
      https://fox42kptm.com/news/loc... [fox42kptm.com]

      Yeah, I may be an asshole, but

  • Never EVER submit to roadside sobriety tests like walking a line or standing on one foot, reciting the alphabet, or ANY of that shit. NEVER.

    Most people can't pass those subjective tests sober and well-rested. Doing them tired, at night, on the side of a highway with traffic zooming by just makes it that much harder. Don't do it, they can't force you.

    If you're not impaired, insist on a blood test. Demand one and insist they transport you to have a blood draw immediately. 99% of the time they won't do it beca

  • When Scalia et al were confronted with the fact that drug sniffing dogs are 50% more likely to "hit" on a person or package the COP thinks might be contraband, he responded in his concurring opinion with "Why should police prefer an incompetent dog"? [washingtonpost.com]
    Simple answer?
    Theft of property via seizure \

  • ...and to demand/expect it to be so it's simply a sham way to oppose something without obviously doing so.

    Breathalyzers are for both the convenience of the cops and the driver. YOU CAN ALWAYS DEMAND A BLOOD TEST.

    They may have false positives, but they are (at least with today's tech) the best compromise between speed and accuracy. Again, if you get a positive, you can always insist on a blood test.

  • Breathalyser reckoned I was 0.15%. No way. I was way more than that.

  • You mean when the only thing important is the level in your bloodstream, measuring it in gas inside your lungs is intrinsically inaccurate? REEEEALLY?! Never would have thought. What they should do is make a suspected drunk driver play Tetris or the original Star Wars Pod Racer for the N64. Now that is a test of coordination and response times. Btw this is coming from someone who thinks drunks are pathetic worthless wastes of space and that all alcohol should be banned worldwide.
  • https://flickr.com/photos/uncl... [flickr.com] Oh how I remember "calibrating" these at the sheriff's office in the late 70's when someone would call me and say they had a drunk they were bringing in. You had two ampules of liquid. One, would stay sealed, the other you broke off the top, and plugged the hose into it. Then, you turned on a light that shined between both ampules. When the potential drunk blew into it, the alcohol in their system would turn the yellow liquid a more clear color, depending on their into

  • As analytical chemist I can tell you that measuring the concentration of a chemical is difficult to better than one percent. Claiming 0.1% would require multiple samples and calibration at a similar concentration before and after each sample. Just having a standard to this accuracy is hard. Sure weighing things and electrical measurement to this accuracy is straight forward but not chemical concentrations. Just think how you would make a 0.08% alcohol in air standard. I assume one would add a known liq

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close