Breathalyzer source code must be disclosed

TalkBack 7 of 34:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Actually, you can (but you shouldn't)

Although our (oft disregarded) Constitution (or more accurately, those amendments to the document designated as "The Bill of Rights") prohibit forcing a person to testify against himself, clever legislators and law enforcement officers have found a myriad of "loopholes" to this basic Constitutional right.

In the case of testing to determine whether or not a driver is "under the influence", our clever solons have devised the "implied consent" law: Thus a driver is considered to have given his (or her) consent to the test by (depending upon State) applying for a driver's license and/or the very act of getting behind the wheel of an automobile. The Courts have upheld this travesty.

In days gone by, a driver was given the choice of "breathalyzer", blood test, or urinalysis, and anyone with a modicum of sense would select the blood test (see below for the reason).

However, clever legislatures and willing courts have now allowed the police officer (rather than the accused) to make the choice, which is almost always the "breathalyzer".

Ironically, the blood test is the most accurate method for determining blood alcohol levels (which may or may not indicate a driver's ability to drive safely -- that is another debate).

However, the test (which _does_ involve a syringe) MUST (thank God) be administered by a trained and licensed medical health professional.

This adds greatly to the cost of enforcing "DUI" laws. Furthermore, it means there is a delay in bringing the driver to the T&LMHP, during which time the driver's blood alcohol level could potentially decrease (serum alcohol dissipates over time). [Of course, it could also allow the blood alcohol level to increase, as undigested alcohol in the stomach is absorbed into the blood stream, but law enforcement is only worried about the first possibility.]

But the most important reason that law enforcement doesn't want to use (more accurate) blood tests, and lawyers love it when they do, is that a "chain of evidence" must be maintained, to prevent it being tainted. Yes, DNA could prove it was "the drunk's blood" (assuming he was, in fact drunk). But a lawyer can always challenge whether or not the sample was tainted between the time it was drawn and the time it was tested --- as well as being able to challenge the testing procedure itself. And the DNA sample and testing procedure could be similarly challenged. Thus law enforcement does not want blood tests performed.

Urinalysis is far less accurate than blood tests, and proposes the same "chain of evidence" problems. Thus it is a distant third choice for law enforcement.

This leaves the breathalyzer, a machine which has been proven time and time again to be notoriously inaccurate, typically reading 30-50% higher than blood tests taken at the same time. Of course, these figures are never admitted by law enforcement --- until they are trying to justify the purchase of the latest and greatest breathalyzer machinery (which somehow doesn't solve the accuracy problem).

It's unconscionable that our Courts allow (and juries are persuaded by) evidence which is known to have a unilateral 30-50% error factor. Additionally, it's been show that such innocuous substances as salad dressing can cause high "blood alcohol" readings.

Of course, this travesty is rationalized by the demonization of drinking drivers. We continually hear such fabricated (and meaningless) statistics as "50% of fatal accidents INVOLVE drivers who have been drinking", and thus we will happily look the other way, hoping to eliminate future fatalities.

But an accident in which a "sober" driver plows into a "driver who has been drinking" (which is defined as one or more drinks in the past 24 hours) will be an accident "involving a drinking driver" --- even if the "sober" driver is clearly at fault.

Furthermore, even if "50% of fatal accidents" were CAUSED by drivers who had been drinking (within the past 24 hours), this is meaningless without knowing what percentage of drivers have been drinking. If more than 50% of drivers have had a drink within the last 24 hours, than (statistically) drinking drivers are better drivers than sober drivers. If less than 50% (e.g. 49%), the point is "proven", but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the percentage.

Some people are incapable of driving safely after one drink. Some are still capable after ten. Some drivers who have been drinking are more cautious than normal. Some are reckless. The degree of impairment cannot be accurately determining by blood alcohol levels, much less by a machine which inaccurately "calculates" those levels.

BAD DRIVERS CAUSE ACCIDENTS, whether they are "sober" or "under the influence". Drivers who have had insufficient sleep, or who are preoccupied with thoughts (or vehicular activities) other than driving, or don't have proper driving skills, are just as dangerous (if not more so) than those who are "under the influence". When law enforcement, courts, and legislators recognize this, perhaps the high-way death toll can be reduced.

Setting up road blocks and arresting people based on relatively low (and usually inaccurate) blood alcohol levels accomplishes nothing (other than generating revenues for the government), and takes law enforcement officers away from the highways where they could be pulling over drunks, stay-awakes, and cell phone users, who are weaving all over the road or worse.

Posted by: cdgoldin   Posted on: 11/04/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS to Achieve Highly Available, Load-Balanced Clusters Dell The Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS operating system integrates Cluster ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Key Strategies for Federal Agencies - Safe and Cost Effective Migration for Legacy Hardware GovConnection The federal government has mandated that federal agencies reduce energy ... Download Now