It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers
October 25th, 2007 Posted in Breathalyzers, DUI/DWI, James Baxter
In 1990, the New Jersey courts declared that the science was settled, the debate was over: breath analysis is a reliable and accurate means by which to determine blood alcohol content (BAC). This proclamation is known as the “Downie decision.”
The lead witness, who held the most sway in the court’s opinion, was Dr. Dubowski, a forensic scientist with a history of research experience dealing with Breathalyzers and alcohol breath analysis. A study he published in 1985 was considered the pre-eminent work in this field.
The Downie case revolved around the accuracy of breath analysis in terms of serving as a surrogate for actual BAC. One aspect would be of particular importance from the defendant’s perspective; how often does the alcohol breath analysis regimen overstate actual BAC?
Dr. Dubowski testified that his research determined that in only 2.3 percent of the tests did the breath reading overstate the actual BAC. This was the first time this number was made publicly available; it had not been presented in his 1985 report.
Another witness in the Downie case, Dr. Gerald Simpson, a physical chemist also testified, and attempted to describe the variables that could render a Breathalyzer reading inaccurate. The court largely disregarded his testimony in favor of the assured endorsement of breath analysis offered by Dr. Dubowski.
The court determined that the use of breath alcohol was scientifically valid for the purpose of determining BAC. Was that the end of the story? Not quite.
After the Downie trial, Dr. Simpson obtained the actual data from Dr. Dubowski’s 1985 report. In applying the same analysis to the data that Dr. Dubowski used, Dr. Simpson discovered a major error. The incidences when breath analysis overstated actual BAC were not 2.3 percent of the tests, as Dr. Dubowski had testified to in the Downie case, but rather 23 percent of the tests – a wandering decimal point!
Dr. Simpson then published his findings in a respected scientific journal. They were never rebutted and Dr. Dubowski remained silent on the subject.
Attorneys across the country have taken note of the breathalyzer’s failings. This has lead authorities to resort to more invasive measures, including letting officers perform blood draws with very little training.
Recent research proves that measuring breath to determine actual BAC is a horrendously flawed concept. Errors can approach 50 percent! Still, even 15 years ago it was known and could be proven that in almost one quarter of Breathalyzer tests the readings were higher than the actual BAC.
How many thousands of people had their lives turned upside down, suffered major financial losses, lost jobs, and had their reputations destroyed by a system that used junk science to push its agenda?
Other Related Articles
218 Responses to “It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers”
By JOE on Oct 14, 2008
Officer Josh you and others posting, supposedly as cops, on here sound like reasonable officers. I wished we had some of your kind around here combined with speed limits that make sense (scientifically established).
Left lane hogging around here is rampant. Local blogs even reflect this problem. I see the danger it presents, not just to the left lane travelers but also the entire highway where this occurs. If five or six drivers are trying to maneuver around a stubborn left lane traveler (not unusual) that results in 10 or so lane changes. I’m sure as a safety expert you recognize the potential danger with each lane change especially with drivers who are emotionally upset with the slow driver. We’ve had 2 road rage incidents this year resulting in fatalities (very unusual for Tulsa, OK), not due to this particular situation but I expect it anytime. It behooves me to understand the lack of enforcement. The laws on this are clear and unambiguous about left lane travel. I’ve read some of NHTSA propaganda, under aggressive driving, and even they don’t seem to treat the problem with any degree of significance. I’m puzzled.
By Todd on Oct 13, 2008
I am most certainly for this German driving program to be implemented over here in the U.S. If it does get implemented here driving in the U.S. would be way better than what it is today. I am not saying that all American drivers are BONE HEADS but Americas drivers training program could be improve greatly. As for some states even their roads tests to obtain a drivers liscense is just a quick 20-30 min spin around the block which does not really tests the new drivers ability to safely drive and overcome challenges in which comes up in normal driving.
By Officer Josh on Oct 13, 2008
Joe,
You are absolutely right about the driving skills of the Germans. I was stationed there and the driving test is extreamely difficult. It took me 2 tries to pass and took most of my friends 3-4 times. We definitely should implement a similar program as the Germans.
However, i dont think that we (police) are exactly the problem, its more of the training by the MVA nationwide. If the police really cracked down, we would pull people over for driving in the left lane, which people do all the time. I dont do many traffic stops but if i do its running a red light or following too closely. I usually just give a warning for following to closely but if the red light was ran intentionally its a definite ticket, thats just unsafe and complete willingness to break the law. Especially when im sitting right there, its like a slap in the face.
By JOE on Sep 13, 2008
Glen says;
{The average American driver has terrible driving habits!}
Glen there’s a significant amount of truth to that statement.
Around here cops are part of the problem, not the solution. They enforce frivolous speed limits while letting all these other bad driving habits go. As you so eluded to, lane discipline is terrible. This disorder ends up producing dangerous side effects particularly when it comes to left lane hogs. I’m talking mostly expressways. Reading the local blogs, when it comes to driving, that’s one of the most frequent complaints about local drivers.
We have to start somewhere and I think that begins with our future young drivers. Instead of fattening the municipal coffers I’ve advocated for years using all this traffic ticket money to fund state-of-the-art drivers training programs throughout the state. This would also have a secondary benefit. It would reduce the incentive by municipalities to write frivolous citations since they would no longer benefit from them. I’m sure some states are better then others in this regard but Oklahoma basically doesn’t have a mandatory drivers training program much less a well funded one. The last time the AAA tried to get the state legislature involved they basically gutted the bill until it was meaningless. Of all the parties that did not support it was law enforcement. I would have thought they would have jumped on the bandwagon immediately. This is an issue that I think could be pushed more by the NMA.
One of the things that distinguishes us from German drivers is that we Americans practically get our drivers license from a box of Post Toasties, particularly in some states. German drivers are practically professional drivers by the time they start driving. We’ve got to start somewhere and no better place then our young future drivers. We will have to retrain our cops too.
Again revenue I believe interferes with our ability to deal with this issue. Some states or jurisdictions may be exceptions. Revenue is a constant that seems to thread itself through most traffic control issues. Until it’s dealt with I just don’t see much movement. Until there’s a political movement to do this, it’s unlikely anything will change. This takes a political solution. This is election year, a good time to ask candidates where they stand on traffic control issues. If we’ve got time to set here and blog then we’ve got time to to turn those word processors and attention to people who can actually affect the situation. Like Larry the Cable guy says; “Getter Done”.
By donleedon on Sep 13, 2008
OK, so I have more to say. This is straying a bit from direct content of the above article, but it does help to put it into perspective, as well as many other issues. My challenge to any one is to google the phrase “convictions doubled since 1980″ (no quotations) and someone please explain to me that the US is not becoming a police state. Motorists are not the only target, everyone is, slowly but surely our rights are eroding. I am not certain how to get it off the ground, but I am attempting to start a website and organization devoted to every person who is having their liberties trampled. We must unite even if we disagree on some things, otherwise we will accomplish nothing against the political machine that is set against us. Please check it out, and check back as I intend to make it better. http://www.webspawner.com/users/poelf/index.html
By Randy on Sep 11, 2008
JIMC5499 inaccurate can be that it is .01 or less off. It does not mean that if you have had nothing to drink that you would be charged as if you were.
As far as your friend the meter had nothing to do with that and it shows if you are inocent you can get off. It was a mistake by the officer if the bar was next door. Usually you are fine in most states doing that if the keys are not available and in sight.
By JIMC5499 on Sep 11, 2008
Wow! Over 200 replies and nobody gets the point of this article. According to this there is a 23% error in breathalyzers. Think about that for a moment. All of you who said that it isn’t right to drive after drinking anything and those of you who said that they don’t drink, need to REALLY think about this. You could be stone SOBER or have never taken a drink in your life and still have better than a 1 in 5 chance of being arrested for DUI. Our system has removed the rights of the accused if it involves DUI. We have made the burden of proof non-existant. Right now you can be stopped for no reason, made to submit to inaccurate tests, be forced to incriminate yourself and be found guilty because of a machine that malfunctions 23% of the time.
As far as you cops or so called cops are concerned, answer me one question. If it isn’t about the money, why is the person who realizes that they have had too much to drink, gets into the back seat of their car
and goes to sleep, is prosecuted as if they were driving? Several years ago I testified at a hearing for a man who was arrested for DUI while he was a sleep in the bunk of his Winnebago. He asked the owner of the bar he was at if he could park in the lot overnight and was given permission to do so. About 3 AM the local cop knocked on the door, when he answered she said she smelled alcohol and took him in. My testimony was to verify that the owner gave him permission to park there. The charges were dropped, after it cost him $1800 in lawyer fees.
By donleedon on Sep 11, 2008
I have been personally arrested and convicted of DWI two times in my life. In both cases I passed 2 of 3 SFST’s and in my most recent DWI the difference between the breath test and my blood test was 0.025 in one hour, which is supposedly impossible.
In both cases the only test that I failed was the HGN test. I almost got another DWI prior to these, and oddly enough, the only test I failed was the HGN test. In this case I had only had one beer one hour prior to being pulled over. In another case, I was pulled over simply because I had bought my car two days prior to being pulled over and did not have permanent license plates yet.
I was given a sobriety test in this case as well, which once again, I passed all but the HGN test, and in this case I had just gotten off of work and had not had anything to drink at all. In the cases where I was actually cited with DWI, neither of them had to do with signs of impairment, it was other ‘violations’ that got me pulled over in the first place. There is no where to go to find out of you are the 1 in 4 individuals that the breathalyser gets wrong as with neither of my DWI’s had I drank very much at all.
In fact, I refuse to drive drunk, I have walked 20 miles to my house in the middle of the night (there is no public transportation where I live) because I have had a few too many and had to get a ride to my vehicle the next day or walk back to it.
On my second DWI, I not only got a blood test, but I also did some research in blood chemistry in relation to alcohol. Most sites are inconclusive as there are many factors that can contribute to rising BAC, equilibrium, and lowering BAC.
According to BAC calculators online (several of them) stated that given my consumption at my second DWI I should have been at 0.05 BAC give or take a 100th of a percentile. But according to state witnesses in my case, ones that stated that 0.025 is within ‘normal’ range, my BAC should have been lower than 0.02 when arrested, based on the amount that I had had to drink and time that had passed if my body chemistry was such.
The point of all of this, nothing that is used anymore to determine whether someone is too ‘drunk’ to drive is scientifically worthy and should not be admissible as evidence. One of three sobriety tests should not determine a further test.
And even though I don’t believe I was even close, I believe the BAC limit is much too low, and oddly enough, the founder of MADD (Candace Lightner) agrees with me that the problem drunk drivers are at 0.15 or higher. She simply wanted enforcement of the current laws.
Oddly enough, so does the AMA, which set that standard for many years in US history until 1984 (odd year for this to happen, eh?). And yes, Reagan was in office then, but you cannot blame only the right for these insane laws, Clinton passed the omnibus bill for federal highway funding that made it required that all states lower even more to 0.08. I have more to say, but this post would be even more incredibly long than it is now.
By bobby widner on Sep 9, 2008
hi everyone any help would be greatly appreciated. i recently had the week end off in baton rouge due to curfew cause off storm. im a truck driver and 11 yr. safe driver. i was sick the whole week end and dehydrated from stomach issues. so sunday finally got some water but was hungry had seen that steakhouse was going to be open, so stareving went to get a steak and had some beers. i then went to bed that evening. well after 9hrs. of sleep and 5 hrs off watching tv my company requested i do a random, i had no problem at all i dont do drugs or drink like a fish, so i go right away blew .069 im like something isnt right by the time i got the test had not had a beer in about 14 to 15 hrs. then took second one in 15 minutes .070, but i knew i hadnt drank in a long time. a doctor and a pharmacist told me was cause of dehydration from my stomach flu.is this true and can i do anything to have taken off my record? plz advize my family and i are about to be on the street cause no one will hire me. thanks bobby
By Glen on Sep 3, 2008
I certainly don’t want drunks on the road either, but EVERYONE seems to be missing the point. The average American driver has terrible driving habits! American drivers basically drive anyway they please! There is basically no order on the highways and roads. These habits not only add to the accidents out there they are the number one cause of traffic jams! Yet NO ONE talks about it. In MD yapping on cells phone is still legal. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been forced to pass on the right, and when I go by I look at the driver clogging up the left lane and they are yapping on a cell phone, totally out of touch with what their driving is causing and seemingly could not care less! It could be during the morning rush, evening rush anytime! The rule of keeping right except to pass has long ago been forgotten! If airline pilots were allowed to fly there aircraft anyway they please, there would be plane crashes everyday, just like there are car crashes everyday! The average American driver drives as though they are sitting in their living rooms. Drivers get into the left lanes MILES before making left turns, clog up the road and get mad if you try to flash your lights at them for them to move out of the way! The cops do nothing, because they are immune from tickets and love issuing tickets for meaningless infractions, the politicians only want to build more roads so they can spend more of the taxpayers money, because building more roads simply spreads the confusion over more lanes. This is why widening highways rarely ends traffic jams. There is no other way to move traffic efficiently. Everyone MUST work towards the same objective, keep the traffic flowing. The right lane is for the slowest moving traffic, each lane to the left MUST carry traffic moving about 10 MPH faster, and so on out to the far most left lane, it’s just that simple. If you want to stay in the far left lane, that’s OK, but you MUST constantly pass the traffic to your right!
By Randy on Sep 1, 2008
Here is a start for your reading
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/speeding/PDFs/escape_d3.pdf
Also read the part about speed enforcement
5.1 COMMUNITY LEVEL SPEED ENFORCEMENT
By James Young on Sep 1, 2008
Isn’t that what I just said?
By Randy on Sep 1, 2008
Here you go James about the driving problems with different BAC.
http://www.dui.com/dui-library/fatalities-accidents/accidents
Laboratory studies designed to evaluate the effects of alcohol on psychomotor performance reveal that alcohol affects vision, eye-hand coordination and reaction time only at moderate to high doses (generally at blood alcohol levels well above .10%). However, the most relevant driving-related behaviors affected by alcohol are probably divided attention tasks. Alcohol impairs the ability to attend and respond to complex stimuli at very low BACs ( e.g., .02%†.03%). It is believed that such laboratory findings translate well to real-world driving situations where it is necessary to pay attention to many different events, such as road and traffic conditions, speed, traffic control devices, lane position, pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway signs, etc., often in a nearly simultaneous fashion.
On closed-course driving tests, at BACs of about .06%-.09%, variability in lane position and brake use increased and steering ability decreased. Using a driving simulator approach, it has been found that at BACs approaching .10%, there are increases in braking (up to 45%), and gear changing and steering errors. In some laboratory tests, alcohol produces impairment on complex tests when blood levels are as low as about .02%. Epidemiological data indicate that the risk for an accident begins to increase at blood alcohol levels above .05% so that at .08% the risk of an accident is about 5 times greater than when sober. However, the probability of being innocently involved in an accident remains level and does not increase with increasing BACs. In other words, alcohol intoxication, even at high levels, does not significantly change the relative risk of an accident when other drivers or factors are found to be responsible for the accident.
By Randy on Sep 1, 2008
James whatever you call it DUI does cause accidents and bad ones. You can call it whatever you like. I guess if you want to blame it on poor judgement or decisions or whatever you like DUI causes them all and that causes crashes.
As far as looking at reports about lowering drinking and driving cutting back on the number of accidents and injuries there are plenty. You go out and find them. I have but you would not believe anything I post so look it up yourself.
By James Young on Sep 1, 2008
Randy writes: {I have to laugh. James is now defending drunks rights to drive. DUI causes more accidents and death than about anything else. Stricter enforcement is one of the things that has brought accident rates and death rates down. I would show you statistics on it but you would not believe it anyway.}
Listen, you ignorant troll, you can’t even understand what I’m saying or even restate my case coherently, much less argue intelligently enough to counter it. Do not ever presume to speak for me. I can speak well enough for myself.
I do not defend drunks’ rights to drive but only point out that “alcohol-related” crashes are not necessarily drunk driving. If we are going to use facts to argue a case, you cannot just create your own facts, which is exactly what you have been doing. Drunk driving does not *cause* crashes. Poor judgment and inattention *cause* crashes and alcohol impairs the ability to make quality decisions and creates confusion, which, in turn, *cause* crashes.
Please show us your evidence that stricter enforcement has led to a long-term downward trend in crash-rates and fatality-rates. Safety Nazis like to credit MADD with driving down alcohol-related crashes and it is true but incomplete. It wasn’t the enforcement that followed their efforts but the public awareness and the demonizing of drunk driving that led to the improvement. Further, MADD has since prostituted itself and is now a profit-driven marketing agency. No, we don’t believe your statistics because they are crap. The sad thing is that you have no idea why.
By Randy on Sep 1, 2008
I have to laugh. James is now defending drunks rights to drive. DUI causes more accidents and death than about anything else. Stricter enforcement is one of the things that has brought accident rates and death rates down. I would show you statistics on it but you would not believe it anyway.
By James Young on Sep 1, 2008
10-32 writes: {Where to start? Let me start with this fact 17500 people are killed in alcohol related crashes every year.}
And NHTSA, MADD , IIHS and enforcement agencies across the nation would have us believe that those are all “drunk driving” crashes. They are not. If a perfectly sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian, that gets counted as an “alcohol-related” crash but NHTSA never even tries to distinguish between that and a crash where the driver was completely drunk, passes out and crashes into a bridge pier.
{The people that want you to believe the breath test results are [voodoo] don’t understand the difference between bad science and good science.}
Oh, I understand the difference between good science and bad science. I also understand that science is often ignored or perverted to achieve some goal. Such is the case with breathalyzers. Breathalyzers measure the concentration of alcohol in breath and then impute that reading to a concentration of alcohol in the blood and then impute that to a degree of impairment. Breathalyzers are not particularly accurate – as is being exposed in courts and in true scientific trials every day – and do not necessarily bear any quantifiable correlation with BAC, at least not accurate enough to withstand scientific scrutiny, but nonetheless are accepted by courts as a matter of expediency rather than truth. Last, even BAC – even when measured accurately by a blood test – do not necessarily correlate to a quantifiable degree of impairment. Thus, it is a very long leap of faith from breathalyzer to conviction of a crime in terms of science but one that is taken much too eagerly by prosecutors whose goal is convictions rather than truth or improved traffic safety.
{For all of you that think it is easy to get away with lying in court you watch [too] much tv.}
Austin, Texas circa 1970: I was watching an attorney friend of mine (Buck McLean) defend a guy against a DUI. The cop listed a litany of observations from his model testimony, his cheat sheet, and Buck just let him go on. He listed “bloodshot eyes” and “flushed complexion” without even considering what he was saying. Buck then had the defendant stand up, had the reporter repeat the testimony about “flushed complexion” and asked the cop how he could tell since the defendant was a very dark black student from Uganda. Ooops! Seems that model testimony was used as a framework without regard to what the officer actually observed. Cops themselves call this “testilying.”
By 10-32 on Sep 1, 2008
Where to start? Let me start with this fact 17500 people are killed in alcohol related crashes every year. More people have died in alcohol related crashes then world war 1 , 2,korean war and vietnam combined. The people that want you to believe the breath test results are voodo don’t understand the difference between bad science and good science. The reason those results are accepted into court is because they met a strict standard. Peer review thru blood breath coralations constant testing with many studies done before they are ever used for evidence and not because some half witt that wants to make a living has a defence prostitue saying anything to make his $500 to $1000 and hour saying that he has evidence that the instrument does this or instrument doesn’t do that. See there must be more then him trying to munipulate and instrument or satistics. You must have good solid evidence and science.It has to be tested by peer groups and reviewed. I don’t expect those who believe in conspiracy theory to follow along. They believe if you throw enough b.s. on the wall some of it will stick. Those that want to believe what they read from those who depend on a livelyhood to put their unproven theroies out there. Their job is to put doubt in the jurors mind. They make a darn good living doing it. If you think its being done because they have your best intrest in heart you are kidding yourself. I do want these so called experts to continue to show up in court all they do is lend more credibility to the instrument.
I am not talking about defense attys. I believe in the system and I believe that when you hire a atty he should earn his money and defend you with vigor. Personally I enjoy the challange makes me better. I have much respect for these attys and many of them are my friends but when we go inside the court its buisness. You make all the excuse you want and you can lie to yourself if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I have been involved in over 12000 thats right twelve thousand DUI cases and I have never seen anyone convicted by a breath test alone just doesn’t happen. It’s the totalty of the circumstance. One must have probable cause for the stop, probable cause to believe there under the influence, probalbe cause for the arrest whether it was a lawfull breathtest or refusal. Once you get to court all this is tested thru motions to supress. For all of you that think it is easy to get away with lying in court you watch to much tv. Just like lying at anything it will catch up with you but a lot faster. Its to easy to spot a liar on the stand and once you credibilty is gone so are you.
For all the one’s that believe your own B.S. I speak from experince those that choose to listen and educate themselves on the truth great, those that want to continue lying to themselves, if you can’t dazzle them brillance baffle them with B.S. When you go knock on the door and the mother, father, son or daughter who has to be told that a family member was killed by a drunk driver This is the worst and most hated thing in the world.
So much more could be said but my job is not to convince anyone just to make sure your taken off the street so you don’t kill yourself or someone else. It’s a thankless job but I sleep just fine.
By JOE on Aug 13, 2008
I don’t know about your particular situation but this country has become so absurd about drinking that you’d think the Taliban had taken over. People arrested on riding lawn mowers, horseback, ect. Arrested for sleeping it off in their vehicle. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. If they convict you then that’s going to take the cake. Keep us posted.
By todd on Aug 9, 2008
I recently put my car in the ditch avoiding deer. I lived very close so I walked home. 4 hours later the police showed up at my house and had me blow a breathalyzer. I told them I had 4-5 beers since getting home. Once they got the .10 reading they arrested me for dui. Is this going to stick in court? They have no field sobriety, no witnesses to the accident. Only a bac in my house 4 hours later.
By surftrunks on Jul 15, 2008
sorry to hear about your injuries. no one here is promoting drunk driving. the guy who hit you is likely a rummy and no amount of dui’s will change his inability to make decisions as you and i do…they are drunks and are wired differently.
the topic here is that a very significant number of arrests were and are made based on science that is junk. like all discussion threads i’ve ever seen this has degenerated.
let’s get the fact back in front…23% of field tests are inaccurate…not 2.3% BIG DIFFERENCE and oddly, the tests don’t seem to err on the low side.
By CASSIDY411 on Jul 14, 2008
Just make a simple choice…if your going to drink–> get a freakin cab. It’s cheaper than a DUI and less of an impact on others. Plus, you can have more fun knowing that you be home safely.
I have 1st hand experiance with a drunk..hit me head on at 50mph. 6 herniated discs, 1 cervical fusion and cronic pain that will last for the rest of my life. I can no longer play 15years of hockey gone, my mountain bike collects dust, and my kayak remains dry. I am only 30.My medical bills are in excess of $100,000. All because a stupid moron decided to drive a car, who by the way had 3 previouse DUI’s.
By surftrunks on Jul 8, 2008
joe, we are likely very much i agreement on this issue…the expansion of govt. power alarms me too.
By JOE on Jul 5, 2008
surftrunks…whaooaaa on the Supreme Court. May I remind you about “sobriety check stops”. Even though they admitted it was a breech of civil liberties they still approved it. Further, have you gone back and noted how historically the Supreme Court has sided with law enforcement as opposed to the driving public.
If law enforcement thinks they need another way to T-bone the driving public and can’t get it through the traditional legislative manner they simply pick a good test case and sheppard it in the direction of the Supreme Court. In case you haven’t noticed, activist judges now-a-days make law through their ruling/opinions. Here’s a golden rule. Government in general is anti-automobile. Bear that in mind any time you go calling on the government for any kind of relief….particularly from law enforcement. We even have a minority of drivers that hate their fellow drivers and will accuse them of being the worst drivers on the road all the while eating breakfast while driving and reading a newspaper on the way to work in the morning. Some of these drivers continue to hate there fellow drivers even though they may have got had a isolated incident or two while driving …so now everybodys’ their enemy. They will support law enforcement every time they get a chance and denigrate drivers ever chance they get.
Getting back to law enforcement and the Supreme Court. Now we have seat belt checks, drug checks and any other check point that law enforcement can dream up. After all it’s just a MINOR inconvenience! Many of us knew that the approval of one type check point would morph into all kinds and that’s exactly what has happened. Law Enforcement has had a history of mission creep like this. Given’em a inch and they will find a way to take a mile……and get by with it.
If you think some things are sacred cows and protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, think again. Go back and study the rulings of the Supreme Court for the last 30 years. Law Enforcement has just about got everything they dreamed of when it comes to the driving public. If your in a car (sometimes even on private property), you or your passengers have basically no rights anymore. Even if you do….try refusing a cop the right to search your car. When you say NO he’s not going to take that lightly and you may be along side the road for several hours while he leisurely obtains a search warrant. So it pretty much boils down to the cops are king out on the open road. Once you face a traffic stop, your pretty much their subjects no matter how abusive they get. If you don’t think so I would encourage you to read this article. Oh, and with all the unmarked cars running around, hope and pray it’s actually a cop and not someone out to rape or rob you.
9/10/2007
Missouri: Police Threaten, Detain Motorist for Parking After Hours
A St. George, Missouri police officer is caught on tape threatening to invent charges to arrest a motorist for parking after hours.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
By surftrunks on Jun 28, 2008
what is shocking is how retarded you all seem as you sound the alarm for expansion of the nanny state. more taxes…more laws, more rules…THE TOPIC HERE IS THAT THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW ARE BOGUS AND BASED ON JUNK SCIENCE THAT THE “SCIENTIST” KNEW WAS DEFECTIVE BY A MILE AND YET ALLOWED IT TO BE RELIED UPON. THAT MAKES IT A FRAUD ON EVERYONE IT WAS USED TO CONVICT! it also makes it an embarrassment to scientists in general.
just like a gun ban, illegal detention of prisoners, bans on gay marriage…it appears that this too will need to get to the supreme court before it gets corrected.
learn it, know it. live it people…two wolves and a sheep cannot vote on who’s for lunch and you cannot vote to eliminate a right. THAT’S WHY IT’S A RIGHT!