It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers

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?

Not an NMA Member yet?

Join today and get these great benefits!

Leave a Comment

403 Responses to “It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers”

  1. Dave S. says:

    This article is only half the question – the other half is by how much were the results overstated, and, by how much were results understated.

    Still, if you feel OK driving drunk, you should not be bothered if your surgical team has a couple of rounds before opening you up.

    The best BAC is zero.

  2. Becky says:

    Idiots. Officers, regardless of how much training, do not perform blood draws. They take people to the hospital where the lab does the dirty work.

    Dave has a good point. If you're driving drunk and willing to put yourself or others at risk, why should anyone care how you are getting prosecuted for it. How about taking some responsibility for your own actions.

  3. Eva says:

    Refuse the BAC test and tell the cop that you know of a really fine institution where you can have a blood test done. Make sure it is 20 miles or more away and tell them you want to be taken there, maybe by that time your BAC will be less….

  4. snakeflake says:

    For the guy who said the best BAC is 0, yes that is true if you want to make sure you never get a DUI. However, I like to have a couple of drinks with friends occasionally. I weigh 200 lbs. 2-3 drinks over the course of a couple of hours is not going to impair my driving. If I were to go through a roadblock and the officer suspected I had been drinking and administered a flawed test I would be arrested. That is wrong. I have the right to have those drinks and drive as long as I am not impaired. I do not drive drunk, but a flawed test could ruin you night and possibly your whole life.

  5. col gary says:

    Do not delay a breath test. You could drink a bottle of vodka and immediatly take a test and pass, wait an hour or so, and you will blow the numbers off the screen. That is why the police will take there time before a formal test, usually two hours. Your BAC will regester much higher then when you were first stopped. Better off refusing any test, no matter what, you are still going to jail. Don't give them anything to hang you with. I know, I am a former cop.

  6. David says:

    Col Gary is somewhat mistaken about delaying a breath test. Alcohol absorbs into the system very rapidly through the mouth (no not when you swallow). If you have a drink and immediately take a breath test you will test very high. It takes about 20 minutes for the alcohol to absorbe into the system from the mouth, that is why the officer waits, a minimum of 20 minutes sometimes longer to give a test so he will get a more acurate reading.

  7. Hat says:

    I have used the breathalizer in the er and yes the etoh(alcahol) level will be high immediately after consuming, And will lower with time.

  8. Milander says:

    pathetic.. arguing over how much alcohol you can drink before being considered safe behind a wheel. I suggest you take note of teh many countries which have a zero tolerance towards drink and driving, like HUngary where I live. If you are going to get behind 2 tons or more of metal you need to be sober. I've seen people pissed on 1 beer let alone 4 which some states allow.

    Get over yourselves and introduce zero tolerance, there is NO safe limit at which to drive.

  9. Galen says:

    Bravo, Milander!!!
    I agree with you, If we had a Zero tolerance on alcohol consumption before driving in the United States, it would make my job as a Police Officer a lot easier.
    Then all we would have to show is that they had consumed alcohol… not listen to bottom feeding lawyers in court about how innocent, and a victim of his environment their client is!
    But then I guess all of our politicians would have to be held to a higher standard, and we couldn't have that now could we!!!

  10. Galen says:

    Reply to Hat's comment,
    One reason for the higher BAC after consumption is "residual mouth alcohol", that is why we administer the test at the jail after a 20 min observation period.
    BAC will also climb to a certain level after consumption, then drop off as long as no more alcohol is consumed.

  11. Galen says:

    Col Gary is totally wrong about when to take a breath test!
    First of all, if you were a cop, you shouldn't be trying to give criminals advice on how to get away with breaking the law and possibly killing others.
    2nd, right after drinking a bottle of vodka, you would have extemely high BAC numbers that would reflect totally inaccurately that person's actual BAC due to "residual mouth alcohol" (as I mentioned earlier.) 3rd, col Gary, if you ever where a cop, which I doubt, I am glad you are a former one!-thanks for trying to give the criminal element advice, and making all good cops jobs a little harder!!! Some people have no business in law enforcement!!!

  12. Fritz says:

    As for you foreigners, while you can express your opinions, they really don't count in the USA so don't try to import your totalitarianism into this county – thank you. I agree with getting REALLY drunk drivers off the road but I have a problem with what some rate as "impaired". Studies have shown and even the GAO testified, when congress was busy forcing states to adopt lower BAC standards, admitted that lowering the BAC probably wouldn't have much effect and it hasn't. It's put many more drivers in jail but hasn't had much effect on accidents and that was predictable.
    While you can argue the details of DUI/DWI's I'm here to tell you that there's a larger picture to this. MAD started it and initially had good intentions but as we all know sometimes the best intentions pave the path to hell. As the organization grew and their reliance on special interest funding grew so did their tilt towards becoming a prohibitionist movement. Even the founder quit the organization.
    Some people would love to see zero tolerance (totalitarianism). Lets face it, some of these same people don't want anybody, anywhere, anytime, anyplace to ever, ever, ever have a drink – period. You'd sure make a good Muslim (nothing against Muslims). In the larger scheme of things this isn't about drunk driving it's about a mentality of intolerance maybe mixed in with some religion. If this was really about drunk driving we would take a hard look at statistics and establish a REASONALBLE standard – but it's not, so quit make-believing it is.
    If you want to talk about impairments, based against a perfect standard we all have impairments that decrease our safe driving ability. Some are voluntary, some are not. We already know what causes most accidents and that's what law enforcement should be concentrating on. Reasonable DUI enforcement is a good thing but in recent years the zealotry that some people have jumping on this bandwagon concerns me. Reasonable people better start chiming in on this issue.

  13. Trooper2421 says:

    Officers are out to make strong cases against DRUNK people. We aren't out to lock up innocent people, it a waste of our time and is going to make us look bad in court. An officers career depends on how well his cases are in court. If he brings shit cases where some guy had a few beers then he looks like an asshole to the judge and the prosecutor and they don't take him seriously. Any good cop who knows his DUI laws and the science behind it can make a DUI case without any blood or breath sample. The key to not getting a DUI is to take a F#@%ING cab or get a ride. We get tired of working accidents where a%#wipe business man or f#@%stick college student drank one too many and plowed into a tree or killed someone in another car. Driving buzzed is driving drunk and you will go to jail.

  14. Peter J. Moss says:

    I love my local neighborhood bar that's within walking distance. Makes driving home my riding mower a lot more tolerable.

  15. BuzzedDriver says:

    Trooper, you're an idiot. People that are buzzed don't crash into trees or cause fatal collisions. Those are the seriously impaired drivers swerving all over the road, not the guy drifting around his own lane. Being a pig though, it's understandable how you can criticize driving after a few brews, without ever having done so yourself. Self-righteousness. Isn't it cool?

  16. Excop says:

    Trooper, as you and I know, stone cold sober people crash into trees and cause fatal collisions every day. People that are "buzzed" greatly increase their odds of crashing into trees and causing fatal collisions, even if their blood alcohol level is under the legal limit. Someday, it's very likely that one of our brother or sister officers will be pulling BuzzedDriver out of a wrecked car. The only regretable thing is, he or she will probably take one or more innocent people with him or her.

  17. regular guy says:

    Bravo, Fritz

  18. Justin says:

    excuess my spelling: Look if you get pulled over omit to nothing, take the soberity tests if you think you can pass them. When it comes time to take the breath alizer, if they even feel the need to give you one, plea the 4th amendment (yes 4th not 5th for you stuipd cops that argue with me) it protects your rights to not sumit to a drug or achocl test! which will probably result in you losing your license for 3-6 months for refusing at the same time plea the 5th amendment expressing your right to decline all or part of the testing till you speak with your lawyer this may buy you a few hours, if you know you wont pass just refuse its harder to prove a case (which it still can be done) against you if its just the offices big mouth, and you may be able to plea bargain for a lesser charge. If you were orginally pulled over for speeding and the office trys to or does give you a dui request the serial#, make and model of the defice used, in most states they have to give you this info., then get a lawyer and see if the gun was calibrated if it was not he had no right to pull you over in the first case and it should be dismissed, if he wont or doesnt have to give you the serial# etc, go to the police or station and ask for all the serials # and calibration dates if they refuse go to trail you will get the info. you need there they have to give it to you

  19. Taco says:

    Fritz I agree with you 100 percent. The only thing you left out is the financial side. Where would this country get the millions of dollars in revenue it gets EVERY year it has gotten since MADD was organized and took over the coutr system if not for DUI & DWI. I love it when I hear one of the A**h*les in MADD gets a DUI. I was told by A very high up judge Madd inspects their court records monthly. If there are very many DUI cases found not guilty. That judge will not be a judge very long.

  20. Kip Fuller says:

    I would take an "impaired" adult on the road that has had 2 beers before I would accept a sober driver at any age "Texting" while driving!

    Recently, I watched for 5 minutes going down I-25 in Denver a young person 18-23 who was all over the road. When I finally had enough of his speeding up, slowing down, drifting from lane to lane, I accelerated past him and looked at him and saw he was busy tapping away on his I-Phone! We need new laws about that NOW! Drinkers get BAC's. Texters should get a phone records check to see if they were "texting" at the time of an infraction.

    I believe we haven't even scratched the surface as to how many accidents this has caused yet because we have no system to track it! Just look around you. Watch how many people are walking and talking / texting! And you think they're not doing that while they're driving too? You're a fool if you don't think so!

  21. TexasAxMan says:

    I agree with Fritz and Kip Fuller. Enough with the zero tolerance crap. Crack down on the cell phone usage and traffic accidents will fall off.

    In Texas, you see a 105 lb. woman driving a 6,000 lb. Excursion while talking on the phone and putting on makeup with the kids screaming in the back. Talk about an accident waiting to happen ……

  22. Bill "Henchman& says:

    Demand your rights! Refuse the breathalizer, demand to be arrested and that the PO get a Court Order for your blood. At that point you may be well below the BAC. If so, get a lawyer and you will own the county.

  23. BOB STICKLEY says:


  24. Mike says:

    Its amazing that all of these letters ignore the main point of the article. Breathylizers can be very inaccurate. If your being arrested on the basis of a readind that is overstating your bac then it's entirely possible that you are not drunk. Everyone can show a low bac even if they've had nothing to drink. The drug and alchohol test that is used by the DOT to screen truckdrivers,airline pilots, etc. categorizes a bac under 0.02 as a negative result meaning you passed it. Anything between 0.02 and 0.04 is impaired and over 0.04 is drunk. Hospital blood draw tests can have margins of error approaching 40% depending on the test used. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that polygraphs are inadmissable(accept as exculpatory evidence in some cases) because even the best estimates say they are wrong at least 20% of the time. The preliminary breathylizers used on the street are very inaccurate and usually inadmissable as well. They must be followed up by a test on a certified machine by a certified operator(usually different from the arresting officer) after the arrest. Once you've been brought in under arrest your chances of passing that are slim and none regardless of what your bac is. A cop can say you blew anything. If you've been arrested based on an innacurate test then you are not DRUNK and that is a crime!!

  25. Mike says:

    Bob, you say reliable statistics say that 36% of traffic fatalities are caused by "drunk drivers". I beg to differ. They say that 36% of traffic fatalities are "alchohol related accidents". All that means is that a police officer checked a little box on the report that says "HBD" meaning had been drinking. There doesn't have to be any arrest. You could be sitting at a red light after 2 beers and get rear ended by someone who's had nothing to drink and it's an alchohol related accident if the officer checks that little box. Here in Michigan if the hbd box is checked for both drivers they count it as two alchohol related accidents even if no one has been arrested for drunk driving.This was done to justify their push for check lanes. These are hardly reliable statistics.

  26. Fritz says:

    As Mike so eloquently pointed out the term "alcohol related" may not have anything to do with actual causation of the accident. A pedestrian with any alcohol in his/her system killed by a perfectly alcohol free driver is a "alcohol related" fatality according to some and is reported as such. Hence the skewed statistics. It's similar to another popular reporting term "speed related".

    I think these terms may have been dreamed up by NHTSA's idiots sitting in their ivory tower. They like to dramatize everything that comes out of their mouth to make it seem worse then the situation actually is. Ever watched them testify in front of congress? If you have, you'll quickly accumulate a healthy DISRESPECT for them. They come about as close to traffic control NAZI's as I've seen anywhere. According to the NMA, NHTSA been known to hide reports with the results of a study don't favor their view or propaganda. NHTSA and MADD are two powerful groups that would love to see zero tolerance.

    Oh and by the way, I work in the transportation industry (airplanes) and I had my drug test about a week ago. But that's another issue for another day. That also means I'm under the zero tolerance for alcohol. I didn't get the Breathalyzer test although it's common, but not mandatory, to get it along with a drug test. Not to mention the sobriety check points I go through every once in awhile since I get off work at midnight. So MADD and the government have already found away to slip zero tolerance into some of our lives. I know nobody's going to believe this but I'm a life long non-drinker. You see, this MADD mentality touches my life too…as a non-drinker. But I see the larger picture as special interests working the power levers of government to run amock……again.

  27. Fritz says:

    We sometimes tend to criticize the cops for blatant actions (and we should). But on the other hand they are doing this as a job. I can't say I'd ever make a good cop because if I was asked to use a Breathalyzer, I'd tell the chief to stick the Breathalyzer up where the sun don't shine. I probably wouldn't have a job very long. But, as a cop if I stopped you it would be for something that REALLY causes most accidents, not some theoretical ballony such as making revenue for the municipality.

    However, cops can't do this without authorization so we seem to forget to criticize the idiots up the chain of command that authorize this stuff. Our good old do-nothing congress is a good start. Then your state legislators also qualify for bowing under pressure to the Feds. So, we need to giv'em all equal time and we need to communicate our dissatisfaction directly to them. Oh, and lets don't forget our activist judges who like to expand traffic control laws from the bench. You can bet if a case goes before a judge and it's the lowly driver vs the government….guess who he's/shes gonna rule in favor of. Good guess. That's right, the government.

    And last but not least lets blame ourselves for not getting involved enough to counter some of this MADness. It's fun to debate issues on the Internet but it's not going to the right people unfortunately. As slimly as it can get, we have to learn to play the political game. All our adversary's (read MADD and NHTSA) already have.

    Isn't it kinda funny…..NOT! that the Feds according the constitution cannot institute state traffic laws …..but indirectly they go right ahead and do it anyhow. What's that corrupting force that's so menacing and constantly comes up when we talk traffic control….MONEY? Many of these congressmen were former state legislators. Ask your congressmen to explain how he/she used to complain about the federal government mandating things against the state's will. But, now as congressmen they support it though programs like the National Highway Omnibus funding program (which congress is working on right now).

  28. Kip Fuller says:

    You guys will find this interesting. Last night I went over to a friend's home to watch the B-Ball game and have a few beers. He is a Denver Police Officer. I asked him about this website and how accurate he thought roadside tests were. For kicks, he pulled out his portable breathalyzer and we took turns blowing. It's amazing the difference between people. When 2 other buddies came in, we administered the test to them. They were both about the same size and weight. Neither had had a drink yet. They both chugged 1 beer. A few minutes later, one blew a .76 and the other a 1.88! Explain that?

  29. Bottomline says:

    We all have our own opinions. That is fine. And as widely diverse as they are, I think it's safe to say none of us wants anyone to be hurt or killed by impaired judgement. The government (public servants) wants this debate to continue. If not, something more would have been done by now. When the (govenment) wanted certain drugs made illegal, it was done. And there are many other examples of what the government wants, the government gets.

    The bottom line is that the government could have car manufacturers install intelligent systems on vehicles to prevent, or at least hinder, the drivers ability to drive drunk. One reason the govenment doesn't do this is, the auto industry lobby is to powerful (i.e. – forks over a lot of money) It's a corrupt system at times, why should the people be any different? What's the saying about an apple and the tree it fell from? As long as you are engaged in the debate, the governing body wins and everyone stands the chance to lose someone they care for. If you want real change enacted, stop talking here and start calling your legislators. Be good or be good at it.

  30. Scoots says:

    Here's another thought: Our taxes go to pay our "public servants" salaries. So if I have a 2 1/2 beers instead of 2—why can't I call "public servant" – an officer & have him drive me home??

  31. Hilarious!!! says:

    After reading the posts here it's not too hard to tell who the "regular" drunk drivers are and the Police haters. Please, PLEASE, don't call the Police when you need them.

    And God forbid some "pig" has to pull one of your loved ones out some burning wreck that just got T-Boned by a drunk driver in the middle of the night. Because, trust me, you won't have the pleasure of doing it.

    Have a nice day.

    PS "Scoots" – if the Police cruisers had a sticker on the side of them "Police TAXI" we would be more than happy to give you a ride home. If "emergency service" means anything to you, then I guess, well, 'nuff said.

  32. clean & sober... says:

    A bad drunk driver is a bad sober driver in general, yet there is usually no loss of licsense or heavy fine if you are one of the stupid yet stone sober people that cause the majority of car crashes.

  33. Navy Chic says:

    Well this is just my two cents. Breathalyzers can be faulty and the only time that I feel that this should even be considered in court is in the case of those with CDL's. A CDL driver is zero tolerance so this means not only beer, wine or liquor it means no cough syrup and mouthwash. As far as cell phones go, on all military instillations it is illegal to use a cell phone, i.e. no talking, no texting, nothing with it at all. This has decrease the amount of wrecks on base which is a good thing. As far as those that feel the urge to bash the police think on this for a moment. I don't see you doing their job and when the s#*$ is hitting the fan who are you yelling for ohh that's right the ones that you bash. I will admit I do usually cuss when I get pulled over but you know what that guy is just doing his job the one that youns pay him to do. So next time you want to start on one of your so called hate the cop spichells remember they are the ones that are out there putting their a$$ on the line while you are home in your bed and there is a chance they might not even make it home so chew on that for a bit.

  34. Scoots says:

    I said 2.5 beers, Hilarious, not 12.5. My point IS that IF this is a matter of public safety and I believe that I could be determined a hazard to public safety according to the limit set for over 2 beers, then why can't I call a policeman to drive me home? Because it comes down to being more of a matter of greed and extortion more than being a matter of public safety.

    "We the People" are paying public servants to punish ourselves. (And I'm not talking about an obviously drunk driver–2.5 beers is not drunk). And it's not the cops fault that the breathylizer determines the level of punishment and arrest or not. I would prefer that a cop gets to use his own discretion and common sense. A policeman can more than likely determine if someone is drunk by a fair field sobriety test.

    No one wants to see drunk drivers on the road. But I also don't want my life ruined and pockets emptied because I chose to have 2.5 glasses of wine or beer and get pulled over for a headlight out & "smell like alcohol" and the cop is adding to his quota as opposed to having been pulled over for bad drunken-like driving.

    I support cops who have common sense. It's a shame they can't use their own discretion the majority of times.

  35. BOB STICKLEY says:

    The whole drunk driving "crusade" is a disgraceful farce, a nonsensical sham, and nothing more than a CASH COW scam for the lawyers and state & local governments. Hang you head low, America! Focus on things far more important. Such as an idiotic war and corrupt government. Don't forget history…Athens and Rome (among many others) were also "the best there is" (or so they fatuously thought). What a joke—except it's not funny! And for those who say "love it or leave it" I'm packing as I write. Have fun, y'all, you're in for a really rough ride!

  36. ronko says:

    Who drinks 2.5 beers? Where do you buy the 1/2 cans?

  37. Billy says:

    Ok I don't approve of drunk driving however…Always keep a unopened bottle of jack daniels in your globe box if you get pulled over and you know you might be getting a DUI. Take the keys out of the ignition get out and start drinking as much of the jack as you can in front of the cop. Then let them prove if you were drinking before or at the time the officer saw you drinking… Just a thought

  38. not an idiot says:

    @Becky way back on Oct. 26: most officers don't take blood themselves, but there is at least one county or city in which they do take blood themselves. i'm too lazy to look it up for you, but it is happening there…

  39. Eddiei says:

    Driving out of the parking lot of a pub is reasonable suspicion for a police officer to stop and question you. The police are highly trained to collect the evidence that can ultimately convict you. If the police officer sees your eyes, the officer can state that your eyes showed signs of alcohol abuse. If you speak to the officer, the officer can state that you breath smelled of alcohol. If you exit your vehicle and stand up, the officer can testify that you were unsteady on your feet.
    Without evidence to contradict any of the officer's observations, you are at the mercy of the justice system. Regardless of BAC results, it comes down to your word against that of a law enforcement officer.

    The fact is that you are guilty upon accusation when it comes to DUI, at least in the USA.

  40. Romulos says:

    Stickley, in order for your statistics to be useful, we would need to know what percentage of people who drive while intoxicated are at-fault in accidents, and what percentage of people who have a BAC of 0 are at-fault in accidents. The next step of your argument is that if no one drove a car, no car accidents would happen. True, but irrelevant. It's something like saying that if no one ever ate, there'd be no food poisoning deaths, or if no one ever thought, we wouldn't need brain surgeons.

  41. Copnow says:

    lol yeah please, PLEASE refuse the BAC. If I arrested you for DUII, I have a case with or without it. If you take it and fail, in my state, its 90 day suspension… if you refuse it, youre suspended for 1 year, period. So please, drunk assholes, refuse the bac. My report is shorter, you're gonna get convicted anyway with the rest of the evidence I collected before I even arrested you, and your suspension is going to be longer than it would be if you took it and failed, keeping your poor decision making ass off the road longer. So yeah, go ahead moron, refuse it. I'll LOL all the way to your DMV hearing and trial collecting overtime the whole way.

  42. Your mom says:

    As I read this discussion thread, I realized something. If you are passionate about a subject, and want to be taken seriously, it is extremely important to use proper spelling and grammar. You all appear to be uneducated idiots.

  43. aNurse says:

    Copnow seems to have an overactive gloating gland.
    No, Officer Underfilledcondom, you won't. If you pull me over, and try your idiotic cop tricks ("And where did you say you were going again?" "I didn't. And I won't."), you'll just get a calm, quiet nonargumentative person who refuses your test. You will have nothing for your report. Unless you make it up; which is inadvisable, since I record traffic stops.
    Dufus with a badge.

  44. Jim says:

    12 hours bottle to throttle. It's a simple rule that works well for operating all modes of transport.

  45. David Rockne-Semkow says:

    Eddiei, you've nailed it on the head. I am struck by the phony humor and unrighteous indignation of Copnow, Galen and others herein of their ilk. The topic of faulty equipment or faulty methodology never entered their thoughts in this discussion. A cop knows his job is to collect evidence to convict someone, no matter how innocent they might be. His job is never to exonerate anyone. When you are a police officer, everyone is a suspect. Guilt is something you just somehow know. All you gotta do is get the perps in jail. (A perp is anyone who is not a cop. Short for perpetrator.) And, like most cops, if you are not a cop, you are a/an(your crime here)asshole, scumbag or dirtball. To quote the late mayor Daly, the police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve disorder.
    That the method of proving your guilt may be faulty is of no concern. Breathalyzers, fingerprints (now currently suspect), or anything else need not have any evidence value. You can carve the peg to fit the hole. Cops knows they can lie to perps (suspects)to extract a confession and they can lie on police reports.
    I would guess there are almost no Christian police, since there are strong prohibitions against bearing false witness (Its a commandment. Discussions of the commandments and new covenants are not relevant here). Unless, that is, police have some secret religion that sells or gives them plenary indulgences so they can believe they are not sinning and not face any spiritual judgment on that count.
    Looks like among this lot of respondents you have the police and their supporters who would cut down every tree in the forest to get at the Devil, believing they at least have the armaments to keep themselves from needing a tree to hide behind should the Devil come after them.
    And Copnow gets to collect overtime from the public purse in his righteous endeavor to arrest those assholes and overcome the principles of Aequitas and Veritas. (That's equity and truth.)
    As Jesus said, "Go forth and sin no more." Will you stop using questionable devices, outright lies, and other otherwise immoral or unethical "tools" of the police trade and look for truth instead, Officers?
    Police often make such a fuss over inadequate or faulty tools. Make a fuss over all your faulty tools, then maybe someone will listen. Until then, its just average everyday people on power trips, without the wisdom or intelligence to use the power rightly. Next time I am in trouble, I am calling an Anarchist.

  46. G-funk! says:

    I drink 6 beers and feel completely relaxed behind the wheel.

  47. MS says:

    I always take a cab home. Maybe we should divde states in half. Then alcohol, and smoking and all that would be legal on one side, but not the other. Then we can just choose which side we wanna live on, and mind our own business.

    Oh wait a minute there are already other countries and regions out there that don't permit alcohol, and I don't live there. Mainly because I think those places suck. I guess you could just call me crazy for thinking that our freedoms, and the things we are allowed to do are what make America great, not what we are banned from doing. Wow, what a crazy thought.

  48. CR says:

    I wonder how long MADD would stay in business if a class action lawsuit were filed against it under the RICO statute for racketeering? The cop with the adittude for arresting someone with a 0.00 BAC for dui should be stripped of his badge and never again be given a position of authority ever again. Think you've got constitutional rights for dui? Think again. MADD, lawyers, politicians and judges are stripping us of them. It's time we took our rights back from those who would oppress us given the chance.

  49. GTRBOT666 says:

    why don't people just request the source code of the device which all the cases are dropped so far because most states would rather drop the case than have you or anyone else know how they assemble their information. who knows it might just be a random number generator?