Breathalyzers Fail Legitimacy Test
The technological backbone of the nation’s anti-drinking and driving crusade is the Breathalyzer test. The whole process appears very scientific, very equitable, and very fair. The problem is that the process is not any of these things.
Breath Alcohol Analysis
An article by Gerald Simpson on the topic of breath alcohol analysis. Excerpted from the book CSI/Forensic Fraud Cover-up by John Kelly .
Breath Tests Not Admissible Unless Accompanied By Uncertainty
From a purely scientific standpoint it is accepted that all measurement devices, no matter how sophisticated, have the potential for error and will exhibit some degree of inaccuracy. To be able to rely on a measurement device it must be known to what level or degree there is “uncertainty” in the accuracy of the measuring device results. The accuracy of the measurement is not only dependent on the measuring device. It is dependent on the thing being measured, the environment in which the measurement is taking place (temperature, humidity etc.), the procedures used to take the measurement and other factors.
The State of Washington Supreme Court case linked to above deals with the issue of “uncertainty” as it relates to Breathalyzer readings. It is lengthy and somewhat complicated, but it clearly adds to the argument that Breathalyzer readings should not be stand-alone evidence to support DUI convictions. The court does not make this admission or suggestion. However, when combining the uncertainty of the accuracy of the breath testing process with the failed presumption that breath alcohol content is a reliable surrogate for blood alcohol content, such a conclusion seems reasonable, if not inevitable.
Get The Real Drunks
Drunk driving is wrong, it’s irresponsible, and does cause a senseless waste of lives. However, what should be done about the problem is debatable and certainly open to discussion. That anyone should be killed by a drunk driver is tragic, but the solutions to this problem are often based on emotion, personal vendettas, and not rational thought, sound public policy, nor backed up by statistical data.
Drunk Driving Laws Are Out Of Control
An article by Radley Balko of the Cato Institute.
.08%, the “55” of DWI Laws
As long as the legal BAC was reasonably high, for example, .12 or .15, it was a fair indicator of unreasonable impairment. Unfortunately, today its use is arbitrary, unfair and a tool of abuse.
Lower BACs Target the Wrong Group
For the most part, alcohol caused traffic accidents involve drivers with fairly high blood alcohol contents (B.A.C.’s), i.e. greater than .15%. Contrastingly, there is incessant pressure to lower legal B.A.C.’s.
MADD and NHTSA continue to deceive the U.S. Public
An article on the propaganda of these agencies on the issue of DUI/DWI laws in the United States.
The Term’s The Thing
One of the key issues of the BAC laws is the use of “alcohol-related” as a surrogate for “alcohol-caused.” The massive NHTSA, MADD et.al. misinformation campaign has long implied that the mere presence of alcohol, no matter how little or how much, in an auto accident victim’s system should be considered the cause of the accident.