![[Shelbyville Times-Gazette]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Shelbyville, Tennessee ~ Monday, October 13, 2008
| Blogs | 
|
|
Anybody have a DUI they'd like to appeal?
Posted Friday, November 2, 2007, at 10:44 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
Lawyers...start your engines!
Ok, first of all, this may only apply to New Jersey, but I'm betting this will have ramifications throughout the country.
According to www.motorist.org, the "Dr." that originally published a study in 1985 that was considered the pre-eminent work in this field was mistaken. "Dr." Dubowski had originally found that Breathalyzers would overstate the BAC (blood alcohol content) by 2.3%. In actuality, according to a different scientist that was a witness in the same case, that number is off by a decimal point. It's actually 23%. WHAT?!? Twenty-three percent? Are you kidding me? Personally, it doesn't matter a flip to me since I've never had a DUI, but I've known numerous people that have lost their cars, jobs, families, and loads of money due to a device that the court system trusted and relied upon that turns out to be extremely faulty. Do you think that a police department would rely on a firearm that only actually failed to fire twenty-three percent of the time. Or a flak jacket that stopped all but twenty-three percent of the bullets that were fired at it? Probably not. I sure as heck wouldn't. Want to know more? Read the following: http://www.motorists.org/blog/corruption... Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics Here's what YOUR tax money is "bailing out"(33 ~ 5:27 PM, Oct 13)
A letter from "Bart Gordon" regarding the "bailout"
The Great American Sell-out....err...Bail-out.
Why are there only two choices in the poll?
Health Care in the U.S.A.
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I had something, not so funny happened to me right here in the big city of Shelbyville by one of Shelbyville's finest. I was on my way to Walmart one afternoon around 7 about a month or so ago. I think it was on a friday or saturday evening. I was listening to a preacher that was very interesting. (Usually, I would have music turned up to loud.)All of a sudden I noticed blue lights behind me. I immediately pulled over, which put me in the parking lot of the OLD Hobble House, next to Walgreen's. The officer gets out and comes to my window and asks me how much I'd had to drink? I'm in complete shock. I told him, "I don't drink." He said I was all over the road and almost ran up on the curve at one time. I told him I didn't know what He was talking about. He said I was just checking to make sure you were ok and walked away. He never checked my license or asked me to step out of the car or anything. So, I just wondered, "what was that about."
I had a funny thing happen several years ago. A guy was picked up for DUI and called his lawyer to the Shelbyille Police Department. The lawyer was arguing the machine was wrong and stated that before he was called he had downed a couple of beers. I happened to be there on another reason and he requested that I take the rest. I registered 0. He took it and was just below being legally intoxicated.
Machines should be able to be calibrated before each shift. Charge the person or authority who is wrong for the lab test.
If they are not taking the time to calibrate, or the machine is constantly faulty, it would quickly become important to correct.
Either way though, we need the impaired drivers off the road.
I've heard of some lawyers advising folk to refuse the Breathalyzers but DEMAND the blood test.
That's supposed to get them off the hook for refusing the breath test and give clearer proof of their innocence.
One downside is that injured,nervous or otherwise impaired people might forget that advice or only remember the part about saying 'no' to the Breathalyzer.
Another is that if the drivers are well-and-truly snockered,they have just paid a lab to confirm it.
Still,it sounds a lot better than facing a judge due to a false positive -or getting released to be a danger once more because of an inaccurate negative.