Aaron
Anyway, bowbearman. Best of luck with your situation and more power to you for the changes you have made and are making in your lifestyle.
Aaron
Aaron
You owe us no explanation and you getting prejudged aint right!
I would try to get out of it completely and I would win easy and I would not feel bad about doing it! He tested you 3 times and you were not showing impaired and you even passed a field sobriety test. It is supposed to stop there unless his tester was broken. It wasn't because you past it 3 times. He had no probable cause to haul you in and do a test at the station. That is an easy win case if I ever saw one.
Tell your moron lawyer to get the certification of the breathalyzers used at the time the breath tests you had were given. Even the one at the station. If not calibrated at proper intervals it can be off a little and get people convicted that were not actually impaired. I just watched a show on this.
Did the cop test you in the field those 3 times with the same breathalyzer or did he use 2?
Also....If you passed in the field 3 times and then 45 min to an hour later you tested above the legal limit then it works in reveres. It would be like me guzzling 4 beers and then getting pulled over 5 min later. I would test under the limit but 1 hour later I would be legally drunk. Usually when you test at the station they work they work it the other way to assume your approx blood alcohol level at the time of the stop when a person is drunk at the scene but not at the station.
This is an easy win case if what you are saying is true. Als your lawyer is an idiot! The only probable cause he would have had to arrest you just for another test would be if his hand held tester did not work when you blew in it but you said you passed each time and passed a field sobriety test so the cop was in error. If he suspected you impaired at that point he should have done a blood test for other substances because his probable cause for alcohol was finished IMO but I am not a lawyer..
Did you tell him you had just drank a few beers just before you left where you were and you knew you could get the 15 minuets back home before it impaired you or something? lol. If so he just waited until you became impaired.
He used the same one. He actually never told me I passed the breath test just kept saying it was not registering casue I was not blowing hard enough which was crap I was blue in the face from blowing so hard.
Aaron
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone"
That sucks man. I think it is BS that a guy can pass a field sobriety test with flying colors and they still give a breath test in every single case just about. One time they tried to pull that on me and I said "hey if I pass this will you gimmie a breath test to?' He said "yeah probably." I said 'well, so you don't piss me off lets just skip it and gimmie the breath test now so I can go home.' I passed and he let me go. I was still pissed because I had not drank anything and he was just fishing. They have no probable cause but they do it anyway. If he can prove it did not register then you might be screwed and his station test was valid but push it right up close to the day of trial before making any deal. They don't want to take this to trail.
Either way... because you passed a field test and you were just barely over the limit you MUST get your attorney to get his hands on the certification dates of the breathalyzer at the cop shop immediately. If it has not been calibrated or it was even a tiny amount off at the time you blew in it that could push you over the limit when you were not and the case gets tossed. I just watched this on a show and they are supposed to recalibrate these things and often they don't do so like they should and sometimes for long periods of time. Sometimes way past when they are supposed to.
The worst part is as far as I know you cannot cross examine the damn evidence of a marginal DUI because you cant save breath. It's the only evidence I know of that you cant really cross examine making it unconstitutional physical evidence. Maybe that has changed now and they have found a way to preserve your breath for independent testing. lol
I only say all this because you were barley impaired. Its not like you were drunk as a skunk and blew a .25 or something. If you did I would pile on you like everyone else. lol...Do you due diligence and get your hands on that certification and maybe you get lucky and find out you were not legally impaired. If not it cost you a few 100 bucks more. Its worth the effort from what I hear especially in a marginal case. Hell cough medicine will put you over the limit in some states.
I also know that some peoples breath will register tiny amounts of alcohol even when they have not drank any alcohol.
Here is some research recently did on this. Hope it helps you.
"It is clear from scientific research that acetone can exist in normal, average healthy people at sufficiently high levels to cause false high breath-alcohol test readings"
"Hypoglycemia as a cause of acetone in the breath is well known and research has demonstrated that diabetics can have levels of acetone in the breath sufficiently high to register false readings of .06."
"Hypoglycemia can also be caused not only by diabetes but also by
• other conditions such as cardiac, kidney and liver diseases,
• aspirin in large doses, sulfa medications and pseudoephedrine,
• overexertion, fright or anxiety, and
• diet soda."
"However, either fasting or dieting can also cause significantly higher levels of acetone. Scientific research has demonstrated that fasting can increase the acetone level high enough to generate a false reading (estimate) of .06 BAC.
Alternatively, a low-carbohydrate diet can increase acetone levels. Additional acetone is produced by the body as it tries to compensate for the reduced glucose in low-carbohydrate diets. Those who follow the Atkins and similar diets intentionally seek to achieve a condition known as “low carb ketosis” to promote the utilization of fat.
Ketones create isopropyl alcohol, which is then converted into acetone. Thus, a side effect of ketosis is that the high levels of acetone produced causes it to be expelled from the lungs, where it can be falsely identified as alcohol. It is important to note that this can and does occur among teetotalers.
Such false readings are cumulative or in addition to the presence of any other compounds in the methyl group, over a hundred of which commonly occur in the human breath.
In summary, the scientific evidence indicates that hypoglycemia can cause individuals to fail field sobriety tests and acetone in the breath can cause either false positive readings in alcohol-breath testing machines.
It’s important to keep impaired and drunk drivers off the road to protect public safety and save lives. However, it’s also important to protect innocent drivers from being unjustly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit."
"You are suppose to be given a certain amount of time by the officer after your last drink before blowing in the roadside breathalyzer. If you blew in a roadside breathalyzer test then those readings are even more inaccurate. Maybe you just had a few drinks and got pulled over immediately (could be DUI entrapment). Those results are not accurate and should not be used in court."
"The breath device must be on a conforming list of acceptable devices.
The breath device must be properly maintained and checked for accuracy at regular, set intervals.
The person administering the test must be certified in the use of that particular device.
The person administering the test must do so in accordance with his training.
The person administering the test must ensure the test subject does not burp, regurgitate, eat, vomit, or smoke for a period of time immediately prior to the testing sequence.
The breath test must capture at least two measurable readings that are within .02 of one another.
How Does One Show that a Breathalyzer Wasn't Working Properly in a Case?
If a defendant can show that the police department did not follow proper calibration procedures, or that the device in question consistently provided erroneous readings, then a court will likely declare the results of a Breathalyzer test inadmissible as evidence of the defendant's intoxication. A skilled defense attorney can subpoena the maintenance and calibration records of the Breathalyzer on which you tested, possibly using them as evidence that the equipment was not properly tuned to deliver entirely reliable test results. At that point, the burden will shift back to the government to prove the defendant's intoxication through some other type of evidence such as the odor of alcohol on the suspect's breath, red or watery eyes, bad driving, poor performance on roadside field sobriety tests or a car accident"
Love the bowsite...........a stranger to the case from the internet has determined the lawywer is a "moron" and the poster cites his qualifications as having "watched a show on it".
What, no openings at the holiday in express last night, Hammer??
LOL
Love the free entertainment on Bowsite!!!
On another note, Wasn't Hammer the guy who was advocating extended prison sentences for the 16 year old poachers? Im just trying to follow your logic DUI = Fine Poacher = Jail time?
He, though, is an idiot when it comes to things like raising kids, and social skills.
...but when it comes to legal issues, he's danged sure not an idiot from what I've seen him accomplish in courts.
Noted that about Hammer, too. Jail time for kids who poach, but not if they'd have been driving drunk.
Bowbearman - again, good for manning-up, and good luck with your case and getting back into Canada.
You did NOT answer one very important question I'd asked, though -
Do you get at least half of the moose meat if the guy who is taking your place scores this week?
Sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh....
I am wondering what some Bowsiters would suggest as the first step in getting an ACCURATE answer to whether someone with a DUI can enter Mexico. Customs? Embassy? An attorney? While I have been to Mexico several times, it has been several years....and I don't remember what questions they asked.
"It’s important to keep impaired and drunk drivers off the road to protect public safety and save lives. However, it’s also important to protect innocent drivers from being unjustly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit."
Some of you guys are unbelievable and just make crap up out of the blue. For all you people who cannot read and obviously have a 1st grade education....I never said someone with a DUI should not get jail time or only get a fine. Show me where I said that or even slightly implied it? I am waiting? You cant! I am an advocate for stiff penalties for DUI when it is warranted and the case is clear cut. This case has been pending for 6 months guys so obviously there is an issue! Hell I have seen murder trials not take that long to go to trial.
If this guy was indeed impaired then he should meet the full consequences for it. Unfortunately I know all to well how this works because I know people close to me that found themselves in a similar situation. They barley blew over the legal limit or they were just under and were then illegally hauled to the station for a test only to get a DUI charge. They then got the certification of the breathalyzer along with other things and it was determined the thing was not perfect and they had the case thrown out. By the way....It was not their stupid lawyer that came up with the idea to do his job on that either. I always wondered exactly how they pulled it off and when I watched the show (documentary) and researched it a little and it then made perfect sense how they won their case. They won because they were not legally impaired and had knowledge on their side and forced their attorney to do his job to the fullest. Many hear probably do not realize that some attorneys are tools and are not very good or they hob knob and have friendly relationships with the opposing side. Deals are made all the time. I was charged with a crime when I was young and had to force my attorney to do his job better and not take any deal that he was telling me to take. The case 3 months later was thrown out because I didn't do as they claimed.
IMO DUI cases are quick money makers for attorneys and many will just talk their client into making a deal. I have no issue with that on a case where there is no doubt the client was drunk but in marginal cases that are so close to the legal limit then due diligence must be taken to be sure the law was actually broken. I take it some here think those who challenged their marginal DUI and won should have instead "manned up" and took responsibility and been convicted anyway even though it was proven they were not legally impaired! That's not a question!
You guys seem to think that if a person drinks anything...Even one drink and then 2 hours later drives home and they are pulled over that they should be jailed if there is ANY alcohol in their system at all. Well that's not the law. The law is clear. You MUST be over the legal limit which is .08. This guy was at .09. He said at 1st that he "passed 3 road side breath test and the field sobriety test" and it was not until he got hauled to the station that he was found to be over the limit.
What I did was alert this guy to the fact that his lawyer is likely a moron if he has not done what I have posted here. That's his lawyers job. Lets wait and see his response and if his lawyer has done any of that stuff. What if this guy is a diabetic and his attorney never asked and doesn't know? The combo of a very little alcohol on board and diabetes can jack the test around. The client should know the law the best they can and they should also know exactly what the attorney is doing and he has made no mention that his lawyer has done these things or that he himself knows these things. You guys really think every lawyer is a wizard and does his job well and doesn't deal out of cases as fast as they can? Keep dreaming!
Next time you get busted for something make sure you step right up and plead guilty on day one regardless of any facts or whether you really are guilty because after all you need to "man up" right! Again not a question.
Sorry my sharing what I learned with a guy who has a case pending for 5-6 months is so offensive to some of you or so holiday inn express of me. I also never claimed to be a lawyer but the info I shared is from a lawyer so there is that I guess. Maybe he stayed at a Holiday inn express at some point too.
Defense Attorneys will ask the state to turn over evidence, question witnesses and general discovery all in hopes that the State will just give in and drop or lower the charges.
Most court rooms are so back logged that you wont even get a court date for 3 months.
I know at least 6 people who had DUI's near the big city and it took on average about 3 months for each one to resolve. One actually took 6 months but she won. 2 were thrown out. 2 had to make a plea deal because there was no way they could deny they were drunk. They were sooooo lucky not to get jail time and they should have because they both were over .20 and that's pretty bad and shows zero respect for the safety of others.
A person can plead guilty at their 1st appearance if the want to and that's usually a few weeks out from the original citation. Many cases are actually resolved at arraignment.
The length of time can be impacted by the court themselves if they have a back log of cases but unless a guy really fights it most are done within 3 to 4. If you are in a small town 6 months is extraordinary. Not sure where the OP lives and where it happened but 6 months on a .09 may be why this is still pending. I would fight that too or at least make sure everything was accurate and I was indeed legally drunk.
A curiosity if I may...Does leo17 stand for leo like the name or L.E.O like law enforcement officer or did you just stay at a holiday inn express? lol... Just messing with ya Leonardo.
No wonder you know so much about DUI infractions, LOL! Maybe you should find some new friends!!!
I'd say a moderator attempted to delete the entire thread, but someone (in this case it was member 'bowbearman') already had a window open typing a reply. Meantime, while bowbearman was typing, the thread was deleted by the moderator. Then as soon as bowbearman hit the "submit message" button, the thread was resurrected. Happens all the time and for whatever reason, the moderator rarely comes back and deletes the thread again. It's apparently a long-standing flaw or bug in the site.
"I don't understand where all the posts went on this thread. I can see deleting the ones that were very negative. But there were some good responses, if your going to do that why not just nix the whole thread? Rut Nut.
LMAO. yeah I know a few folks that use to be drinkers. I was never with them or I would have drove them myself or took their keys.
I don't need knew friends. They are great people who were young and made mistakes. We all make them in life. Some just make different ones.
I think your right I never asked for it to be deleted or anything I was ok with the beating and positive feedback I have broad sholders I can take it it was my mistake people have a right to there opinion!! but like you said I was typing a responce and hit send and when it come back up the only post was the one I just wrote so I'm not sure what happened but it sounds just like what you said.
Writer
I'm sure I will get a bunch of moose meat if he kills one!!
Getting turned back at the border had to be disappointing, but it's certainly appropriate for Canada to do so. Missing a moose hunt is a prime example of the cost/loss you incur for driving while intoxicated. Use that as motivation to learn and correct. You'd rather be hunting than paying attorneys anyway....right?
Mexico I think it would be in your best interest to have a few DUI under your belt to get into that place
There were post that were not constructive and I doubt any mod wants to sit and sift through an entire thread to keep what they feel should stay and what should not so they just wash the whole thread when there is enough BS in it that it is justified.
Like I said, I am not a lawyer. I just have enough knowledge on a few things to be dangerous and I willingly offer it at times when I can instead of convicting people before the law actually does. Wow what a foreign concept to have eh?
When you gonna switch to that 2 blade head you were considering using for a hunt this fall? I am still surprised you were ever considering it because it's not really needed because "accuracy is what counts" right? LMAO.
touché? :)
"Stay out of Canada and Mexico .... hunt in America .... it's tough enough here! I got tired of all 'the border' hassles and I don't drink or ever had a DUI or any record of any type..... the only record I had was 'hunting too much' and 'crossing the border to much' .... they would say: "Why are you coming into our country so much?" ..... (so I was on their radar for spending time and money in their countries). "
Don't judge Canadians by the treatment you've received from our customs agents. They, by and large, are ignorant wanna-be-cop dickheads....no different that US customs agents.
One time I was crossing into the US from BC when the US agent asked what an optometrist (my profession), needed with a one ton diesel truck (what I was driving at the time). He was a total dick, but once I crossed the border, I found, like always , Americans to be polite, courteous and helpful.
Good Luck.
Les
Anyone wanting to ridicule someone for a sin should look deep within themselves for purity...
I have no respect for you folks thinking you are the moral judges of mankind. Offer some help not condemnation for a mistake any one who has ever drank could have made.
You admitting you have just enough knowledge to be dangerous is entirely correct.
You have made several statements that are either inaccurate or completely incorrect.
Cops that do a lot of DUIs are not stupid, nor are the attorneys that defend them.
I don't know which state this occurred in, but in many states there is a per se limit, usually .08 and there is a lower limit where one can be charged with DUI if the officer can show there was impaired driving.
Field Sobriety Tests are not pass/fail, rather they either contribute to or detract from the probable cause the officer is establishing for the DUI charge.
A roadside "breathalyzer" is not a breathalyzer. It is a PBT, or portable breath tester. It is not as accurate as a certified breathalyzer and in many states is not even admissable as evidence in the DUI case. Rather, it's most valuable function is to help the officer determine if there is some other form of drug that is causing the impairment.
Being barely over the legal limit is still driving under the influence, no matter how you spin it.
As for Canandian border agents, they are a collection of goons- When we were about 12 my family went on a day ferry trip up to Victoria, BC, and they stopped us because my adopted brother "obviously wasn't really part of our family". They hassled him and my parents for over 2 hours, together and separate rooms, then told him they were going take him away and detain my folks until everything got straightened out, even though my mom had brought all the adoption paperwork to avoid any issues, it was a wonderful welcome to Canada...
You act like drunk driving is a "victimless crime". It's not, and our statistics on death on the road will show us.
There was a saying in the prison that I use to volunteer in "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". We are all responsible for our actions.
Your response sounds very defensive.
TBB
you don't get it there's a difference between a mistake and a choice. People make a choice to drink they then make a choice to either drive or not. If you've been drinking and choose to drive it is a choice it is a bad decision. It is not an accident although it may lead to one.
Drunk driving is a despicably heinous activity the because of the absolute randomness with which its consequences can be doled out. In most cases nothing happens in other cases it's a mere one car accident running into a telephone pole or bridge abutment with no one hurt but the person who is responsible for the actions. Unfortunately in other cases many other people are hurt or killed in families torn apart not buy a mistake but by choice.
It is not fair it is not minor it is not acceptable it is not excusable.
The only way speaking out against such craziness makes someone holier than thou is if the thou you're speaking to is the one who makes a habit of this activity or even does it just once.
VERY well said!
LMAO. I didn't spin anything!! Apparently you are another who wont read. I never said or implied any of that stuff was wrong! Get a grip. I also know what a PBT is. It is a breathalyzer dude! It is a tool used to help determine if the cop is gonna haul you in and it IS admissible in court. If a guy is challenging that he passed a field test and the cop had no cause to haul him in then the cop will use the PBT as part of the PC proof he used to haul him in!
Being barley over the legal limit means you are barley over (which may be illegal and may not be) and if the test is looked into (which it should be EVERY TIME) and found to be inaccurate then guess what....If it is on the high side then you were not legally impaired and anyone with any sense should look into it when a person is soooooo close to the legal limit like this guy was instead of listening to the BS line of 'take responsibility and man up.' Most do not ever look into the testing that close and that is a fact! Even the borderline DUI's. By the way...much of what I posted was from a lawyer so argue with him if you think it is wrong.
Lastly....If you pass a field sobriety test and a road side breath test 3 times there is NO probable cause to haul you in for another alcohol related test. NONE! The OP originally said before the tread was deleted and restarted that he past all 3 road side breath test and the field sobriety test. If that is true then the cop had no cause to detain him and make him perform another breath test for alcohol at the station. Now he says later that he blew as hard as he could 3 times and was nearly turning blue and it was not registering. He didn't say that before the mods deleted most of this thread.
I have enough knowledge to be dangerous but on what I have posted here I am 100% correct.
You blow a .08 or .09 and challenge the breathalyzer certification and calibration to ensure it is accurate and it is determined that you did indeed break the law then you deserve to be convicted. If you are soooo close to the legal limit and your attorney doesn't look into these things and you don't make him then you deserve to be convicted. I have a couple pals that are lawyers and many borderline DUI'S cases are not challenged that way when it is court appointed attorney which many many are..
Like I said...If the guy was actually and legally impaired after the due diligence has been completed then he should be punished. If it is found that the test was on the high side or any of the things I mentioned were a factor then he should walk w/o consequence a perfuse apology's. I have friends who walked by making their lawyer do his job but naturally they were also very close to the limit to start with. You blow a .15 or .20 etc then you are rightfully screwed but when real close you gotta make sure you did in fact break the law and not trust the system that you did. Had my friends trusted the lawyer to do his job and trust the system that it was accurate then they would have been convicted. I for one am glad they did what they did.
I can never quite figure out your confrontational attitude.
I would try to explain stuff to you, but you obviously think you are right and don't want to listen.
Saying a PBT is a breathalyzer would the equivalent of saying a Rage is the same thing as a single bevel, two blade broadhead.
Best wishes.
JLS,
My confrontation at times comes from complete azzes who would get on a site and judge and pre judge others without any facts or knowing what really happened. Some will do so even when knowing the facts. (not saying you did this). Some will even half quote others or cherry pick portions out of context in an attempt to insult them in the process! So be it I guess. It only shows their character and true motivation IMO.
Now if you want to argue something so silly as the definition of a breathalyzer as a counter point and say it is not one and it is instead a PBT then so be it. If you think it shows I am wrong and confirm my "enough knowledge to be dangerous" comment then so be it. Preliminary or not it is still a breathalyzer anyway you cut it and it is used along with a field sobriety test to determine if a driver is impaired. Both are used and admissible in court as PC.
If a driver passes both the field test and the PBT (Portable "breathalyzer" test) "3" times there is '''no''' probable cause at that point to haul you in for "another" '''alcohol related test''' which originally is what was implied happened to this guy according to his description. Now if you were to say there 'is' PC in that kind of a case for additional "alcohol" testing then your not a cop or an attorney and do not know the law in this area either. If the cop in a case like that suspected something other than alcohol then further testing 'might' be able to be legally performed depending on close scrutiny of the officers PC.
"Cops that do a lot of DUIs are not stupid, nor are the attorneys that defend them."
Never said they were did I? I said this guys lawyer is a moron if he is not doing the things I mentioned or hasn't asked him the questions that matter. Most CO attorneys do NOT do these things like they should. They often look to end it quick and even on a close case they look to deal most times if they can. Before the OP changed his story that he passed a field sobriety test and 3 PBT test I said the cop was wrong to haul him in and I was right. Then he later changed how it really went down and said he didn't pass the PBT but rather the PBT did not register all 3 times. If you didn't see the thread before it was all deleted and then restarted you may have missed it. Even if it went down the way he says then something is very suspicious. No way a properly working and properly calibrated PBT should register nothing 3 times in a row and then the station test registers .09. Something is very wrong with that pic. Possibly an entrapment but who knows. The point is all due diligence should be done on any DUI that is so close to the legal limit so as to be certain the defendant really was impaired and really broke the law.
I am sure you would agree that if a person is under the legal limit that they should 'not' be convicted right? Certainly you would agree that instead of manning up you should make certain that the lawyer does everything right and make sure the testing is accurate right? Surly you would agree that anything out of your control or knowledge that could have put the test in error like that of Diabetes or smoking, mouth sprays, mouth washes etc should all be asked about and considered right? Then if it is determined that you did in fact break the law and the test was dead nuts accurate then and only then should a person "man up" and accept his fate. This was my point throughout this thread. All the prejudging and ridiculous nonsense was likely why this thread was deleted the 1st time around.
If he is being truthful about his BAC then it should be looked into so he is not wrongfully convicted. If he blew .14 or above then it wouldn't matter because unknowns wont push a test that much out of whack but it is a scientific fact that many things can impact it all the way up to .06 and you need not drink a drop of alcohol. You drink just a wee bit and have those outside circumstances and you get convicted for a crime you didn't commit. IMO it is wise to know your options and if any of those possible outside and/or unknown things could have impacted a test when the BAC is so close to the legal limit.
Above is a pic of a breathalyzer along with its description. All ABT's (alcohol breath testers) are in essence a breathalyzer. "Breathalyzer" if I recall it right is a 'name brand' tester but the term "breathalyzer" is used as a generic or general description to describe any machine a person blows in that read your BAC. It makes no difference if it is a PBT or the one at the station or an Intoxilizer or a Intoximeter. Most describe them all as a breathalyzer regardless. It is just a word used to describe something for the purposes of a conversation.
Yes and no and depends. Originally I thought I did have the facts because he said he passed all 3 PBT test in the field and a field sobriety test to boot. Under those original discussion guidelines the cop had NO PC to haul him in for more alcohol related testing. This is why I was given him the info I was originally. Then he changed the story a bit......
Like I said, keep in mind he originally said he past those 3 PBT's and a FS test. Then later he said 'the cop told him that the PBT did not register because he was not blowing hard enough' and he then said 'that was BS because he was blowing so hard he was turning blue.' That indicates he was not believing that cop and something was not right about this or the PBT was broken.
If the test was truly not working then the cop 'did' have the PC to haul him in for more testing. However most of the time when I have seen it on the side of the road to others drivers when I drive by there is usually a 2nd back up cop on scene when a DUI case is suspected. 'If' there was a 2nd cop and a 2nd tester was available (no doubt it would be) then they should have tried a 2nd tester 1st. It sounds to me like the cop may have suspected he was purposely not blowing hard enough or possibly entrapped him but who knows. That's why you do your due diligence and make sure your attorney is doing so as well. This case is not a case of blasted driving with a .15 or .20 or .25 but rather impaired and just barley impaired to boot. It should be made certain everything worked properly and he was impaired 'at the time' he was driving only.
If I was him I would have the cops PBT tested also to see if it was in fact really working. The guy might not have been impaired at the time and that's why it was not registering. If he had just had a drink or two and it hadn't started to affect his BAC yet then maybe it is why he was blowing a pass at 1st or no reading. Then the cop hauls him in knowing he had drank some because he admitted it and during that time from the stop to the cop shop and the proper interval the cop should wait he "becomes" impaired. He may not have been at the time he was driving though. That's another thing that can be problematic about BAC. You drive home a few miles from a buddies 10 min after you just drank a beer or 2 and you are not impaired but if a cop pulls in your driveway and then waits 30 min to test you then you will certainly be over the legal limit even though you were not at the time you were driving. It is an extreme example only but it's why they have entrapment laws for DUI's.
If no other cop or tester was around and the guy was either not blowing hard enough on purpose and the cop suspected that or the PBT was malfunctioning in the field and the cop still suspected alcohol impairment then he 100% had the PC to haul him in to a functioning machine. Either way the guy was barley over so if I were him I would make sure my attorney checked into the testing and other things so as to determine if I was actually over the legal limit. If any outside factors affected the test by just .02 then he was not impaired and not guilty. Only a fool would not insist on these things being checked into when it is so close to the legal limit. I merely gave info I was aware of in the event that it may be useful to him if in fact any of those things effected his testing and just incase he has a court appointed attorney that is overworked and underpaid and looking to deal like many of them are and do. I get blasted for it and he should instead man up I guess.
Facts are that many of these cases can be won with circumstance like that and with a BAC being so close to the legal limit. Usually only those kinds of case can be won. The rest are hopeless. Facts are that .02 on a test can easily be accounted for sometimes without it being some drunks fault for drinking to much booze. The worst thing that happens is you find out you were not impaired and broke NO law or you find out the test was dead on accurate. You may even find out it was off and you were drunker than they even thought but that matters not at that point because impaired is impaired once it's proven. I do however find it appalling that anyone would be resistant in any way shape or fashion to someone with a wee bit of knowledge on the subject trying to be kind and help another that may not know how some of this stuff works. I find it un-American that anyone would resist such things and judge another before they have been convicted. I find it incredible that anyone would bash or say a thing to someone trying to offer copy and pasted attorney advice in the face of due process. We have a constitution and it is our right to use all the facts and options available under the law to make certain we are in fact guilty of the crime alleged. This is regardless of where we get the knowledge or what others think.
It's not quite as bad as a guy telling another hunter he should be a better shot without knowing the facts but it's close. lol.... It's like telling another hunter who rarely ever looses an animals he shoots at that he needs to use an expandable until accuracy improves all because he lost 1 critter and is considering a 2 blade head due to a bone impact with a bad result. Its like telling a hunter accuracy is all that really matters with todays powerful equipment and that a 2 blade SBBH is not needed even though that exact same hunter himself who was saying that BS is considering using one himself and even started his own thread on the subject. It IS the pot calling the kettle black. Like I said some guys just like to start trouble on certain things with certain people and then they themselves forget they were in the same position and look like an azz in the process.
Of course that's just my opinion. Certainly yours is different. I am good with that.
:o)
JLS's Link
" however I have no desire to argue with you. It's pointless"
That is exactly what you are doing. Instead of challenging some piece of info I posted that really matters you use a play on words and a definition that is not even important to the overall discussion!
By the way perhaps since you have no desire to argue even though you posted a link anyways doing just that I can only assume that you missed the pic with the quoted definition below it or perhaps you missed this little nugget....."It makes no difference if it is a PBT or the one at the station or an Intoxilizer or a Intoximeter. Most describe them all as a breathalyzer regardless. It is just a word used to describe something for the purposes of a conversation."
Everyone here knows what we are all talking about so the actual definition and whether a PBT (potable breath tester) is a breathalyzer or not is meaningless. Keep in mind no one claimed that the PBT test results could be used to show what the legal BAC was. It is only used in combination with the FST and other factors to determine PC. Either way for purposes of the discussion calling it a breathalyzer is fine and most people do just that. Just as your article infers...Most don't even know the difference and for sake of discussion it doesn't even matter anyway.
Carry on because you are right that it is pointless.
Sureshot,
Yep that's what you would do. Good thinking.
By the way if shot placement is the most important which of course any dolt already knows that it is and you then go out of your way to emphatically mention it in BH debates as the guys problem where he says it isn't and shooter accuracy is not the issue being discussed and you still do so repeatedly to a person who has had only one or 2 bone impacts in years and only lost 1 critter as a result then perhaps you shouldn't also be looking into a 2 blade SBBH for yourself because it looks very hypocritical. It also makes it look like you are purposely trying to be disruptive. Just my opinion for what it's worth. :)
If you don't like long post then don't read them and quite always whining about it like a broken record and a immature child.
Give it a rest or move on!
Good read here. Lesson I learned is to not drink and drive. I feel bad for the OP given the lost time and money. People are human and make mistakes.
Even at only .09, that could still me life and death to someone...Reaction time starts to get slow after your first drink..
Don't do it, get a DD...
Aaron
I just grow tired of you not contributing and instead popping into a thread I am in and complaining about word count that's all. My undies are not in any bunch though. I just don't like hit and run contributors or post that are meant for only one thing. You know exactly what I am talking about.
