Quite often I am confronted with a dilemma in my DWI cases, the question of how do I properly explain the breath test to a jury. Afterall, many people believe that this machine is accurate, is reliable, is accepted, and is the determiner of guilt or innocence in a DWI case. I have spent countless hours studying, analyzing, and dissecting this police tool of expedient-fast-cheap analysis of a person's breath.
The box spits out a number, a result, a reading and nothing more. I believe juries must look at all the evidence before they just buy the reading as a Truthful, Accurate, and Reliable number.
The Datamaster DMT (used by Upstate City, Town, and Village Police)
The issues:
1. This machine does not check blood. It measures breath alcohol. It is a better screener (qualifier) than assessor (quantifier). It indirectly takes a breath measurement, and then gives a blood alcohol number.
2. This machine operates at 34 celcius. People do not all possess a breath temperature of 93.2 F (34 celcius) because not everyone is 98.6 F (body temperature).
3. This machine only requires (by current state law and case law) yearly calibration.
4. The machine only takes ONE breath sample, ONE time. There is NO confirmation of testing. This is another expedient NYS standard. Scientific-forensic standards be damned. We would never accept (one test-one result) this from a blood test, an MRI, or an X-ray but in the world of NYS DWI ths is the standard.
5. This machine is allowed a 20% range of error by law. The simulator solution (standard of known alcohol measure) can be .01 BAC up or down (higher or lower).
6. Contamination is not only possible it is probable. The inside of the machine is never cleaned unless there is a break down. This machine has lenses, mirrors, and filters. Hundreds of people breath into this machine. How common is dust, dirt, mouth chew, smoke, and an assortment of other expectorated particles? How clean is your average police station? This is certainly not a lab environment with standards of hygiene. Forensically this is a nightmare. Consider that the machine works (operates) by passing light through a tube filled with breath. Whatever light is absorbed by alcohol in the breath determines the breath alcohol number. If other substances (crap in the tube) absorb the light you got a bigger BAC.
7. They "clean" the tube with an air blank before and/or after your test. Can you really clean a tube with an air blank?
8. The machine self checks. It basically checks itself. Can we really trust and place our faith in a computer that has no outside checks?
9. The machine allows errors, and still gives a reading. If insufficient sample comes up on the machine display the reading is still used. What insufficient sample really means is that the machine needs (requires) 1.1 liters of breath to give a read BUT will often read without that amount. Smaller sample means more concentrated alcohol. Think of it this way, two glasses of milk, one bigger, one smaller, same amount of chocolate, the one with less milk is darker chocolate milk, one with more milk is lighter chocolate milk.
Lower BAC with greater air volume, and higher BAC with lower air volume.
The problem with machine defense is this, global atacks on breath testing are not usually successful. Breath testing is here, it is accepted, and it is used nationally. In each and every DWI defense breath testing can be successfully contested (challenged) if that particular breath test, on that particular day, and with that particular individual has an issue (s). Breath testing may be cheap, inexpensive, and easy but it is my mind far from reliable in the majority of cases.
Referrals to New York State attorneys. The Lawyer Referral and Information Service is a public service of the New York State Bar Association that provides ...
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Please see the article below for the improper political intervention of the Velella family with Family Court Judge David Klein: case of T...
-
The need to renew previously made requests has been in the news recently with lots of reminders that if you don't a request to be on the...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
-
Party Must Prevail on All Issues to Be Awarded Counsel Fee Pursuant to Agreement Provision In Matter of Bederman v Bederman, --- N.Y.S.2d --...
-
Be sure to read our # Funny # New # Blog "Law And Humor" filled with entertainment from the legal world! http:// lawandhumorny....
-
Judge Nelson Roman, Deputy Mayor Carol Robles-Roman, Is Approved For Seat in Southern District CourtSenate Committee Approves Roman for Southern District By Mike Paquette New York Law Journal March 4, 2013 LINK Cover Story: Hispanic Power ...
-
In 2007, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the longstanding Appellate Division case law "that a carrier's failure to seek verificatio...
-
Matter of Koeppel 2011 NY Slip Op 51709(U) Judge Keistin Booth Glen Decided on January 19, 2011 Sur Ct, New York County Glen, J. Published b...
-
Юридический ликбез: в каких случаях имеет смысл создавать Отзывные Трасты Будучи адвокатом , специализирующимся на вопросах создания Трастов...
-
The story about Scott Bloch and his disdain for the public he was supposed to serve is not just judicial corruption, but public service gone...

Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét