CrimLaw

_________________________________________

TalkLeft pointing out one of the errors in the machines which convict people of DUI's.

Let's be honest here - a regular citizen accused of a DUI is going to be convicted. He will have been "asked" to complete several tests which are very hard to pass sober. He will have things such as comprehending and starting to perform the test before the officer tells him to start the test counted as indicating drunkeness. He will then be "asked" to take the preliminary breath test which is so innacurate that it is not allowed in court. The way these happenings are presented in court is always sanitized; the officer's version never tracks with the what your client tells you occurred.

Then there is the test at the police station. On top of the problems mentioned at TalkLeft the machine is so screwed up that if an officer uses a radio near the machine it screws it up. Then the result from this machine is used as irrefutable evidence that your client was drunk. The blood-alchohol level where the assumption of guilt attaches is now so low that anyone who drinks has driven with that amount in their system; its just a lottery to see who the police will encounter on a given night.

I've seen a couple cases where rich defendants have dug in and started getting ready to go to the wall. If you have the money you can get experts to show how ridiculous the roadside tests are and how flawed the machine is. The cases tend to go away.