There are several myths surrounding the breathalyzer and the potential to beat it despite being intoxicated. A lot of folks depend on beating the breathalyzer only to find out in court that what they believed were ways to do so, in reality did not affect the breathalyzers results. Sitting in court is not the time you want to find that out.
One of the more common breathalyzer myths is that if you put a penny in your mouth the test won't be accurate. The fact of the matter is that a police officer will make sure you haven't had anything in your mouth for twenty minutes prior to your being tested. A penny, gum, or just about anything in your mouth will invalidate the test, but the first thing a well trained police officer will do is to make certain that there is nothing in your mouth.
Another common myth is that you can defeat the test by not blowing into the tube while pretending that you are, causing the machine to register your breath as free of alcohol. The breathalyzer analyzes the amount of breath being taken in and alerts the officer if there's not enough air flow. If someone taking the test keeps pretending to blow but doesn't, the officer will eventually designate that the test was refused.
Yet another fallacy is that the officer can cause the machine to register a higher BAC than is actually present in the person suspected of driving under the influence. The days of “dialing up a drunk” on the old machines are over. The modern digital breathalyzers are made to be tamper-proof.
A breathalyzer test is much more difficult to overcome in court than are field sobriety tests. Your attorney can attack the breathalyzer if he can show that the test solution wasn't used on schedule, they can point out an officer's lack of required training, or that the test wasn't given soon enough after the arrest. The chances of success here are slim but a good attorney can make all the difference.
Field sobriety tests are much easier to defeat in court than the breathalyzer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied field sobriety tests and developed a series of three, being the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn tests, that if properly administered will allow an officer with a statistically high degree of success to show that a person's BAC is at least .10.
DUI attorneys can attack these tests in several ways. These include the officer not being adequately trained, the tests were not given in the prescribed manner, and that the officer misinterpreted the results. The possibility of human error on the officer's part is much greater than with the use of the breathalyzer.
Standardized Field Sobriety Test
FSTs generally consist of a battery of three to five exercises, such as walking and turning in a different direction, standing on one leg, nystagmus (using the eyes to track an object), touching the finger to the nose and reciting the alphabet.
The officer may subjectively decide whether the individual failed the test, or he may decide after applying recently-promulgated federal scoring standards. The NHTSA thinks these tests are a reliable way to gauge sobriety; however, there is mounting evidence that they are anything but.
Many FSTs are based on the concept of divided attention, which occurs when an individual must concentrate on more than one thing at the same time. A driver must divide her attention among various physical and mental activities to safely operate a vehicle, and her ability to do so is significantly reduced by the consumption of alcohol.
Ideally, FSTs evaluate the same mental and physical capabilities that a person needs to drive: information processing; short-term memory; judgment and decision making; steadiness, sure reactions; clear vision; small muscle control; and coordination of the limbs.
The most recently developed of the FSTs is the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. HGN does not test a driver's ability to divide his attention, but it is thought to be an even more accurate means to detect whether a person has consumed alcohol because it measures involuntary eye movement.
Nystagmus is an involuntary oscillation of the eye, and it occurs naturally in human eyes when they focus too far off center (straight ahead). If a sober person tracks an object from side to side, the eyes will follow it smoothly up to a certain point, when they will begin to oscillate. If an intoxicated person tracks an object from side to side, alcohol will make nystagmus more pronounced, meaning the eyes will oscillate sooner.
However, alcohol is not the only cause of pronounced nystagmus. Nystagmus can be caused by inner ear problems, flu, strep throat, measles, syphilis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, glaucoma and epilepsy.
Temporary conditions such as motion sickness, sun stroke, eye strain or fatigue, and changes in atmospheric pressure may also result in nystagmus. Further, the consumption of common substances such as caffeine, nicotine, or aspirin can also lead to nystagmus. An individual's circadian rhythms or biorhythms also affect nystagmus readings.
The integrity of the original research affirming the validity of the HGN test has been called into question, and in 2001 additional research indicated that the test is improperly administered by most police officers. HGN, however, is not the only FST to be called into question. The entire battery of tests appears to offer dubious evidence of intoxication.
The most obvious problem is that the conditions under which FSTs are given almost guarantee failure: usually late at night; along a graveled or sloped roadside; with unsteady lighting from passing cars? headlights, the officer's flashlight and patrol car's strobe and headlights; and sometimes gusts of wind from intemperate weather or passing cars. The test is given to a person who is usually nervous and possibly frightened.
In 1991, Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. Police officers were shown videotapes of individuals performing six common FSTs and asked to determine whether they were too intoxicated to drive. The officers concluded that almost half of the people were too drunk to drive; however, unknown to the officers, none of them had consumed any alcohol.
Given the questionable reliability of FSTs, it is no wonder they are surrounded by controversy and DUI defense attorneys often advise people not to submit to them.
Both Christian Miller & Lance Knowlton are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Christian Miller has sinced written about articles on various topics from Baby Shower, Used Car and Legal Matters. The Massachusetts DUI Website has information on what to do if you are Arrested for a DUI, How Police Spot DUI Drivers and promotes the use of. Christian Miller's top article generates over 5400 views. Bookmark Christian Miller to your Favourites.
Lance Knowlton has sinced written about articles on various topics from Cars, Legal Matters and Parties. Having twice been involved in crashes caused by drunk drivers, Lance Knowlton has a deep appreciation for this ongoing problem. Learn how you can save lives in your community and make money at the same time, go to:. Lance Knowlton's top article generates over 1900 views. Bookmark Lance Knowlton to your Favourites.
Adjusting Sewing Machine Tension In those rare instances where your best efforts fail, you can always rely on your local sewing machine repair technician