You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer
supported by the Administrators.
Visit
The New DU.
Reply #25: I understand, but just wanted to point out that it must have been
[View All]
Jersey Devil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-06-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
25. I understand, but just wanted to point out that it must have been |
|
an anomoly.
Maybe what they were playing with wasn't the real deal because they are expensive and have to be calibrated pretty regularly with test ampoules in order to make sure they are accurate. Plus there are about 15 steps an operator has to go through to make sure the test is accurate, performed by a cop who is certified as having been trained on the machine.
I know from experience as a defense attorney and as a prosecutor that there is no way you can beat a breathalyzer by blowing too hard. The only thing you can do is not blow enough, which will result in a zero reading.
In over 20 years of handling those cases on both sides I've only seen a breathalyzer screw up maybe twice. In one case it gave readings of .05, .15 and .05 in 3 successive tests and in another refused to give any reading at all even though the guy blew like hell and the cops were satisfied he was trying to give them a good sample.
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.