Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I'm of the belief that if you are being pulled over for impairment of any type, it shouldn't matter what the test says, as they are so variable between people, but that it should be due to the level of impairment the driver shows. If you can't demonstrate impairment, why should you be charged? Just becuase the test shows you over some arbitrary level? Any evidence used to charge you with impairment should be recorded, so you have some recourse.
|
Just a little anecdotal evidence in this area.
One of my good buddies is former law enforcement, and has an older style BAC machine that was decommisioned (I think thats how it was phrased). It still works as a measurement but cannot be calibrated to legal standards without some expense.
Anyhow, we often sit in his garage having a couple, or more, and started breaking this thing out to see how variable it could be. The results were remarkable. One time I had consumed two cans of beer. It registered .043. We did it again a week later and it registered .028 after 2 consumed cans. I remember one time we each drank 3 beers and tested, he registered .06 and i was at .02. I'm heading over there this afternoon in fact for a poker game and we will likely do another round.
He has been tracking it among the same group of people for some time now and even though the calibration would never hold in court or anything, it still varies even on the same day among the same people.
All this being said we adhere to the same standards when it comes to driving. If you crack a beer or pour a cocktail there will be no driving. Full stop. That takes all the guess work out of the equation.
This current proposed legislation makes it so it does not matter moving forward however, as it is entirely up to the officer at the roadside whether or not someone "appears" impaired, regardless of test results...should they so choose. It's an absolute trampling of rights in a country that was built on that very tenet, but so many are just willing to forego. It saddens me.
