Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 125369	2012-06-23 00:15:00	Obviously not guilty	R2x1 (4628)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1283471	2012-06-23 00:15:00	This poor chap gets seriously convicted (www.stuff.co.nz) for driving with a a "cocktail of vodka and viagra" when it is plain that he was hardly drunk. ;)	R2x1 (4628)
1283472	2012-06-23 01:11:00	Yeah right it was thinner fumes we believe you.	prefect (6291)
1283473	2012-06-23 01:35:00	I wasn't drunk, it was the thinner fumes - honest! Yea Right.	Nick G (16709)
1283474	2012-06-23 01:56:00	Likely story. I have to wonder if the lawyer is going to make more money appealing the case.	Bobh (5192)
1283475	2012-06-23 04:19:00	FYI the paint thinner argument was run many years ago and that case is one of the useful precedents on drink/driving law. Boat painter. Convicted. A bit tough since he hadn't been drinking but the Court decided he should have known he was affected by the marine solvent fumes. Irrelevant here since there was a blood specimen.	Winston001 (3612)
1283476	2012-06-23 10:17:00	In this case it seems clear that it was booze alone that was the problem, because blood alcohol tests are specific for ethanol, however, despite 'Police Expert' assertions to the contrary, breath alcohol testing results obtained using electronic evidential breath testing machines (as distinct from roadside breath screening devices) are readily influenced by other substances. Under controlled test conditions these machines can be very accurate, and in the majority of cases the driver fits within a broad profile that is not at odds with the machine's capabilities, that is to say, his or her blood-breath partition ratio fits within the standard limits around which the machine's operating profile has been designed. However, over-blowing (particularly with specific oral contaminants present) or a blood-breath partition ratio outside the design parameters can cause a subject to fail the test when they are actually within the statutory limit. Some years ago now I did a significant amount of work with NZ breath testing cases as an expert on EBT machine technology and at one stage approximately 700 cases were stacked up waiting for the outcome of a test case, subsequently known as the "Brown decision" which ultimately led to a law change to allow all DUI suspects a blood test as a matter of right. I continued to lecture and give evidence in the US for a few years then gave it away as I wasn't getting the regular experience here anymore. A few years after that I carried out over a period of several months an extensive range of tests on a US State-Police 'state-of-the-art' German EBT machine, (shipped to me in NZ under a warrant from the Supreme Court of that State) and I found that breath alcohol readings were increased significantly by peppermints; any menthol containing substance; and another popular confection in the US and Australia that was reputed to mask breath alcohol (it actually increased the readings). I also found that the harder and longer you blow, the higher the reading you produce. These machines will also produce a small reading from a sober test subject after chewing various types of bread and some other food substances. In the course of my testing I found reliable means to reduce an EBT reading result and could readily drop a modest 'over the limit' reading to a pass. Those means contradicted the manufacturer's claims in relation to certain aspects of their machine's performance and the latter were challenged in US Courts. I still have all that data in my computer files and get occasional calls from US Attorneys for advice or to provide briefs of evidence. My advice is not to drink and drive, but if you have been drinking, never try to mask the alcohol on your breath with peppermints etc (a dead giveaway to the Officer anyway) because they may cause you to fail, and blow just hard enough to record the samples. A couple of ramp-up failures shouldn't cause you grief, not everybody has the physical ability to blow hard, just try again, a little harder each time until you see the machine registering, and if your reading is under 450, insist on having a blood test, it can't make matters any worse unless you 'pre-loaded' or 'topped up' before leaving the bar or party. It may just be that your true breath result would have been below the limit and the blood test will confirm that. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
1283477	2012-06-25 02:59:00	FYI the paint thinner argument was run many years ago and that case is one of the useful precedents on drink/driving law. Boat painter. Convicted. A bit tough since he hadn't been drinking but the Court decided he should have known he was affected by the marine solvent fumes. Irrelevant here since there was a blood specimen. BTW Winston, I'm pretty sure that was one of the cases I looked at. IIRC it was being defended by a prominent Barrister who is still around, but maybe not in quite as good a shape as he used to be (though I could be wrong about the former). It went no further from my perspective because we were denied access to an Intoxilyzer to run independent comparative tests. We knew already from our US activities (where any DUI attorney worth his salt has acquired his own arsenal of EBT machines) that the machine could not discriminate between alcohol and a wide range of common solvents, but we couldn't meet the necessary standard of proof, however it sounds like it would have been a waste of time anyway. I subsequently imported an Intoxilyzer plus all the "secret" documentation myself during the dying days of the 'Brown' saga, and got a bit of a fizz from a Judge in the High Court who seemed to think I had nicked it, but they were widely available in the US of A. State Police Departments sold their old machines to the highest bidder, complete with all the documentation etc and mine came from the Alabama State Police. However, it is only good for party tricks now. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
1283478	2012-06-25 06:45:00	Bet he was a hard one for the cops to pull over .... :rolleyes:	SP8's (9836)
1283479	2012-06-25 10:06:00	A hardened criminal.	R2x1 (4628)
1283480	2012-06-25 10:51:00	FYI the paint thinner argument was run many years ago and that case is one of the useful precedents on drink/driving law. Boat painter. Convicted. A bit tough since he hadn't been drinking but the Court decided he should have known he was affected by the marine solvent fumes. Irrelevant here since there was a blood specimen. I once did the floors of a four story house with moisture cured polyurathane and five hours later I still felt a little high from it. I had to close the windows as I passed them which didn't help. One stupid twit had walked through the house with muddy boots just before I got there which didn't impress me.	mikebartnz (21)
1