Billings cop attacks breath tests, gains mistrial

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by -W1LL

 

that witness in fact is not and expert in the area of breathalyzers and shows that in the quote i posted.

I understand that.

And I responded by saying it was not our problem that the defense witness comes off like a numbskull on the stand. If he truly made the comment that you quoted, then that is an issue that should have solicited a response from the D.A.'s Office that would call into question the level of expertise of the defense witness. It does not appear that occurred. How does that become the police officer's fault if this situation resulted in her getting a mistrial?

My suggestion to you would be to focus on the TRULY outrageous miscarriages of justice that occur on a daily basis which result in very dangerous individuals skating on crimes such as murder.

Hating cops doesn't hurt the cops, it only hurts you.

Y do you feel the need to imply i hate cops stop bashing me.

it is your problem the witness who created this mistrial IS a numbskull and not an expert that is the exact reason I dislike our current system as i said in my OP.
you cannot use this person as a valid witness and if a civilian tried the same thing that witness' testimony would not be admissible. the so called expert witness is NOT an expert in Breathalyzers and has never had training

Jodoin questioned whether the chemist had any training in analysis of field sobriety tests. Miranda said he hadn’t,

nuff said.
he Truely did make that statement im sure its in the court logs as its in the news article as a quote.


I only want to see equal treatment for law enforcement officers when they break the law NOTHING more that you are assuming or implying certainly no hate.

how does it become the officers fault you ask? i never said it was.. its the system and the brotherhood of easily manipulated puppets they use who are above the laws they enforce. more often than not.

You do know that a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST is not what the chemist was testifying to but rather the calibration and possible variables affecting the INTOXILYZER.

Why you keep posting on whether the expert knows what Horozontal Gaze Nystagmus is or what the instructions are for walking a line in a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST are is beyond me.

Then again your forte' seems to be half truth and misdirection.

The witness' field of expertise is chemical engineering and he has testified in at least 8 other trials in regards to the chemical analysis of breath samples but this doesn't fit the line of bovine scatology so just prattle on about field sobriety tests and hope nobody notices.

I did notice. Pi$$ poor try- even for you.

Next time educate yourself as to what a field sobriety test is versus what an Intoxilyzer is. You're less likely to appear to have suffered a TBI at some point in your life if you do so.

Originally posted by SFA437




You do know that a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST is not what the chemist was testifying to but rather the calibration and possible variables affecting the INTOXILYZER.

Why you keep posting on whether the expert knows what Horozontal Gaze Nystagmus is or what the instructions are for walking a line in a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST are is beyond me.

Then again your forte' seems to be half truth and misdirection.

The witness' field of expertise is chemical engineering and he has testified in at least 8 other trials in regards to the chemical analysis of breath samples but this doesn't fit the line of bovine scatology so just prattle on about field sobriety tests and hope nobody notices.

I did notice. Pi$$ poor try- even for you.

Next time educate yourself as to what a field sobriety test is versus what an Intoxilyzer is. You're less likely to appear to have suffered a TBI at some point in your life if you do so.

edit on 31-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

nice class buddy.


the field sobriety test includes a field breathalyzer another poster explained that and why sometimes its not admissible. I dont know how to respond to your attacks without sinking to your level so ill just stop here.

he is a metallurgist LOL he went to school for chemical engineering how does that make him an expert in breathalysers and the use of them at diff altitudes with diff people I would like to see his tests.

I would suggest reading State v. Bender, 382 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1980) or Robinson v. Prins, supra or State v. Barker, supra.

Once you realize how messed up Intoxilyzers can be due to...wait for it... CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ERRORS

Not how to walk a line or touch your nose or stand on one foot with the other extended out in FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS but rather with issues with the Intoxilyzer such as... well I'll just link you to one of many sites that show how screwy the machine can be:

Intoxilyzer Accuracy

Now of course having a witness, who has a strong background in chemical engineering and who is familiar with not only how the INTOXILYZER (not a field sobriety test which are physical/mental tasks) works but how diet, foods, temperature, elevation, barometric pressure etc. effect the machine, to testify on your behalf is AMAZINGLY special treatment.

Oh wait a minute.... the guy has testified prior. Other expert witnesses across the country testify to the machine's inaccuracy for hundreds if not thousands of people every day.

Special treatment my ass.

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by SFA437




You do know that a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST is not what the chemist was testifying to but rather the calibration and possible variables affecting the INTOXILYZER.

Why you keep posting on whether the expert knows what Horozontal Gaze Nystagmus is or what the instructions are for walking a line in a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST are is beyond me.

Then again your forte' seems to be half truth and misdirection.

The witness' field of expertise is chemical engineering and he has testified in at least 8 other trials in regards to the chemical analysis of breath samples but this doesn't fit the line of bovine scatology so just prattle on about field sobriety tests and hope nobody notices.

I did notice. Pi$$ poor try- even for you.

Next time educate yourself as to what a field sobriety test is versus what an Intoxilyzer is. You're less likely to appear to have suffered a TBI at some point in your life if you do so.

edit on 31-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

nice class buddy.


the field sobriety test includes a field breathalyzer another poster explained that and why sometimes its not admissible. I dont know how to respond to your attacks without sinking to your level so ill just stop here.

he is a metallurgist LOL he went to school for chemical engineering how does that make him an expert in breathalysers and the use of them at diff altitudes with diff people I would like to see his tests.

No, no, a thousand times NO.

A field sobriety test does NOT include a handheld BAC measurement device.

Handheld devices are NEVER admissible- not just sometimes- NEVER.

The handheld device is used AFTER a field sobriety test is given which may include the one-leg stand, walk and turn, the Rhomberg stationary balance test and horizontal gaze nystagmus. The handheld device is used to verify the officer's judgement of intoxication the same as a radar measurement of speed is simply to verify the officer's judgement of speeding.

As for why a chemical engineer would be the very person you want testifying if you are challenging the way chemicals are analyzed in a machine designed to analyze chemicals built by people who developed formulae to measure those chemicals in your breath which is subject to various chemical reactions such as acetone buildup in diabetics giving false positives or a high protien/low carb diet giving false readings because of chemical interactions of food with your bodies own blood chemistry...

Yeah I'd forget about the chemical engineer and hire a Liberal Arts major to be my expert witness

Even your post title is a total lie. It was a defense witness that attacked the breath test (rightfully so as it is a flawed machine) and a jury declared a mistrial.

Nice attempt at misdirection and disinformation on both parts of your post though- you are definitely improving.

reply to post by -W1LL


I guess her admission wasn't brought up even though she was under arrest and anything she says and does can be held against her in a court of law right?

After viewing the results of a second breath test at the detention center, she was asked on video whether she was under the influence of alcohol. “Obviously, yes,” she said.

reply to post by SFA437


My brother was the designated driver for some friends and I a couple weeks ago and was pulled over. The cop gave him a breathalyzer withing seconds of walking up (of course he was completely clear). After reading your post and the article (which says they have to wait 20 min before giving a breathalyzer to let alcohol in the mouth dissipate) it made me think about he that officer handled our situation. (just for the anecdote, my brother was pulled over again less than a mile down the road from the first cop, the second cop let us go after we told him and verified where we were pulled over as the same place he had someone was pulled over on the radio minutes before... cops).

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by -W1LL

 

I guess her admission wasn't brought up even though she was under arrest and anything she says and does can be held against her in a court of law right?

After viewing the results of a second breath test at the detention center, she was asked on video whether she was under the influence of alcohol. “Obviously, yes,” she said.

Short answer... It was brought up. The jury ignored it like the ignored all the evidence against OJ or those kids who beat Reginald Denny half to death. Juries do effed up things sometimes. OJ wasn't a cop. The thugs who beat Denny weren't cops. Casey Anthony wasn't a cop.

The OP however wishes to try to link a rather stupid jury that got hung up on Intoxilyzer accuracy (it's about as accurate as a polygraph- which isn't) rather than on other things that could be used to convict to some massive police conspiracy to skate on DWI charges

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by SFA437

 

My brother was the designated driver for some friends and I a couple weeks ago and was pulled over. The cop gave him a breathalyzer withing seconds of walking up (of course he was completely clear). After reading your post and the article (which says they have to wait 20 min before giving a breathalyzer to let alcohol in the mouth dissipate) it made me think about he that officer handled our situation. (just for the anecdote, my brother was pulled over again less than a mile down the road from the first cop, the second cop let us go after we told him and verified where we were pulled over as the same place he had someone was pulled over on the radio minutes before... cops).

The issue with any BAC measurement figure arrived at by measuring alcohol content in the breath is inherently unreliable despite what the Intox5000 people want you to believe. Roadside models are even worse- you'd have just as good a chance of estimating BAC by guessing.

It is a flawed machine that was never supposed to be a substitute for actual blood being drawn.

Good read on how screwy this machine really is and the poor science behind it is here:

Varibales Affecting BAC Breath Mesurement Accuracy

The concluding paragraph sums it up nicely:

While the Intoxilyzer 5000 demonstrates good analytical precision for standard solutions it
suffers from numerous sources of error including calibration solution errors, temperature
variations and interfering endogenous volatile organic compounds. These measured analytical
instrument variations combined with the substantial biological variability (including
absorption/distribution/elimination rate variations, blood/breath partition variations, etc.) warrant
an extremely cautious approach to the reporting and use of breath alcohol readings using this
instrument.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Nice Thread.

Starting off, I do not think this is an example of our flawed system. I do not feel this is a case where an Officer was shown special treatment because they are an Officer.

When it comes to DUI cases, any attorney worth a dime will tell you exactly what I am going to tell you now. Never take the breathalyzer. Always refuse.

Now understand that many states have statutes in place that will cause you to lose your driver's license if you do refuse to blow. Just accept it and always refuse.

Now the reason why defense lawyers suggest you refuse the test is for exactly that same reason testified to by the expert witness in this case. It is a flawed test any many things can effect the results. I do not expect anyone to take my word for it, but if you would like to conduct your own test and you have access to a breathalyzer, try drinking some cough syrup and then blow. Try taking medication and then blow. The chances are high that you may just fail the test, even if you have not had a single drop of alcohol. Besides the reason I have listed and the reasons the expert testified to, there can also be issues with the breathalyzer itself and the training of the person who is administering the test to you. The machine itself needs to be calibrated on a regular basis,by someone who is actually trained to do so.

Now with all that being said, it is VERY VERY important to know the laws in YOUR local area. Refusing a breathalyzer test is not a decision to take lightly. In some cases, it may even be the most important decision you make. In some states, your refusal can bring more serious consequences than if you took the test and failed. It is best to consult a DUI attorney before making any decision, however that is not always possible in the moment. This mainly due to many states having laws regarding "implied consent". When you get your driver's license you are required to sign a form. Many people fail to actually read the form. What that form basically states is that you agree to submit to such testing when asked. There are many legal arguments against implied consent, breathalyzers, DUI and the like, but I am at work right now and I need to get my butt back to work. So I will read the OP again, make sure I did not misunderstand or misread anything and I will try to get back here and explain further when I have more time to really focus.

Excellent Post
and i do agree this case does not show much special treatment it completely shows the faults in our system.

the only place i see special treatment now, is for these reasons.
they did not bring her to the station straight away they waited and chatted, then why no blood test after even admitting being under the influence.

and I feel the District attorney who was supposed to be prosecuting did a horrible job, for whatever reason incompetence or favoritism who really knows that one.

reply to post by -W1LL


The reason is actually quite a bit more mundane than you'd guess.

The Intox 5000 has been put forth as the be all and end all of alcohol measurement. The reason for this is simply cost. The price of the machine is much less than constantly drawing blood and running a tox screen at a hospital.

If you are ever pulled over and blow over an 0.08 on a handheld device and/or fail a field sobriety series you need to INSIST on a blood test. Do not, I repeat DO NOT, go for a breath test. You do have a choice in which test you wish to submit to- breath or blood. TAKE THE BLOOD TEST!

There are so many variables that will make the breath test read higher than it actually is that taking one is essentially risking your freedom and future earning potential on a roll of the dice. That is why the DA did not go after the defense expert- because everything he brought forward about the inaccuracy of the machine is true and case law has already been established on those inaccuracies.

More and more people are starting to wake up and realize that the forensic value of a BAC reading off a breath test is approaching the uselessness of a polygraph only in this case the damn thing almost always reads higher which is to your detriment.

As for the delay- this is mandated in order for alcohol residue left in the mouth to be absorbed and/or evaporated in order not to skew the breath test... see above on why you never take a breath test no matter how long the delay is

reply to post by -W1LL


The Field Sobriety Test is something completely different from taking a breathalyzer test. The Field Sobriety Test is a series of test that test your balance, reaction, eye movements, motor skills in an attempt to see if a person is impaired. That has NOTHING to do with taking a breathalyzer.

A breathalyzer in many cases are done multiple times. Once by a hand held device at the scene and again at a hospital or at the jail by a much larger version of the hand held device.

You can take the Field Sobriety Test and refuse the breathalyzer. Sorry bud, but you are wrong. They are not the same thing and they are completely separate test.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by -W1LL

 

The Field Sobriety Test is something completely different from taking a breathalyzer test. The Field Sobriety Test is a series of test that test your balance, reaction, eye movements, motor skills in an attempt to see if a person is impaired. That has NOTHING to do with taking a breathalyzer.

A breathalyzer in many cases are done multiple times. Once by a hand held device at the scene and again at a hospital or at the jail by a much larger version of the hand held device.

You can take the Field Sobriety Test and refuse the breathalyzer. Sorry bud, but you are wrong. They are not the same thing and they are completely separate test.

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

It's a massive conspiracy by the DA, police department, judge and the entire jury!!!!!

Originally posted by -W1LL

Excellent Post

and i do agree this case does not show much special treatment it completely shows the faults in our system.

the only place i see special treatment now, is for these reasons.
they did not bring her to the station straight away they waited and chatted, then why no blood test after even admitting being under the influence.

and I feel the District attorney who was supposed to be prosecuting did a horrible job, for whatever reason incompetence or favoritism who really knows that one.

I think your view of special treatment, at least as it appears to me, is from a lack of first hand knowledge of these types of situations

Now do not misunderstand me...that is a GOOD THING. Unfortunately for me, I have more than my fair share of first hand knowledge regarding out legal system.

First of all, no one is taken to the station right away. When I was arrested for DUI, it took an hour and a half before I made it to the station. We chatted at the scene, we chatted at the station. I was at the station for at least 45 minutes before the Officer made another attempt to get me to take the breathalyzer test, which I refused.

Why no blood test? Is it remotely possible that it was refused? There are still several States where the police can not force you to submit to a blood test., even if you admit to being under the influence. There is a reason for this and it is not a flaw within the system. It is called the 5th Amendment, your right to not incriminate yourself. Many people make mistakes when they are part of a police investigation, the biggest mistake they make is participating too much with Police. It is the Police Officer's job to make a case against you, it is your job to protect your rights and not help Police to make a case against you.

As far as The DA goes, weather he did a good job or not is not for me to decide and I have nothing to compare his actions in this case to.

reply to post by MrWendal


to right thanks for explaining it.