5 ms·

> evidence from a detector van had never been submitted How could it be, if the mechanism behind the detector is not made public? Prosecutor: This machine say

> evidence from a detector van had never been submitted How could it be, if the mechanism behind the detector is not made public? Prosecutor: This machine says you are guilty. Defendant: How does that machine work? Prosecutor: You aren't allowed to know. Defendant: ??? Judge: Case dismissed.

stronglikedan 7y ago
Not the US.
- rolph 7y ago
  yup even brushing your teeth and using mouthwash is not a stymie, often this is viewed as destruction/interference with evidence, if a cop can discover empty aloholic containers.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Brushing your teeth doesn't affect breathalyzer readings at all. Alcoholic mouthwash can give false positives for up to 20 minutes, and cops are supposed to wait and try again for that reason; you've got a good shot at getting it thrown out if they don't.
    - rolph 7y ago
      around my parts, it would be tampering with evidence even if there is no proof or indicator that evidence of a crime existed, before "tampering" the brushing teeth and mouthwash is simply part of a power commuters hygene routine. in NY for example people use the time spent at traffic lights to do all sorts of things.
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        That's fucked up, I'm sorry. In most places in the US, cops would ignore it, because it doesn't do anything. Breathalyzers detect metabolized alcohol vapor from your lungs; nothing you can put in your mouth will stop that as long as there's alcohol in your bloodstream and you're still breathing.
        rolph 7y ago
        oh dont be sorry its not your fault and interjections are valid, just to get things on track with the thread, this is about circumventing an authorities ability to detect an offence, and some authorities will assume innoccuous behaviour is evidence probable cause or reasonable suspicion, basically where im sitting, any circumstance you create that causes an investigation to go off script, can be interference if you intended to do it regardless of what you are trying to accomplish.
    - soneil 7y ago
      Here breathlyzers aren't evidence, they're probable cause. To be admissible they either need you to accept the result, or go custodial for a blood test.
Scoundreller 7y ago
Sounds like typical legal stances on breathalyzers, speed cameras and red light cameras.
- tantalor 7y ago
  A bad breathalyzer can be challenged in court as "not scientifically reliable". https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/judge-finds-breathalyzer-not-scientifically-reliable.html https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/ju...
  - eitland 7y ago
    Around here they are just used as part of a first step I think: if you fail it you'll be asked to go for a alcohol blood test.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      And around here, they’ll just take you to the station for a more advanced breathalyzer test (Canada). Even though the police can compel a blood sample through a hospital, they don’t bother because the law doesn’t require it for a conviction.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    A dog though is considered always reliable: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/supreme-court-alert-by-a-trained-or-certified-drug-dog-normally-provides-probable-cause/ https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/supreme-court-alert-by-a-t... So maybe they should have used TV-sniffing dogs instead? :)
    - ascagnel_ 7y ago
      Subtly different situation -- a dog sniff is only an indicator of probable cause, while a breathalyzer may be presented as evidence of guilt.
    - tonyarkles 7y ago
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
That's what parallel construction is for!
- steve19 7y ago
  Its the opposite. The TV vans were the parallel construction, they couldn't have worked but they were known to send licensing officers to look through peoples windows during prime TV watching hours.

stronglikedan 7y ago

Not the US.

rolph 7y ago
yup even brushing your teeth and using mouthwash is not a stymie, often this is viewed as destruction/interference with evidence, if a cop can discover empty aloholic containers.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Brushing your teeth doesn't affect breathalyzer readings at all. Alcoholic mouthwash can give false positives for up to 20 minutes, and cops are supposed to wait and try again for that reason; you've got a good shot at getting it thrown out if they don't.
  - rolph 7y ago
    around my parts, it would be tampering with evidence even if there is no proof or indicator that evidence of a crime existed, before "tampering" the brushing teeth and mouthwash is simply part of a power commuters hygene routine. in NY for example people use the time spent at traffic lights to do all sorts of things.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      That's fucked up, I'm sorry. In most places in the US, cops would ignore it, because it doesn't do anything. Breathalyzers detect metabolized alcohol vapor from your lungs; nothing you can put in your mouth will stop that as long as there's alcohol in your bloodstream and you're still breathing.
      - rolph 7y ago
        oh dont be sorry its not your fault and interjections are valid, just to get things on track with the thread, this is about circumventing an authorities ability to detect an offence, and some authorities will assume innoccuous behaviour is evidence probable cause or reasonable suspicion, basically where im sitting, any circumstance you create that causes an investigation to go off script, can be interference if you intended to do it regardless of what you are trying to accomplish.
  - soneil 7y ago
    Here breathlyzers aren't evidence, they're probable cause. To be admissible they either need you to accept the result, or go custodial for a blood test.

Scoundreller 7y ago

Sounds like typical legal stances on breathalyzers, speed cameras and red light cameras.

tantalor 7y ago
A bad breathalyzer can be challenged in court as "not scientifically reliable". https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/judge-finds-breathalyzer-not-scientifically-reliable.html https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/ju...
- eitland 7y ago
  Around here they are just used as part of a first step I think: if you fail it you'll be asked to go for a alcohol blood test.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    And around here, they’ll just take you to the station for a more advanced breathalyzer test (Canada). Even though the police can compel a blood sample through a hospital, they don’t bother because the law doesn’t require it for a conviction.
- smsm42 7y ago
  A dog though is considered always reliable: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/supreme-court-alert-by-a-trained-or-certified-drug-dog-normally-provides-probable-cause/ https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/supreme-court-alert-by-a-t... So maybe they should have used TV-sniffing dogs instead? :)
  - ascagnel_ 7y ago
    Subtly different situation -- a dog sniff is only an indicator of probable cause, while a breathalyzer may be presented as evidence of guilt.
  - tonyarkles 7y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

That's what parallel construction is for!

steve19 7y ago
Its the opposite. The TV vans were the parallel construction, they couldn't have worked but they were known to send licensing officers to look through peoples windows during prime TV watching hours.