5 ms·

As someone who had my run-ins... i was usually pulled over for speeding, then a couple of times I was taken to he police station for refusal to do field sobriet

As someone who had my run-ins... i was usually pulled over for speeding, then a couple of times I was taken to he police station for refusal to do field sobriety tests. The trick to beating these breathalyzers is burping audibly prior to taking the test. This mandates a 30min wait to clear the alcohol from your mouth. Do this a couple times and youve just burned off one drink. YMMV.

MereInterest 7y ago
While all your statements are true, your last sentence makes the entire post be abhorrent. Raising awareness on the inaccuracy of breathalyzers is good. Using this to encourage people to drink then drive, and framing the instructions in that manner, is morally irresponsible. If you drink, don't drive.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  first, I'm skeptical that this trick actually works. IANAL, but as I understand it, the police can extrapolate backwards from the breathalyzer reading to estimate what your BAC was while you were actually driving. this practice is somewhat controversial because different people have different elimination rates, but I believe it is still generally accepted by courts in the US. so unless you're able to delay to the point where you have a BAC of zero (which can't be extrapolated from), this doesn't actually help you. it may even hurt you by adding more variance to the situation. second, GP did not go so far as to actually encourage people to drive drunk. they merely gave (somewhat dubious) advice to anyone who may find themselves arrested on suspicion of DUI. in almost any interaction a citizen has with law enforcement, there is a strong information asymmetry working against them, and not all officers are seeking a just outcome. imo, any knowledge or technique that counters this imbalance is good for citizens to have.
  - owenmarshall 7y ago
    In many states this isn’t a “trick”: a 20 minute observation period is codified in law before the evidentiary breath test is used to ensure that the test is accurate. See for example this publication from the Wisconsin bar association - https://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/pages/article.aspx?Volume=88&Issue=1&ArticleID=23792 https://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/page... > The protocol for an Intoximeter test, by contrast, is much more involved. A valid test on the Intoximeter must be preceded by a 20-minute observation period (to ensure the subject does not burp, belch, regurgitate, and so on). Additionally I would be surprised if you can produce case law around estimation and extrapolation of BAC being legally acceptable in courts: in most cases the opposite is true. For example, Romano v. Kimmelman: > In drunk driving prosecutions a substantial burden of proof to establish the competence or admissibility of the results of the breathalyzer test is appropriate because of the serious consequences of the breathalyzer reading in such prosecutions. In general the best advice for people pulled over by the police is to refuse any preliminary breath test and refuse any field sobriety tests. Those tests exist to establish probable cause to take you to the police station for an evidentiary test. Your state law may of course vary but in mine refusal of either roadside test is not illegal and the refusal is not admissible in court. If you are taken to the police station for a test because the police have probable cause you almost certainly cannot refuse that test without violating state law; this is where a good lawyer challenging probable cause for the stop/search and the testing procedures comes into play.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bdcravens 7y ago
They can typically get a warrant for a blood draw, generally in less than 30 minutes.

MereInterest 7y ago

While all your statements are true, your last sentence makes the entire post be abhorrent. Raising awareness on the inaccuracy of breathalyzers is good. Using this to encourage people to drink then drive, and framing the instructions in that manner, is morally irresponsible. If you drink, don't drive.

leetcrew 7y ago
first, I'm skeptical that this trick actually works. IANAL, but as I understand it, the police can extrapolate backwards from the breathalyzer reading to estimate what your BAC was while you were actually driving. this practice is somewhat controversial because different people have different elimination rates, but I believe it is still generally accepted by courts in the US. so unless you're able to delay to the point where you have a BAC of zero (which can't be extrapolated from), this doesn't actually help you. it may even hurt you by adding more variance to the situation. second, GP did not go so far as to actually encourage people to drive drunk. they merely gave (somewhat dubious) advice to anyone who may find themselves arrested on suspicion of DUI. in almost any interaction a citizen has with law enforcement, there is a strong information asymmetry working against them, and not all officers are seeking a just outcome. imo, any knowledge or technique that counters this imbalance is good for citizens to have.
- owenmarshall 7y ago
  In many states this isn’t a “trick”: a 20 minute observation period is codified in law before the evidentiary breath test is used to ensure that the test is accurate. See for example this publication from the Wisconsin bar association - https://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/pages/article.aspx?Volume=88&Issue=1&ArticleID=23792 https://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/page... > The protocol for an Intoximeter test, by contrast, is much more involved. A valid test on the Intoximeter must be preceded by a 20-minute observation period (to ensure the subject does not burp, belch, regurgitate, and so on). Additionally I would be surprised if you can produce case law around estimation and extrapolation of BAC being legally acceptable in courts: in most cases the opposite is true. For example, Romano v. Kimmelman: > In drunk driving prosecutions a substantial burden of proof to establish the competence or admissibility of the results of the breathalyzer test is appropriate because of the serious consequences of the breathalyzer reading in such prosecutions. In general the best advice for people pulled over by the police is to refuse any preliminary breath test and refuse any field sobriety tests. Those tests exist to establish probable cause to take you to the police station for an evidentiary test. Your state law may of course vary but in mine refusal of either roadside test is not illegal and the refusal is not admissible in court. If you are taken to the police station for a test because the police have probable cause you almost certainly cannot refuse that test without violating state law; this is where a good lawyer challenging probable cause for the stop/search and the testing procedures comes into play.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bdcravens 7y ago

They can typically get a warrant for a blood draw, generally in less than 30 minutes.