So I’ll start by prefacing that my comments here aren’t comprehensive solutions. I can’t fully explain some things here. The legal systems many of us live with

So I’ll start by prefacing that my comments here aren’t comprehensive solutions. I can’t fully explain some things here. The legal systems many of us live with have been iterated on for centuries and include who knows how many written words. I haven’t even studied them very much. I’m just a citizen that’s familiar with their ways and have a feel for what is acceptable justice and also for when things go wrong and something feels unjust. That’s what this whole thing feels like. That said, there’s plenty of room for grey area of “proof”. People get convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence. But usually it compounds. Like, the accused lied to police, changed their story, can’t explain their whereabouts, or is evasive. Even with some so called evidence, I could ask “is that really proof?” If hair is found at a murder scene and DNA identifies the source, does that actually prove they murdered someone? You could argue it just proves the hair is that persons and found its way some how to the murder scene. Maybe it fell off in the grocery store and stuck to someone’s shoe or the wind blew it. Who knows but point being this very well may not be enough to convict someone alone. But with some other facts like unable to produce an alibi and oh it turns out the victim is having an affair with suspect’s spouse… and most reasonable people start to feel comfortable putting this person in prison for life based on the entirety of the facts > Stopped a mile up the road from a hit-and-run, weaving drunkenly at excess speed? No worries they'll need to prove the speed camera can't be wrong, and prove that all the alcohol technology is entirely reliable and couldn't be mistaken. The guy who arrested you can say you weren't driving well, but chances are your lawyer can trick him into asserting you were drunk, which is inadmissible since machines aren't perfect, that means it's a mistrial, you walk. So, no I don’t think you’d walk. Hit and run is a felony and pretty easy to determine. Did they stop and render aide or alert a first responder? It’s pretty binary and Doesn’t matter if they were drunk. The drunk think increases the charges if the test was positive, but they fled so likely the cops caught up to them well after it happened and alcohol was metabolized. I’ll ignore that though, and assume they were present and got tested. The reliability and accuracy of the machine has seen many orders of magnitude more testing and “peer review” such that if maintenance has been documented and machine has no record of malfunctions it’s clear it’s probably trustworthy. It’s not one guy who built the machine saying “trust me”. The police would likely also take this driver to get a blood sample collected as supporting evidence. If that was done so timely enough to explain any variance in results, then it’s even more solid of a case. If the variance of results can’t be reasonably explained, the field testing machine results would or should be seen as unreliable. (I think most jury’s would see this however there’s a lot of other factors that could weigh in like a past history or alcohol related crime).