Supersquid
Well-known member
What are the laws on calibration. I'm pretty sure he ****ed up. Don't really want to say more
|
|
|
Breathalyser calibration
- Thread starter Supersquid
- Start date
Supersquid
Well-known member
I don't need a lawyer if I have the facts I just need someone to put it in laymens
like Splash said get a lawyer. Also again like splash said are you talking about a hand held or the big intoxilizer at the station. They answer to you question depends on this clarification
Last edited:
Can't supply an intelligent reply unless as stated we know which you are speaking of the hand held, (which is generally used to get a reading then if a fail is registered they will use the breathalyzer), or are you talking about the station or vehicle mounted breathalyzer?
Either way, you may not think you need a lawyer, BUT your dead wrong this will screw you up BIG time if convicted. As an ex copper I don't EVER suggest a lay person try to beat this charge.
Either way, you may not think you need a lawyer, BUT your dead wrong this will screw you up BIG time if convicted. As an ex copper I don't EVER suggest a lay person try to beat this charge.
If you need a question answered in laymens, You really think you are prepared for lawyer talk in court?
<embed id="xunlei_com_thunder_helper_plugin_d462f475-c18e-46be-bd10-327458d045bd" type="application/thunder_download_plugin" height="0" width="0">Never seen a vehicle mounted breathalyzer, can it be used for court evidence other than the station's?<textarea id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display: none;"></textarea>
yes. in the UK you can also demand a blood test not sure if thats the same here.
My understanding is that such devices are not calibrated in the field, but rather their calibration is checked using a known sample. Here is a link to a case that discusses calibration and variation.
http://canlii.ca/t/2dlx9
http://canlii.ca/t/2dlx9
Some jurisdictions have the breathalyzer, (which is the commonly used name for the full sized machine), mounted in vehicles, (cube type trucks for use at RIDE checks and other similar uses).
Any police officer can be "trained" to use the road side screening device, (similar to a radar device, where most officers are trained on its use), and many are. However, there are far fewer trained "breath techs" the guys who test calibrate and use the breathalyzer. Either device is permissible for use in court however, courts "generally" give MUCH more weight to breathalyzer results.
As for the demand for a blood test, a police officer may also demand a blood test. It is "generally" used if the driver is taken to hospital for injuries and doing a breath test is unreasonable. Or if a person has a medical issue which may prevent a breath test, (unconscious, has deformity, breathing disorder, etc.). Although blood tests are much more rare here in Ontario. The results from a blood test are considered VERY accurate and "generally" result in a slightly higher reading, then you would get from a breathalyzer.
WAAAY back when I was a copper they sometimes had officers "test" this out by giving a breath test and also drawing blood then comparing the results, (with a breath test you may get a reading of say .130. Then the blood test would come back at say .143. So not a huge difference, (the blood was generally drawn right after the breath test was administered).
The Op hasn't replied, so we still don't know what instrument he is asking about but the breath techs ALWAYS, tested and calibrated the breathalyzer before they began the tests, (which back then two samples were taken 20 minutes apart and the courts "usually" used the standard that at least the FIRST test should be conducted within 2 hours of the person coming into contact with the police officer. Some times, (depending upon when the last drink was taken), the second reading was higher then the first, but most of mine were lower, (albeit slightly). The highest readings I ever had a perp blow was .286 and .295 so he was still going UP, (he was a lifelong alcoholic). MOST people would be unable to even stand little alone drive with that BAC, (Blood Alcohol Concentration).
<embed quality="low" id="xunlei_com_thunder_helper_plugin_d462f475-c18e-46be-bd10-327458d045bd" type="application/thunder_download_plugin" height="0" width="0">
From a conviction standpoint it's obviously better to under report, than it is to over report the reading.
Dresden
Well-known member
My thoughts exactly.
JFD
Well-known member
The conviction of "i'm pretty sure he ****ed up" is amazing...
1- if you got charged with this, why the heck are you going to rely on an internet forum for legal assistance? Dude, it deserves more attention than GTAM...
2- what are the facts of the charge, against what you think are the facts? I think that would help immensely if you're going to ignore #1. IE what did you get charged with, what did they supply you that you're disputing, and what exactly do you have as evidence to support your side?
1- if you got charged with this, why the heck are you going to rely on an internet forum for legal assistance? Dude, it deserves more attention than GTAM...
2- what are the facts of the charge, against what you think are the facts? I think that would help immensely if you're going to ignore #1. IE what did you get charged with, what did they supply you that you're disputing, and what exactly do you have as evidence to support your side?
Talk to a lawyer!
Lawyers will give you the initial consult for free, to see if you have a case.
I didn't think you were allowed to question the accuracy of the breath sample device anymore... but I would talk to Fred Fedorsen (551 Gerrard E Toronto, ON M4M 1X7 (416) 463-6666), who made his name questioning the accuracy of said device (Molsons have Fred on retainer for their employees).
Fred is NOT cheap, but he is the best in the city for "impaireds".
Lawyers will give you the initial consult for free, to see if you have a case.
I didn't think you were allowed to question the accuracy of the breath sample device anymore... but I would talk to Fred Fedorsen (551 Gerrard E Toronto, ON M4M 1X7 (416) 463-6666), who made his name questioning the accuracy of said device (Molsons have Fred on retainer for their employees).
Fred is NOT cheap, but he is the best in the city for "impaireds".
I would agree with the general advice to contact a lawyer who is familiar with fighting this charge. This area of law isn't one that you want to play a nickle and dime game with, as the potential ramifications are far reaching. Also the areas of law involved are far from simple.
|
|
|
|
|