And Now, In Our Local News. .

:doh: ----- That's all I can say about this judge :doh: .

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070902/BREAKINGNEWS/70831015

FLMom said:

:doh: ----- That's all I can say about this judge :doh: .

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070902/BREAKINGNEWS/70831015

Click to expand...

Well, if the technology is unreliable, it's good a judge had the guts to throw it out.

Nova said:

Well, if the technology is unreliable, it's good a judge had the guts to throw it out.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Nova. If there is no procedure in place and there are questions regarding the BAC levels as a result of that..then this is the right thing to do.

:clap: :clap: is all I can say about this Judge.

My frustration is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" thought process.

I'm picturing some obviously drunk driver who is going to get off just because he can throw out the idea that he blew too hard. Unless it's a DUI checkpoint, you've been pulled over because someone noticed your driving was impaired. To be able to balk at the use of a machine just because "it ain't fair" is plain wrong to me.

Whether you blow for five seconds or twenty, the fact remains that if you blow over .08 in Florida, you're driving under the influence. I'm sorry, but to me "it's not fair" is a lame copout for a drunk driver. It's not the validity of the machine that they're contesting, it's that some cops make suspect blow longer than others. To me, that's a big "so what". Drunk is drunk.

JMHO. . . .

FLMom said:

My frustration is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" thought process.

I'm picturing some obviously drunk driver who is going to get off just because he can throw out the idea that he blew too hard. Unless it's a DUI checkpoint, you've been pulled over because someone noticed your driving was impaired. To be able to balk at the use of a machine just because "it ain't fair" is plain wrong to me.

Whether you blow for five seconds or twenty, the fact remains that if you blow over .08 in Florida, you're driving under the influence. I'm sorry, but to me "it's not fair" is a lame copout for a drunk driver. It's not the validity of the machine that they're contesting, it's that some cops make suspect blow longer than others. To me, that's a big "so what". Drunk is drunk.

JMHO. . . .

Click to expand...

I hear you, FLMOM, and I'm certainly no fan of loaded drivers running amok on our roads, believe you me.

But the tests MUST be consistent and not flawed and fair to all who take them. This is a cornerstone of our justice system and if some drunks have to fall through the system to get it fixed, then so be it.

The alternative is too dreadful to consider, quite frankly, and I applaud any Judge who has the stones to realize and act on this in the face of the negative publicity he is sure to receive.

southcitymom said:

I hear you, FLMOM, and I'm certainly no fan of loaded drivers running amok on our roads, believe you me.

But the tests MUST be consistent and not flawed and fair to all who take them. This is a cornerstone of our justice system and if some drunks have to fall through the system to get it fixed, then so be it.

The alternative is too dreadful to consider, quite frankly, and I applaud any Judge who has the stones to realize and act on this in the face of the negative publicity he is sure to receive.

Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, and I agree to the extent that LE should now have a seminar to make sure everyone is on the right page. That being said, to let some driver off the hook because he blew a .08 after five seconds and the guy next to him blew a .09 after ten seconds-- either way you cut it, both guys weren't fit to be behind the wheel.

Judges have wide discretion in most cases. If both our suspects mentioned above failed the field sobriety tests, then there's a reason he's a judge and he could have found someone guilty despite the breath test. My frustration is the narrowness of his decision and discretion. To make changes so that things are done properly in the future?---absolutely. To refuse to consider any and all other evidence in the case?---I think that's wrong. Right or wrong, there's always a grey area and that's what judges get discretion to consider. I just think it was the wrong way to go about this.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, SCM. :innocent:

FLMom said:

I see where you're coming from, and I agree to the extent that LE should now have a seminar to make sure everyone is on the right page. That being said, to let some driver off the hook because he blew a .08 after five seconds and the guy next to him blew a .09 after ten seconds-- either way you cut it, both guys weren't fit to be behind the wheel.

Judges have wide discretion in most cases. If both our suspects mentioned above failed the field sobriety tests, then there's a reason he's a judge and he could have found someone guilty despite the breath test. My frustration is the narrowness of his decision and discretion. To make changes so that things are done properly in the future?---absolutely. To refuse to consider any and all other evidence in the case?---I think that's wrong. Right or wrong, there's always a grey area and that's what judges get discretion to consider. I just think it was the wrong way to go about this.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, SCM. :innocent:

Click to expand...

I hear and respect you, FLMom! :blowkiss:

I agree that an unreliable test should be questioned, but it is a nightmare to think that every DUI case that rested on a breathalyzer could be thrown out. The consequences could be devastating. Repeat offenders could have their licenses reinstated or get out of jail, even though they have no business being behind the wheel. How many deaths will be on this judges hands?

If someone is truly shocked that they blew the test, I would think they'd request a blood test. Now maybe they were near the edge, and they weren't sure, and I have a harder time feeling sorry for those people. If they're not sure, they shouldn't be driving. But if they had only had one drink with dinner and were truly unimpaired, you'd think there would be tons of complaints and requests for a BAC.

I think they should do more extensive testing on the equipment before any kind of ruling like this. In the meantime, can officers be given the little finger poke things that diabetics use? I'll bet the drunks would be totally POed if they had to have that every time. They'd be lining up to blow into the tube!!!