About the possibility of the breathalyzer being faulty - to what degree and how would one's lawyer prove this? They wouldn't have access to the actual breathalyzer gadget that was used to test the person being charged. So I'm curious as to how a lawyer would use the faulty gadget approach as a defense.
What you do is pull the records for the machine - they are supposed to be calibrated every X amount of days, so you check to see if that is done. You see if the reading gives the proper amount. You check to see if it was maintenanced on schedule. You check to see if the person administering the test has kept his certification up to date (like CPR certification). You check to see if there have been any major repairs, and to what part of the machine.
If the machine is faulty, the reading can't be used. Mostly, this affects "high test" cases where you get a stricter penalty, but for others, where there's very little evidence otherwise that the person was impaired, the loss of the result as evidence kills the case.
The idea of this tactic hit me the wrong way due to the fact that you must not refuse a breathalyzer test if you are suspected of DUI. But then if you take one, you're saying that the test may indicate you're over the limit when you're not? To what degree do they test faulty when they do? Because if someone blows 2.0 or something, a little this way or a little that way doesn't really matter does it? I'm just trying to understand the truth behind this tactic as I don't think it's fair that peeps who can't afford a good lawyer don't get any breaks when they make potentially deadly mistakes but the rich kids so-to-speak do.
It's actually better not to blow - it's not proof that you are inebriated. Then the case centers on the police testimony and the cruiser video, which don't always add up. There is some wiggle room with the outcome of the test - I don't recall the exact amount off the top of my head, but a case is very pliable if the result is within .02, I believe (guessing here, could be wrong).
You don't even have to afford a "good" lawyer - DUIs are super easy. Most lawyers can handle them very easily with minimal effort. It's not just for rich kids to get out of. In Ohio, I heard the statistic that 1 in 7 has a DUI. I can tell you that I believe it - and many more have DUI charges which were plead down to other traffic infractions. For some, you can tell by the video that they certainly were under the influence, but for others, you really cannot tell. If they perform well on field sobriety tests, but LE has them take a faulty breathalzyer, that puts them in an untenable position.
I'm sorry for JA that his son made this serious error in judgment but I wish the son would get the same punishment that anyone else would get under the law since the charge is a specific one. I don't think we can just brush laws aside because we like someone or are on their side. We can support them and understand what they're going through but not make excuses for them just because we like them. :twocents:
Oh and I don't doubt that JA's son was targeted too due to JA's political goals. All the more reason that he should have called for a ride or stayed where he was or made any other decision than to get behind the wheel of his car.
The thing is, there's not one set punishment under the law - things like DUIs are very flexible, and they take into account the circumstances of the case and the person who committed the infraction. The result of the breathalyzer, previous DUIs, how they behaved towards LE, whether they took proactive steps beforehand, whether the prosecutor is inflexible or not - all of these things change what the sentence will be.
This isn't like a federal crime with set sentencing guidelines. Municipal Courts are pretty free in their sentencing.