re: Gadgets - Re: People's Exhibit Number One

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayleigh, Rita

I'm curious. If you mind would you forward the applicable links you made

mention of below Rita?

I recall reading a magazine, with focus on electronic gadgets, that featured

a breathalyzer that was incorporated into the bottom of a police baton

flashlight which was to be marketed for primary use in obtaining a breath

sample without the subject being aware they were being tested. It would

work something like this. The police officer pulls over a subject approaches

the car with the flashlight in hand and during the course of the

conversation brings the business end of the breathalyzer close enough to the

subject for a sample. I'm not sure how close it would have to come. The

results could be used to justify a field sobriety test and so on.

Along the same lines I've heard/read about an eye vapor test which was

supposed to be extremely accurate in determining BAC levels.

I was wondering if anyone has come across these gadgets and can give more

info on them.

Kayleigh - Re: People's Exhibit Number One

> -----------------------

>

> Actually, a Breathalyzer reading of 0.01 is not considered

proof of

> having consumed alcohol at all. This extremely low level could

actually

> be naturally occurring in the body, saliva, etc. Generally only

> readings of 0.02 and above are given any credence. And I do believe

> they are more accurate at higher levels, but I'd have to check. The

> NHTSA margin of ±0.005 is for levels of 0.02 - 0.08.

>

> Yes, breathalyzer devices need a certain amount of maintenance.

> I'm not certain of the particulars, but I believe the breathalyzer

> component of the interlock device can be removed for scheduled

> maintenance and calibration. I would suppose, as with most things,

you

> get what you pay for, so there are cheapo devices and better-quality

> ones. I can dig up the URL's of some websites for these devices if

> you're curious.

>

> If you recall, I was caught up in the peculiar nightmare of

> Breathalyzer accuracy and whether or not to " count " the reading.

With a

> federal cutoff level of 0.04 in my line of work, I had registered

0.042

> -- which would beg the question, if the device has a margin of

error

of

> ±0.005, then quite possibly the actual level could have been

under

the

> limit, as low as 0.037. But even worse, I had submitted to a blood

test

> immediately afterwards, which gave a reading of 0.034.

Nevertheless,

> they called the Breathalyzer reading " positive " , labeled me " unfit

for

> duty " , and as company rules (supported by our union contract)

require,

> forced me into 9 months of " chemical dependency treatment " . I lost

my

> labor grievance case at arbitration. Weird, huh? I'm certain I

would

> have won if I'd challenged the reading in court instead of

approaching

> it as a labor grievance.

>

> Remember, though -- voluntary installation of the interlock

device

> has no nasty repercussions, such as being fired, going to prison, or

> being forced into unnecessary and abusive " treatment " . It is

simply

an

> aid to harm reduction and civic responsibility on a personal level.

>

> ~Rita

If I am understanding you correctly, then, a reading of below .02 is

considered either insignificant or misleading.

I know your story, and since I've certainly heard for many years that

blood tests are more accurate than breath tests, I'm amazed that your

company did not accept it. I'm pretty sure, though not positive,

that

the courts here would accept the results of a blood test rather than

the results of a contemporaneous breath test. People arrests for DUI

are permitted to request it, but the hitch is the inevitable time

lapse between the breath test and the time it takes to get to a

hospital.

I understand what you are saying about the voluntary installation of

interlock devices, the trouble is, I would not want to be held

hostage

to a very low, erroneous reading if I needed to respond to an

emergency, for example. I was once tested at work as well, and

tested

..011. I had been taking cough medicine that afternoon. My boss

wrote

me a memo in which he said that he believed I had been drinking

despite the breath test results. People are incredibly ignorant

about

these things.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CatalogLink offers hundreds of catalogs for FREE!

Click here to find the latest and greatest in the

world of catalogs - check out our featured Picks of the Week

and also look to enter our $500 catalog shopping spree!

http://click./1/6068/2/_/4324/_/962995717/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi --

The " secret flashlight breathalyzer " idea sounds ridiculously

implausible -- Breathalyzers generally require quite a forceful blow

directly into the retaining tube (trust me, I know, I've been

breathalyzed 150 times in the past 3 years as a " punishment " from my

employer for rejecting 12-step/disease philosophy) and besides, from a

distance the person's breath would be mixed with ambient air resulting

in a meaningless reading.

I don't know what you mean by " eye vapor test " , but there is a test

of eye motor function for intoxication which I guess is in the

developmental stages -- the reference I found shows a 19% inaccuracy

rate with a 15% false positive rate, which is pretty useless. Here is

the URL for that:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s30p1.htm

Back to the subject of ignition interlocks -- here are some URL's:

effectiveness in preventing recidivism:

http://www.usroads.com/journals/rilj/9707/ri970703.htm

nationally available devices:

http://www.cstinc.com/faqs/faqs.html

http://www.ignitioninterlock.com/qanda.htm

State mandated programs:

http://www.interlocksys.com

http://mdn.org/1995/STORIES/DWI.HTM

for lowered insurance premiums:

http://www.thecarnet.com/About_Us/ResponsibleDriver/responsibledriver.htm

Standards bill -- New Mexico:

http://ipl.unm.edu/traf/legislation/interlock1.html

Hope this answers some questions. Though the interlock device may

be somewhat intrusive or even infantilizing when mandated and supervised

by probation departments, I will say again: It sure beats mandated

brainwash " treatment " , with its huge potential for abuse of determining

" compliance " . I'd much rather have my body fluids tested than my

thoughts and beliefs assessed for " correctness " !!

~Rita

--------------------

wrote:

<< I'm curious. If you mind would you forward the applicable links you

made mention of below Rita?

I recall reading a magazine, with focus on electronic gadgets, that

featured a breathalyzer that was incorporated into the bottom of a

police baton flashlight which was to be marketed for primary use in

obtaining a breath sample without the subject being aware they were

being tested. It would work something like this. The police officer

pulls over a subject approaches the car with the flashlight in hand and

during the course of the conversation brings the business end of the

breathalyzer close enough to the subject for a sample. I'm not sure how

close it would have to come. The results could be used to justify a

field sobriety test and so on.

Along the same lines I've heard/read about an eye vapor test which was

supposed to be extremely accurate in determining BAC levels.

I was wondering if anyone has come across these gadgets and can give

more info on them. >>

[Guest guest]

-- In 12-step-freeegroups, rita66@w... wrote:

>>> Actually, a Breathalyzer reading of 0.01 is not considered proof of

having consumed alcohol at all. This extremely low level could actually be

naturally occurring in the body, saliva, etc. Generally only readings of 0.02

and above are given any credence. And I do believe they are more accurate at

higher levels, but I'd have to check.<<<

In California, a person under the age of 18 can have their drivers license

suspended for a year with a breath test over .01 (California Vehicle Code

§23126)

The statute specifically allows the cops to use a PAS (preliminary alcohol

screening) test. The PAS device is a hand-held testing device, generally not

admissible against adults in California because the test is not conducted in

accordance with accepted scientific procedures, or Title 17 of the California

Code of Regulations, which requires a fifteen minute waiting period before

testing, and two " blows. "

This is a CIVIL administrative proceeding conducted by the DMV, not a

criminal offense, so the burden of proof is lower. A good expert witness can

usually rip up the test with lower levels, but the DMV hearing officer is

prosecutor, judge and jury.

>>> Yes, breathalyzer devices need a certain amount of maintenance. I'm not

certain of the particulars, but I believe the breathalyzer component of the

interlock device can be removed for scheduled maintenance and calibration. <<<

Most California counties use the Intoxilyzer 5000, which is not usually

disassembled unless the machine malfunctions.

Title 17 requires calibration every ten days, or after every 150 subjects

tested, whichever comes first. The calibration is performed by using a solution

with a known alcohol level, which is heated to body temperature.

-----

Every man thinks God is on his side.

The rich and powerful know He is.

-Anouilh

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup