Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt on countless convictions

Re:Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt o... by uhhhhhhh on Thursday May 10, 2018 @11:23AM (#17039680)

From a legal standpoint, its 0.08 within the ability to accurately measure BAC. I promise every machine has a margin of error and that is accepted.

if you're within the margin of error for measuring equipment that's just part of life. Applies to radar guns, applies to breathalyzers, and every other technical solution to a legal issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt o... by jessaustin on Thursday May 10, 2018 @12:49PM (#17040567)

If the margin of error for a particular device were 0.07, that would seem less acceptable as just part of life?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt o... by unethical_ban on Thursday May 10, 2018 @01:07PM (#17040765)

If the law says someone must be at 0.08 or above, and the machine margin of error is 0.01, then the machine should have to read 0.09 before someone is penalized.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt o... by sigstoat on Thursday May 10, 2018 @03:16PM (#17042096)

the jury gets to know the the value, and the error, and weight it accordingly, along with the rest of the evidence.

also the acceptable error on the GC/FID testing used for blood alcohol is 3-5%, depending on lab, etc. so that's 0.004. if you managed to get the cop's attention at 0.083, and you're drunk enough they bother to arrest you, instead of trying to find someone drunker to spend 2 hours arresting, the DA is still probably going to offer DWAI or less for your 0.083 unless you've got a long history of drunk driving.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt o... by cascom on Thursday May 10, 2018 @03:18PM (#17042108)

Then shouldn’t the margin of error tolerance of the machine be part of the law as well?

[ Parent | on HN ]