Padre Robert Griffin III responde a Rob ParkerJim Corbett, EE.UU. HOY SportsShare
Padre Robert Griffin III, dijo que no está dejando comentarios racistas de un comentarista de llegar a él.
Rob Parker ESPN causó un gran revuelo con sus comentarios el jueves en RGIII y raza.
RGIII padre dijo que los comentarios no eran racistas pero tenían la intención de causar un gran revuelo.
20:44 EST 13 de diciembre. 2012 - Ashburn, VA. -
Robert Griffin II dijo que no ofenderse con comentarios despectivos
raciales hechas por un primer comentarista de ESPN Tome jueves, porque
"no va a beneficiar" a nadie.
Temprano
en el día, durante el espectáculo, comentarista Rob Parker, quien es
negro, había puesto en duda la autenticidad Robert Griffin III,
preguntando: "¿Es un hermano, o es un hermano cornball?" Parker continuó sus críticas al mariscal de campo novato Washington Redskins:
"Él no es real. Bien, él es negro, especie de hace la cosa, pero no es realmente abajo con la causa", dijo Parker. "No
es uno de nosotros. Es una especie de negro, pero no es verdad, como el
tipo con el que quieres pasar el rato con él porque es libre para otra
cosa.
"Todos
sabemos que él tiene una novia blanco. Había toda esta charla acerca de
cómo él es un republicano ... Tiger Woods estaba como, 'yo tengo la
piel negro, pero no me llames negro'".
Griffin
II le dijo a USA TODAY Sports fue sorprendido por los comentarios, pero
no dispararía de nuevo la noche del jueves, a pesar de los comentarios
de Parker inició la blogosfera y provocó airadas respuestas de medios
sociales. A
los pocos minutos después de que su padre hablaba, Griffin III twitteó a
sus seguidores: "Estoy agradecido por muchas cosas en la vida y una de
esas cosas es su ayuda Gracias.".
ESPN
portavoz Mike Soltys dijo a Sports USA Today que los comentarios de
Parker "no eran adecuadas y estamos evaluando nuestros próximos pasos."
Griffin II dijo que sus próximos pasos fueron a despedir a los comentarios de Parker.
"Él tiene que definir lo que" uno de nosotros "es. Ese tipo tiene que definir eso", dijo. "Yo
no diría que es el racismo. Sólo quiero decir que algunas personas
ponen las cosas que hay sobre las personas para que puedan remover las
cosas.
"Robert
está en muy buena forma en que está, en la que necesita para llegar a
fin de buscar los objetivos que tiene en la vida ... así que no te
ofendas".
Durante su conferencia de prensa semanal miércoles, Griffin III, dijo que no quiere ser definido por la raza.
"Uno quiere ser definido por su ética de trabajo, la persona que eres, tu carácter, tu personalidad", dijo. "Yo soy un africano-americano en Estados Unidos. Pero no tiene que ser definida por eso".
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
¿Alcohol y GERD - aliento prueba problema?
Después de una noche particularmente festiva que incluía unos tragos en el encuentro de un amigo el invierno pasado, K. Renfrew, una ciudad de Nueva York residente que padece enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico, también conocido como GERD, fue superado con los síntomas de delator de la enfermedad. "Hubo mucha presión centrada en mi pecho", dice. "Se sentía como un ataque de ansiedad mezclado con un ataque al corazón". No es de extrañar: el Alcohol es uno de los mayores desencadenantes de GERD.
Con la temporada de fiesta a alta velocidad, los doctores dicen que hombres y mujeres que sufren de GERD también pueden ser en durante un período de ataques de acidez estomacal. Aunque no todas las personas con GERD tienen problemas con el alcohol, muchos hacen claramente. "Es muy individualizado," dice el Dr. Philip Jaffe, profesor asociado de medicina en el centro de salud de la Universidad de Connecticut.
¿Cómo el alcohol empeora GERD. GERD es una condición en la que copia los jugos ácidos que normalmente permanecen en el estómago hacia el esófago, dañando su forro y provocando una serie de síntomas, incluyendo dolor en el pecho, dolor de garganta y, más común, acidez estomacal. Una razón que los pacientes desarrollan GERD es porque el esfínter esofágico inferior, un grupo de músculos que separa el esófago, el estómago no funciona correctamente y no forma un sello hermético como debiera; luego son capaces se deslice a través de jugos gástricos. Incluso algunos sorbos de licor pueden causar el LES trabajar ineficientemente, convirtiendo a un partygoer feliz de una vez en un miserable invitado.
"El alcohol inmediatamente puede disminuir la presión del LES," dice el Dr. Kristine Krueger, profesor asociado de medicina y director médico del centro de salud digestiva en la Universidad de Louisville. "Hace
View the Original article
Con la temporada de fiesta a alta velocidad, los doctores dicen que hombres y mujeres que sufren de GERD también pueden ser en durante un período de ataques de acidez estomacal. Aunque no todas las personas con GERD tienen problemas con el alcohol, muchos hacen claramente. "Es muy individualizado," dice el Dr. Philip Jaffe, profesor asociado de medicina en el centro de salud de la Universidad de Connecticut.
¿Cómo el alcohol empeora GERD. GERD es una condición en la que copia los jugos ácidos que normalmente permanecen en el estómago hacia el esófago, dañando su forro y provocando una serie de síntomas, incluyendo dolor en el pecho, dolor de garganta y, más común, acidez estomacal. Una razón que los pacientes desarrollan GERD es porque el esfínter esofágico inferior, un grupo de músculos que separa el esófago, el estómago no funciona correctamente y no forma un sello hermético como debiera; luego son capaces se deslice a través de jugos gástricos. Incluso algunos sorbos de licor pueden causar el LES trabajar ineficientemente, convirtiendo a un partygoer feliz de una vez en un miserable invitado.
"El alcohol inmediatamente puede disminuir la presión del LES," dice el Dr. Kristine Krueger, profesor asociado de medicina y director médico del centro de salud digestiva en la Universidad de Louisville. "Hace
View the Original article
Saturday, August 4, 2012
New Jersey Draeger Protocol founding Lacking
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
September Term 2005
Docket No. 58,879
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE H. CHUN, DARIA L.
DE CICCO, JAMES R. HAUSLER,
ANGEL MIRALDA, JEFFREY R.
WOOD, ANTHONY ANZANO, MEHMET
DEMIRELLI, RAJ DESIA,
JEFFREY LOCASTRO, PETER
LIEBERWIRTH, JEFFREY LING,
HUSSAIN NAWAZ, FREDERICK
OGBUTOR, PETER PIASECKI,
LARA SLATER, CHRISTOPHER
SALKOWITZ, ELINA TIRADO,
DAVID WALKER, DAVID WHITMAN
and JAIRO J. YATACO,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF REMAND COURT
On remand from the Supreme Court of New Jersey: December 14, 2005
Findings and Conclusions Submitted to Supreme Court: February 13, 2007
Jessica S. Oppenheim, Assistant Attorney General, Christine A. Hoffman, Deputy Attorney General, Stephen H. Monson, Deputy Attorney General and John A. Dell'Aquilo, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the State of New Jersey.
Samuel L. Sachs of the firm Sachs & Sachs appeared on behalf of Jeffrey R. Wood and James R. Hausler.
Matthew W. Reisig appeared on behalf of Christopher Salkowitz, Peter Lieberwirth, Raj Desai and Peter Piasecki.
John Menzel of the firm Moore & Menzel appeared on behalf of Anthony Anzano, David Whitman, David Walker, Hussain Nawaz and Jeffrey Ling.
Evan M. Levow of the firm Levow & Costello appeared on behalf of Jane H. Chun, Lara Slater, Elina Tirado, and Frederick Ogbutor.
Jonathan A. Kessous and Christopher G. Hewitt, co-counsel, of the firm Garces & Grabler appeared on behalf of Jairo Yataco and Angel Miralda.
Bartholomew Baffuto appeared on behalf of Daria L. DeCicco.
Arnold N. Fishman of the firm Fishman, Littlefield & Fishman appeared on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association.
Jeffrey E. Gold of the firm Gold & Laine appeared on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association.
Peter H. Lederman of the firm Lomurro Davison Eastman & Munoz appeared on behalf of amcius curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
KING, P.J.A.D., SPECIAL MASTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. STANDARD OF PROOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
III. THE FACTS
1. CHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. THE INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
IV. EXPERT TESTIMONY
1. HANSUELI RYSER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2. THOMAS A. BRETTELL, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . 73
3. SGT. KEVIN M. FLANAGAN . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4. EDWARD CONDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5. ROD G. GULLBERG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6. SAMUEL E. CHAPPELL, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . 156
7. BARRY K. LOGAN, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8. J. ROBERT ZETTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
9. PATRICK M. HARDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
10. NORMAN J. DEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
11. STEPHEN B. SEIDMAN, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . 202
12. GERALD SIMPSON, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . 210
13. MICHAEL PETER HLASTLA, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . 219
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. IN THE WAKE OF DOWNIE . . . . . . . . . . . 228
2. ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS . . . . . . . . . . 238
3. SOURCE CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4. RFI-EMI INTERFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5. FOUNDATIONAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6. BREATH VOLUME AND FLOW RATE . . . . . . . . 251
7. CENTRALIZED DATA MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . 253
8. NON-OPERATOR DEPENDENT . . . . . . . . . . 254
9. BREATH TEMPERATURE SENSOR . . . . . . . . . 255
10. TOLERANCES FOR THE TWO BREATH TESTS . . . . 256
VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
APPENDIX A - TRANSCRIPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
APPENDIX B - BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. RECOMMENDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
2. ANCILLARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The case arises from quasi-criminal actions involving twenty defendants who were arrested in Middlesex County for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Defendants challenged the admissibility and reliability of breath test results obtained from the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, firmware version NJ 3.11 (Alcotest 7110).
On October 14, 2005 the Law Division granted the State's motion to consolidate the cases pending as of May 23, 2005 in several Middlesex County municipal courts. Among other things, Judge Cantor denied the State's motion to take judicial notice of the opinion in State v. Foley, 370 N.J. Super. 341, 359 (Law Div. 2003), which ruled that the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C was scientifically accurate and reliable and that its reported readings would be admitted into evidence without the need for expert testimony. At the time of Foley, New Jersey was using firmware version 3.8.
In her written statement of November 10, 2005 Judge Cantor explained that the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C was a new instrument adopted throughout New Jersey on a county-by-county basis on a sequential timetable. She emphasized that only the Camden County, Law Division in Foley had found it scientifically reliable and that Judge Orlando, in dictum, had concluded that New Jersey should make certain changes in the instrument's firmware and the instructions given to its users. Ibid. Because the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C was a novel scientific instrument which had never been vetted by an appellate court or our Supreme Court, Judge Cantor concluded that its scientific reliability remained a justiciable issue.
On December 1, 2005 the Appellate Division granted the State's motion for leave to appeal and denied its motion for a summary reversal. The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court for an accelerated hearing on the validity of breath tests for alcohol, obtained through the use of Alcotest instruments.
On December 14, 2005 our Supreme Court certified the appeal pending in the Appellate Division on its own motion pursuant to R. 2:12-1. The Court vacated the remand to the Law Division and remanded the matter to retired Appellate Division Judge Michael Patrick King, to preside as a Special Master. The Court ordered the Special Master to conduct a hearing and report his findings and conclusions on an accelerated basis.
The Court ordered the Special Master to:
1. Conduct a plenary hearing on the reliability of Alcotest breath test instruments, including consideration of the pertinent portions of the record in State v. Foley, 370 N.J. Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003), and the within matters in the Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County, together with such additional expert testimony and arguments as may be presented by the parties;
2. Determine whether the testimony presented by the parties should be supplemented by that of independent experts selected by the Special Master;
3. Grant, in the Special Master's discretion, motions by appropriate entities seeking to participate as amici curiae, said motions to be filed with the Special Master within ten days of the filing date of this Order;
4. Invite, in the Special Master's discretion, the participation of entities or persons as amici curiae or, to the extent necessary in the interests of justice, as intervenors to assist the Special Master in the resolution of the issues before him; and
5. Within thirty days of the completion of the plenary hearing, file findings and conclusions with the Clerk of the Court and contemporaneously serve a copy on the parties and amici curiae, which service may be effectuated by the posting of the report on the Judiciary's website . . . .
The Court also ordered the parties, and permitted all amici curiae who participated in the plenary hearing, to serve and file initial briefs within fourteen days of the filing of the Special Master's report as well as responses, if any, within ten days. It further ordered the Clerk to set the matter for oral argument on the first available date after completion of briefing by the parties. Finally, the Court ordered the stay of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 proceedings pending in Middlesex County, and directed all Superior and Municipal Court judges before whom such proceedings were pending, to ensure strict enforcement of the Court's Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey.
On January 9, 2006 the Special Master granted to the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL) leave to appear as amicus curiae. On January 23, 2006 the Special Master also admitted the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) as amicus curiae, under R. 1:13-9, in view of the matter's public importance.
On January 10, 2006 the Court sua sponte issued an order addressing issues that affected the prosecution of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offenses statewide. The Court ordered all prosecutions and appeals which did not involve the Alcotest 7110 to proceed in the normal course. The Court, however, ordered the stay of prosecutions and appeals involving repeat offenders and the execution of their sentences where the convictions were based solely on Alcotest readings. The Court also ordered that first-offender prosecutions proceed to trial based on clinical evidence when available and on Alcotest readings. It ordered, however, that the execution of sentences for all first offenders be stayed pending disposition of the Court's final decision on the Alcotest 7110's reliability, unless public interest required their immediate implementation.
As explained by the Administrative Director, Judge Carchman, in a clarifying memorandum to municipal court judges dated January 17, 2006, a court could admit evidence of an Alcotest reading, over the objection of defense counsel, without first holding a hearing on the instrument's scientific reliability. He further explained that under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2) and (3), the penalty for repeat offenders was the same whether the finding of guilt was based on observation or blood alcohol levels. However, for first offenders, the penalty could vary, making the Alcotest reliability hearing of fundamental importance.
On March 15, 2006 the Court entered an order directing the Special Master to designate an independent expert or experts. Upon deliberation and consultation with the parties and amici curiae, the Special Master determined that a court-appointed expert was not necessary for proof purposes, especially because of the quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings.
Meanwhile, discovery proceeded. On February 3, 2006 the Special Master entered an order directing the State to give defendants certain information, documents and materials pertaining to the Alcotest 7110's firmware, software, algorithms, electronic schematics, and source codes. Among other things, the discovery order recognized that the exchange of firmware and software might require a protective order to be submitted by the State or manufacturer for court approval. On February 17, 2006 the Special Master entered a supplemental discovery order directing the State to lend three Alcotest 7110s to defense counsel and one to counsel for the amicus NJSBA. Among other things, the supplemental discovery order also allowed the manufacturer Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc. (Draeger) to apply to intervene in this matter, especially because of the issue of "trade secrets."
Draeger objected to the discovery orders claiming that they permitted the release of trade secrets and proprietary information. On February 23, 2006 Draeger's intellectual property counsel prepared a proposed protective order and sent it to the State for submission to the court. Draeger's proposal included a request for indemnification from defense counsel. In response to defendants' objections to Draeger's initial draft ¾ especially to the request for indemnity ¾ and a revised proposal by the State, the Special Master requested defense counsel to submit a proposed protective order.
Draeger then offered to make copies of the Alcotest 7110's source codes available to the Special Master and explain them to him during an in camera session provided there would be no testimonial record and the data would be returned after his inspection and decision. Again, defense counsel objected, explaining that the purpose of requesting the source codes and algorithms was to allow their expert to review and test them.
On April 19, 2006 defendants submitted their proposed protective order. In anticipation of a court-issued protective order, the State provided to defense counsel and the amicus the four Alcotest 7110 instruments for their inspection.
On April 26, 2006 the Special Master entered a protective order which required all discovery information in which Draeger asserted an intellectual property right so marked. With regard to the marked discovery, the protective order required: (1) that the information could not be disclosed by parties or amici curiae, or by consultants and experts given access to it; and (2) that the information must be returned to Draeger following the conclusion of all litigation. The protective order also extended its terms and restrictions for three years from the termination of litigation or until such time as the marked discovery information entered the public domain, whichever came first, and stated that the violation or breach of any condition would be grounds for court contempt action, civil damages or other appropriate sanctions after a hearing where the accused would be afforded due process under R. 1:10. Additionally, if Draeger did not cooperate with discovery, the protective order allowed the Special Master to draw any appropriate negative inferences in his decision on the Alcotest 7110's reliability. The protective order did not include an indemnification provision.
Shortly after, on April 28, 2006, the State submitted comments on its revised proposed protective order. In part, the State explained that the indemnification provision would require those defendants who received the instruments to indemnify and hold harmless the State from any damage that might result from the firmware's use or installation.
On May 15, 2006 Draeger wrote to the State with its objections noting that it would not cooperate with discovery unless the court entered a "satisfactory" protective order. On May 22, 2006, after consideration of Draeger's expressed objections, the Special Master amended the protective order by: further limiting access to the information disclosed; extending the term and restrictions from three years to as long as the marked discovery information remained a trade secret or until it entered the public domain; and providing that other sanctions might be appropriate in cases where Draeger demonstrated at a hearing that it would suffer irreparable harm and there was no adequate remedy at law.
On June 15, 2006 Draeger wrote again to the State indicating that the amended protective order was an "improvement" but still did not provide adequate protection. Draeger continued to insist that the Special Master adopt an order substantially similar to its initial proposal. For example, Draeger contended: it should be provided with the identity of experts who would be given the marked information in discovery; it should not have to appear before the Special Master at a hearing to demonstrate irreparable harm; it should be allowed to demonstrate its intellectual property rights or prove its need for injunctive relief in a forum other than before Judge King; and it should not be forced to comply with an order essentially based upon a proposal by defendants who did not have any trade secrets or proprietary information to be protected.
Draeger also advised the Special Master and the State that it "recently" had adopted a "new policy" regarding confidential disclosure of the Alcotest 7110's source codes and other trade secrets to those individuals ¾ including parties involved in the Chun litigation ¾ who accepted the following conditions: (1) individuals who agreed to sign appropriate non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements prepared by Draeger; (2) individuals who agreed to review the information in a room at Draeger's offices in Durango, Colorado; (3) individuals who agreed to allow a Draeger representative to be present in the room when they reviewed the information; and (4) individuals who agreed not to take photographs, make copies by writing or other means, or make any recordings of the information. To maintain its "non-party status," Draeger again declined the Special Master's offer to meet with him or participate in any conferences. Incidentally, Draeger has no United States or foreign patent protection on the Alcotest 7110.
Neither the State nor defendants expressed any interest in complying with Draeger's fastidious conditions on the source codes' disclosure. The Special Master also declined to further amend the protective order. Consequently, discovery and the exchange of documents and expert reports proceeded without Draeger's participation. This created an anomalous situation: the manufacturer was not a party to the defense of its product. The State had to defend the Alcotest 7110 derivately.
Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 104, the Special Master held forty-one full days of evidentiary hearings which commenced on September 18, 2006 and concluded on January 10, 2007. The parties and amicus NJSBA submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the scientific reliability of the Alcotest 7110. As further ordered by the Court, the Special Master has issued his findings and conclusions in this matter within thirty days of the completion of the hearings.
II. STANDARD OF PROOF
The key issue is whether the Alcotest 7110 is a scientifically reliable instrument for determining the alcohol content of the breath and blood. The resolution of this question will assist the Supreme Court in determining whether the results of Alcotest 7110 readings generally may be admitted in evidence and support convictions under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and cognate statutes.
Under New Jersey's statutory scheme, a driver of a motor vehicle is guilty of a so-called "per se" violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) at a "blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood." Thus, New Jersey is a "blood" alcohol jurisdiction as opposed to a "breath" alcohol jurisdiction. See State v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450, 469-71 (1990) (Stein, J., dissenting). A person "under the legal age
View the Original article
September Term 2005
Docket No. 58,879
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE H. CHUN, DARIA L.
DE CICCO, JAMES R. HAUSLER,
ANGEL MIRALDA, JEFFREY R.
WOOD, ANTHONY ANZANO, MEHMET
DEMIRELLI, RAJ DESIA,
JEFFREY LOCASTRO, PETER
LIEBERWIRTH, JEFFREY LING,
HUSSAIN NAWAZ, FREDERICK
OGBUTOR, PETER PIASECKI,
LARA SLATER, CHRISTOPHER
SALKOWITZ, ELINA TIRADO,
DAVID WALKER, DAVID WHITMAN
and JAIRO J. YATACO,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF REMAND COURT
On remand from the Supreme Court of New Jersey: December 14, 2005
Findings and Conclusions Submitted to Supreme Court: February 13, 2007
Jessica S. Oppenheim, Assistant Attorney General, Christine A. Hoffman, Deputy Attorney General, Stephen H. Monson, Deputy Attorney General and John A. Dell'Aquilo, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the State of New Jersey.
Samuel L. Sachs of the firm Sachs & Sachs appeared on behalf of Jeffrey R. Wood and James R. Hausler.
Matthew W. Reisig appeared on behalf of Christopher Salkowitz, Peter Lieberwirth, Raj Desai and Peter Piasecki.
John Menzel of the firm Moore & Menzel appeared on behalf of Anthony Anzano, David Whitman, David Walker, Hussain Nawaz and Jeffrey Ling.
Evan M. Levow of the firm Levow & Costello appeared on behalf of Jane H. Chun, Lara Slater, Elina Tirado, and Frederick Ogbutor.
Jonathan A. Kessous and Christopher G. Hewitt, co-counsel, of the firm Garces & Grabler appeared on behalf of Jairo Yataco and Angel Miralda.
Bartholomew Baffuto appeared on behalf of Daria L. DeCicco.
Arnold N. Fishman of the firm Fishman, Littlefield & Fishman appeared on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association.
Jeffrey E. Gold of the firm Gold & Laine appeared on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association.
Peter H. Lederman of the firm Lomurro Davison Eastman & Munoz appeared on behalf of amcius curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
KING, P.J.A.D., SPECIAL MASTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. STANDARD OF PROOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
III. THE FACTS
1. CHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. THE INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
IV. EXPERT TESTIMONY
1. HANSUELI RYSER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2. THOMAS A. BRETTELL, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . 73
3. SGT. KEVIN M. FLANAGAN . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4. EDWARD CONDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5. ROD G. GULLBERG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6. SAMUEL E. CHAPPELL, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . 156
7. BARRY K. LOGAN, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8. J. ROBERT ZETTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
9. PATRICK M. HARDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
10. NORMAN J. DEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
11. STEPHEN B. SEIDMAN, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . 202
12. GERALD SIMPSON, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . 210
13. MICHAEL PETER HLASTLA, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . 219
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. IN THE WAKE OF DOWNIE . . . . . . . . . . . 228
2. ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS . . . . . . . . . . 238
3. SOURCE CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4. RFI-EMI INTERFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5. FOUNDATIONAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6. BREATH VOLUME AND FLOW RATE . . . . . . . . 251
7. CENTRALIZED DATA MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . 253
8. NON-OPERATOR DEPENDENT . . . . . . . . . . 254
9. BREATH TEMPERATURE SENSOR . . . . . . . . . 255
10. TOLERANCES FOR THE TWO BREATH TESTS . . . . 256
VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
APPENDIX A - TRANSCRIPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
APPENDIX B - BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. RECOMMENDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
2. ANCILLARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The case arises from quasi-criminal actions involving twenty defendants who were arrested in Middlesex County for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Defendants challenged the admissibility and reliability of breath test results obtained from the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, firmware version NJ 3.11 (Alcotest 7110).
On October 14, 2005 the Law Division granted the State's motion to consolidate the cases pending as of May 23, 2005 in several Middlesex County municipal courts. Among other things, Judge Cantor denied the State's motion to take judicial notice of the opinion in State v. Foley, 370 N.J. Super. 341, 359 (Law Div. 2003), which ruled that the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C was scientifically accurate and reliable and that its reported readings would be admitted into evidence without the need for expert testimony. At the time of Foley, New Jersey was using firmware version 3.8.
In her written statement of November 10, 2005 Judge Cantor explained that the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C was a new instrument adopted throughout New Jersey on a county-by-county basis on a sequential timetable. She emphasized that only the Camden County, Law Division in Foley had found it scientifically reliable and that Judge Orlando, in dictum, had concluded that New Jersey should make certain changes in the instrument's firmware and the instructions given to its users. Ibid. Because the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C was a novel scientific instrument which had never been vetted by an appellate court or our Supreme Court, Judge Cantor concluded that its scientific reliability remained a justiciable issue.
On December 1, 2005 the Appellate Division granted the State's motion for leave to appeal and denied its motion for a summary reversal. The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court for an accelerated hearing on the validity of breath tests for alcohol, obtained through the use of Alcotest instruments.
On December 14, 2005 our Supreme Court certified the appeal pending in the Appellate Division on its own motion pursuant to R. 2:12-1. The Court vacated the remand to the Law Division and remanded the matter to retired Appellate Division Judge Michael Patrick King, to preside as a Special Master. The Court ordered the Special Master to conduct a hearing and report his findings and conclusions on an accelerated basis.
The Court ordered the Special Master to:
1. Conduct a plenary hearing on the reliability of Alcotest breath test instruments, including consideration of the pertinent portions of the record in State v. Foley, 370 N.J. Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003), and the within matters in the Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County, together with such additional expert testimony and arguments as may be presented by the parties;
2. Determine whether the testimony presented by the parties should be supplemented by that of independent experts selected by the Special Master;
3. Grant, in the Special Master's discretion, motions by appropriate entities seeking to participate as amici curiae, said motions to be filed with the Special Master within ten days of the filing date of this Order;
4. Invite, in the Special Master's discretion, the participation of entities or persons as amici curiae or, to the extent necessary in the interests of justice, as intervenors to assist the Special Master in the resolution of the issues before him; and
5. Within thirty days of the completion of the plenary hearing, file findings and conclusions with the Clerk of the Court and contemporaneously serve a copy on the parties and amici curiae, which service may be effectuated by the posting of the report on the Judiciary's website . . . .
The Court also ordered the parties, and permitted all amici curiae who participated in the plenary hearing, to serve and file initial briefs within fourteen days of the filing of the Special Master's report as well as responses, if any, within ten days. It further ordered the Clerk to set the matter for oral argument on the first available date after completion of briefing by the parties. Finally, the Court ordered the stay of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 proceedings pending in Middlesex County, and directed all Superior and Municipal Court judges before whom such proceedings were pending, to ensure strict enforcement of the Court's Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey.
On January 9, 2006 the Special Master granted to the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL) leave to appear as amicus curiae. On January 23, 2006 the Special Master also admitted the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) as amicus curiae, under R. 1:13-9, in view of the matter's public importance.
On January 10, 2006 the Court sua sponte issued an order addressing issues that affected the prosecution of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offenses statewide. The Court ordered all prosecutions and appeals which did not involve the Alcotest 7110 to proceed in the normal course. The Court, however, ordered the stay of prosecutions and appeals involving repeat offenders and the execution of their sentences where the convictions were based solely on Alcotest readings. The Court also ordered that first-offender prosecutions proceed to trial based on clinical evidence when available and on Alcotest readings. It ordered, however, that the execution of sentences for all first offenders be stayed pending disposition of the Court's final decision on the Alcotest 7110's reliability, unless public interest required their immediate implementation.
As explained by the Administrative Director, Judge Carchman, in a clarifying memorandum to municipal court judges dated January 17, 2006, a court could admit evidence of an Alcotest reading, over the objection of defense counsel, without first holding a hearing on the instrument's scientific reliability. He further explained that under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2) and (3), the penalty for repeat offenders was the same whether the finding of guilt was based on observation or blood alcohol levels. However, for first offenders, the penalty could vary, making the Alcotest reliability hearing of fundamental importance.
On March 15, 2006 the Court entered an order directing the Special Master to designate an independent expert or experts. Upon deliberation and consultation with the parties and amici curiae, the Special Master determined that a court-appointed expert was not necessary for proof purposes, especially because of the quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings.
Meanwhile, discovery proceeded. On February 3, 2006 the Special Master entered an order directing the State to give defendants certain information, documents and materials pertaining to the Alcotest 7110's firmware, software, algorithms, electronic schematics, and source codes. Among other things, the discovery order recognized that the exchange of firmware and software might require a protective order to be submitted by the State or manufacturer for court approval. On February 17, 2006 the Special Master entered a supplemental discovery order directing the State to lend three Alcotest 7110s to defense counsel and one to counsel for the amicus NJSBA. Among other things, the supplemental discovery order also allowed the manufacturer Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc. (Draeger) to apply to intervene in this matter, especially because of the issue of "trade secrets."
Draeger objected to the discovery orders claiming that they permitted the release of trade secrets and proprietary information. On February 23, 2006 Draeger's intellectual property counsel prepared a proposed protective order and sent it to the State for submission to the court. Draeger's proposal included a request for indemnification from defense counsel. In response to defendants' objections to Draeger's initial draft ¾ especially to the request for indemnity ¾ and a revised proposal by the State, the Special Master requested defense counsel to submit a proposed protective order.
Draeger then offered to make copies of the Alcotest 7110's source codes available to the Special Master and explain them to him during an in camera session provided there would be no testimonial record and the data would be returned after his inspection and decision. Again, defense counsel objected, explaining that the purpose of requesting the source codes and algorithms was to allow their expert to review and test them.
On April 19, 2006 defendants submitted their proposed protective order. In anticipation of a court-issued protective order, the State provided to defense counsel and the amicus the four Alcotest 7110 instruments for their inspection.
On April 26, 2006 the Special Master entered a protective order which required all discovery information in which Draeger asserted an intellectual property right so marked. With regard to the marked discovery, the protective order required: (1) that the information could not be disclosed by parties or amici curiae, or by consultants and experts given access to it; and (2) that the information must be returned to Draeger following the conclusion of all litigation. The protective order also extended its terms and restrictions for three years from the termination of litigation or until such time as the marked discovery information entered the public domain, whichever came first, and stated that the violation or breach of any condition would be grounds for court contempt action, civil damages or other appropriate sanctions after a hearing where the accused would be afforded due process under R. 1:10. Additionally, if Draeger did not cooperate with discovery, the protective order allowed the Special Master to draw any appropriate negative inferences in his decision on the Alcotest 7110's reliability. The protective order did not include an indemnification provision.
Shortly after, on April 28, 2006, the State submitted comments on its revised proposed protective order. In part, the State explained that the indemnification provision would require those defendants who received the instruments to indemnify and hold harmless the State from any damage that might result from the firmware's use or installation.
On May 15, 2006 Draeger wrote to the State with its objections noting that it would not cooperate with discovery unless the court entered a "satisfactory" protective order. On May 22, 2006, after consideration of Draeger's expressed objections, the Special Master amended the protective order by: further limiting access to the information disclosed; extending the term and restrictions from three years to as long as the marked discovery information remained a trade secret or until it entered the public domain; and providing that other sanctions might be appropriate in cases where Draeger demonstrated at a hearing that it would suffer irreparable harm and there was no adequate remedy at law.
On June 15, 2006 Draeger wrote again to the State indicating that the amended protective order was an "improvement" but still did not provide adequate protection. Draeger continued to insist that the Special Master adopt an order substantially similar to its initial proposal. For example, Draeger contended: it should be provided with the identity of experts who would be given the marked information in discovery; it should not have to appear before the Special Master at a hearing to demonstrate irreparable harm; it should be allowed to demonstrate its intellectual property rights or prove its need for injunctive relief in a forum other than before Judge King; and it should not be forced to comply with an order essentially based upon a proposal by defendants who did not have any trade secrets or proprietary information to be protected.
Draeger also advised the Special Master and the State that it "recently" had adopted a "new policy" regarding confidential disclosure of the Alcotest 7110's source codes and other trade secrets to those individuals ¾ including parties involved in the Chun litigation ¾ who accepted the following conditions: (1) individuals who agreed to sign appropriate non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements prepared by Draeger; (2) individuals who agreed to review the information in a room at Draeger's offices in Durango, Colorado; (3) individuals who agreed to allow a Draeger representative to be present in the room when they reviewed the information; and (4) individuals who agreed not to take photographs, make copies by writing or other means, or make any recordings of the information. To maintain its "non-party status," Draeger again declined the Special Master's offer to meet with him or participate in any conferences. Incidentally, Draeger has no United States or foreign patent protection on the Alcotest 7110.
Neither the State nor defendants expressed any interest in complying with Draeger's fastidious conditions on the source codes' disclosure. The Special Master also declined to further amend the protective order. Consequently, discovery and the exchange of documents and expert reports proceeded without Draeger's participation. This created an anomalous situation: the manufacturer was not a party to the defense of its product. The State had to defend the Alcotest 7110 derivately.
Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 104, the Special Master held forty-one full days of evidentiary hearings which commenced on September 18, 2006 and concluded on January 10, 2007. The parties and amicus NJSBA submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the scientific reliability of the Alcotest 7110. As further ordered by the Court, the Special Master has issued his findings and conclusions in this matter within thirty days of the completion of the hearings.
II. STANDARD OF PROOF
The key issue is whether the Alcotest 7110 is a scientifically reliable instrument for determining the alcohol content of the breath and blood. The resolution of this question will assist the Supreme Court in determining whether the results of Alcotest 7110 readings generally may be admitted in evidence and support convictions under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and cognate statutes.
Under New Jersey's statutory scheme, a driver of a motor vehicle is guilty of a so-called "per se" violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) at a "blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood." Thus, New Jersey is a "blood" alcohol jurisdiction as opposed to a "breath" alcohol jurisdiction. See State v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450, 469-71 (1990) (Stein, J., dissenting). A person "under the legal age
View the Original article
Friday, August 3, 2012
DIABÉTICOS Y PRUEBAS DE CAMPO DE DUI
Diabéticos experimentan comúnmente hipoglucemia (niveles de azúcar en la sangre baja). Y ¿cuáles son los síntomas? Lento y manchados de discurso, pobre equilibrio, con problemas de control del motor, asombrosas, somnolencia, lavado de cara, desorientación--en otras palabras, los síntomas clásicos de intoxicación por alcohol. Este individuo será mirar y actuar como un conductor ebrio al oficial y seguramente fallará cualquier DUI "pruebas de sobriedad de campo". Como ha observado un experto, "hipoglucemia (niveles anormalmente bajos de glucosa en la sangre) es frecuente en relación con la conducción de error en esta nación caminos y carreteras...Aún más frecuentes son injustificadas DUIs o DWIs, derivadas de los síntomas hipoglicémicos que estrechamente pueden parecerse a los de un conductor ebrio". De "hipoglucemia: conducir bajo la influencia" en 8.1 revisión de información médica y toxicológica septiembre de 2003.
Científicos canadienses han informado que "aproximadamente 200 compuestos han sido detectados en la respiración humana". Manolis, el potencial diagnóstico de análisis de aliento, 29 química clínica 5 (1983).
Este estudio confirmó la presencia de acetona en el aliento en diabéticos y en personas con una dieta "asociado con una reducción de peso de cerca de media libra por semana". ID. en 9. Otro estudio ha confirmado que los diabéticos pueden dar indicaciones falsas de intoxicación. Ladrillo, Diabetes, aliento acetona y precisión de alcoholemia: A Case Study, 9.1 Alcohol, drogas y conducción (1993), un investigador encontró que cetonas caducadas en el aliento de un diabético no tratada pueden contribuir a lecturas erróneamente alto de alcohol de aliento. Además, la acetona en el aliento de cetoacidosis dará como resultado un olor de alcohol. Por último, patrones de conducta de un diabético cuyo nivel de azúcar en la sangre ha caído incluirá pronunciación, marcha lenta, con problemas de control del motor, empleados movimientos de la mano y confusión mental--todos los síntoma de intoxicación.
También se puede encontrar la acetona en el aliento de individuos perfectamente normales y sanas. Sin embargo, la acetona es uno de los compuestos que se detectarán el aliento de muchos análisis de instrumentos como el etanol. Por ejemplo, en el Intoxilyzer, se detecta porque acetona absorbe energía infrarroja en el rango de 3,38 a 3,40 micras--el mismo rango donde se encuentra el etanol. Por lo tanto, si la acetona se introdujeron en el Intoxilyzer, la máquina simplemente podría registrar la presencia de alcohol a pesar de su ausencia. Si un individuo tuvo 525 microgramos por litro de acetona en el aliento, él podría registrar un nivel de alcohol en sangre de.02.03 por ciento. Así, si un individuo con un nivel de alcohol en sangre verdadera de.08 por ciento tenía esa cantidad de acetona, el Intoxilyzer registraran en el área de .l0 al 11 por ciento.
La National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ha publicado un informe titulado la probabilidad de acetona interferencias en la medición de Alcohol de aliento (DOT HS--806-922). El informe resume básicamente la literatura científica sobre el tema, concluyendo que los individuos normales tienen niveles insignificantes de acetona en su aliento. Sin embargo, los datos indicados, que personas pueden tener niveles más altos y que los diabéticos no en control de su azúcar en la sangre tenían niveles de cientos o incluso miles de veces superiores a la normal
un estudio confirma los efectos de la acetona en diabéticos puede encontrarse en Mormann, Olsen, Sakshaug y Morland, medición de etanol por el analizador de aliento de Alkomat; Especificidad química y la influencia de la función pulmonar, la técnica de respiración y la temperatura ambiente, 25 Blutalkohol 153 (1988). Sujetos diabéticos en ese estudio también se encontraron niveles de acetona, suficientes para producir lecturas de alcohol de aliento de.06 por ciento.
Máquinas de pruebas de aliento, como el Intoxilyzer 5000, sufren de un defecto de diseño poco conocido: no miden realmente alcohol! En su lugar, utilizan rayos infrarrojos de la luz que son absorbidos por cualquier compuesto químico (incluyendo alcohol etílico) en el aliento que contiene el "grupo de metilo" en su estructura molecular; la mayor absorción, mayor será el alcohol en sangre de lectura. La máquina está programada para asumir que el compuesto es "probablemente" de alcohol. Lamentablemente, miles de compuestos que contienen el grupo metilo pueden registrarse como alcohol. Uno de ellos es "acetona". Y un subproducto bien documentado de hipoglucemia es un estado llamado "cetoacidosis", que causa la producción de acetonas en el aliento. En otras palabras, el alcoholímetro leerá significativos niveles de alcohol en el aliento del diabético donde puede haber muy poco o nada. Véase, por ejemplo, ladrillo, "Diabetes, aliento acetona y precisión de alcoholemia: un estudio de caso", 9.1 Alcohol, drogas y conducción (1993).
Hecho: aproximadamente uno de cada siete sobrio choferes en las carreteras sufre de diabetes.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:53 AM
View the Original article
Científicos canadienses han informado que "aproximadamente 200 compuestos han sido detectados en la respiración humana". Manolis, el potencial diagnóstico de análisis de aliento, 29 química clínica 5 (1983).
Este estudio confirmó la presencia de acetona en el aliento en diabéticos y en personas con una dieta "asociado con una reducción de peso de cerca de media libra por semana". ID. en 9. Otro estudio ha confirmado que los diabéticos pueden dar indicaciones falsas de intoxicación. Ladrillo, Diabetes, aliento acetona y precisión de alcoholemia: A Case Study, 9.1 Alcohol, drogas y conducción (1993), un investigador encontró que cetonas caducadas en el aliento de un diabético no tratada pueden contribuir a lecturas erróneamente alto de alcohol de aliento. Además, la acetona en el aliento de cetoacidosis dará como resultado un olor de alcohol. Por último, patrones de conducta de un diabético cuyo nivel de azúcar en la sangre ha caído incluirá pronunciación, marcha lenta, con problemas de control del motor, empleados movimientos de la mano y confusión mental--todos los síntoma de intoxicación.
También se puede encontrar la acetona en el aliento de individuos perfectamente normales y sanas. Sin embargo, la acetona es uno de los compuestos que se detectarán el aliento de muchos análisis de instrumentos como el etanol. Por ejemplo, en el Intoxilyzer, se detecta porque acetona absorbe energía infrarroja en el rango de 3,38 a 3,40 micras--el mismo rango donde se encuentra el etanol. Por lo tanto, si la acetona se introdujeron en el Intoxilyzer, la máquina simplemente podría registrar la presencia de alcohol a pesar de su ausencia. Si un individuo tuvo 525 microgramos por litro de acetona en el aliento, él podría registrar un nivel de alcohol en sangre de.02.03 por ciento. Así, si un individuo con un nivel de alcohol en sangre verdadera de.08 por ciento tenía esa cantidad de acetona, el Intoxilyzer registraran en el área de .l0 al 11 por ciento.
La National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ha publicado un informe titulado la probabilidad de acetona interferencias en la medición de Alcohol de aliento (DOT HS--806-922). El informe resume básicamente la literatura científica sobre el tema, concluyendo que los individuos normales tienen niveles insignificantes de acetona en su aliento. Sin embargo, los datos indicados, que personas pueden tener niveles más altos y que los diabéticos no en control de su azúcar en la sangre tenían niveles de cientos o incluso miles de veces superiores a la normal
un estudio confirma los efectos de la acetona en diabéticos puede encontrarse en Mormann, Olsen, Sakshaug y Morland, medición de etanol por el analizador de aliento de Alkomat; Especificidad química y la influencia de la función pulmonar, la técnica de respiración y la temperatura ambiente, 25 Blutalkohol 153 (1988). Sujetos diabéticos en ese estudio también se encontraron niveles de acetona, suficientes para producir lecturas de alcohol de aliento de.06 por ciento.
Máquinas de pruebas de aliento, como el Intoxilyzer 5000, sufren de un defecto de diseño poco conocido: no miden realmente alcohol! En su lugar, utilizan rayos infrarrojos de la luz que son absorbidos por cualquier compuesto químico (incluyendo alcohol etílico) en el aliento que contiene el "grupo de metilo" en su estructura molecular; la mayor absorción, mayor será el alcohol en sangre de lectura. La máquina está programada para asumir que el compuesto es "probablemente" de alcohol. Lamentablemente, miles de compuestos que contienen el grupo metilo pueden registrarse como alcohol. Uno de ellos es "acetona". Y un subproducto bien documentado de hipoglucemia es un estado llamado "cetoacidosis", que causa la producción de acetonas en el aliento. En otras palabras, el alcoholímetro leerá significativos niveles de alcohol en el aliento del diabético donde puede haber muy poco o nada. Véase, por ejemplo, ladrillo, "Diabetes, aliento acetona y precisión de alcoholemia: un estudio de caso", 9.1 Alcohol, drogas y conducción (1993).
Hecho: aproximadamente uno de cada siete sobrio choferes en las carreteras sufre de diabetes.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:53 AM
View the Original article
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Antojos de alcohol inducidas a través de serotonina aumento
por Ann Blake Tracy, Director, ICFDA
Hay una conexión alarmante entre los diversos medicamentos que aumentan la serotonina y el alcoholismo. El más popular de estas drogas es: PROZAC, ZOLOFT, PAXIL, LUVOX, SERZONE, EFFEXOR, DIGOXIN y la nueva dieta píldoras, FEN-PHEN y REDUX. Durante siete años numerosos informes realizados por alcohólicos reformadas (algunos durante 15 años y más) que están siendo "conducidos" al alcohol después de uno de estos medicamentos se prescriben. Y muchos otros pacientes sin antecedentes de alcoholismo han continuado que informe una "compulsión abrumadora" beber mientras usa estos medicamentos.
(Algunas cuentas personales: mujer joven # 1, un alcohólico en recuperación, informó que durante el período de ocho meses ella había estado usando Prozac encontró necesario para asistir a reuniones de AA cada día con el fin de luchar contra las fuertes compulsiones para comenzar a beber nuevamente. # 2 en el sudeste de Estados Unidos una media de psicólogo, también un alcohólico en recuperación, después de ser recetado Prozac, se encontró que necesitan asistir a AA reuniones mañana, mediodía y noche para evitar destruir la sobriedad que ella había logrado. # 3 A joven padre, quien era Mormón y había nunca antes en su alcohol de vida usada, encontró bebiendo alguna vez clara y exhibiendo comportamiento extraño como violento, después de ser recetado Prozac y Ritalin. # 4 Madre joven que nunca ha usado alcohol antes empezó a beber grandes cantidades dentro de semanas de ser recetado Prozac y rápidamente se encontró comprometido a una institución mental debido al comportamiento psicótico que resultó. Agregó a su receta de Prozac fueron medicamentos antipsicóticos y tratamientos de choque eléctrico. Luego comenzó a experimentar convulsiones y se inició en medicamentos anticonvulsivos. # 5 Trate vecino informó que su amiga estaba bebiendo Vodka recta sobre una base regular después de ser recetado Zoloft. Hija de A # 6 informó que su padre, sobrio durante 15 años, comenzó a beber nuevamente de Prozac. El informe de la constante de estos pacientes ha sido una "abrumadora antojo o coacción" de alcohol.)
Durante algún tiempo no teníamos documentación médica específica para ayudarnos a entender por qué esto estaba pasando. ¿Podría ser que Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc., siendo humor alterar sustancias, fueron quitando las inhibiciones que individuos habían colocado a sí mismos para detener sus complementos? Pero más allá de este efecto de alteración de estado de ánimo de Prozac, etc., parece ser una causa fisiológica para esta obsesión alcohólica también. Hubo informes de personas que rara vez bebían antes de Prozac, etc., consumen cantidades excesivas de alcohol después de iniciar el uso de estas drogas diferentes. Por ejemplo tenemos el caso de un joven recién se casaron en el sur de Utah que recibió Prozac por un desequilibrio hormonal. Antes de ese momento tendría dos o tres bebidas sociales un año, sin embargo poco después de ser recetado Prozac comenzó a casa trayendo alcohol por el caso. Seguido de muchos informes similares.
Podría ser que debido a que estas drogas tienen un efecto adverso fuerte sobre el páncreas
View the Original article
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Are FST's an Accurate Method to Base Arrest Decision?
Separating Myth from Fact: A Review of Research on the Field Sobriety Tests
Spurgeon Cole
&
Ronald H. Nowaczyk
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
For over a decade Marcelline Burns, senior author of an often-cited 1977 NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) report and co-author of a 1981 NHTSA study, has traveled across the country extolling the virtues of the new and improved Field Sobriety test (FST) battery. The FST battery, as recommended by NHTSA, consists of three tests that are supposed to predict an individual’s blood alcohol (BAG) level. The tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-turn test and the One-leg stand test. None of these tests were specifically developed to identify BAG level, but have been used by law enforcement as indicators of driving impairment.
NHTSA claims that the new version of the FST battery is scientific and can differentiate between impaired and unimpaired drivers. Until recently Burns’ testimony has gone unchallenged because few attorneys have the prerequisite understanding of statistics and test development to critically evaluate the NHTSA reports and effectively cross-examine NHTSA’s witnesses. Judges who have recently heard the “rFST of the story” are either not admitting the FST entirely or declaring it unscientific and not allowing police to use such terms as “tests” “results” “passed” or “failure.”2
The prosecution in DUI trials has long held a decided advantage over the defense because of misconceptions about the effectiveness of the FST. Even defense attorneys have often accepted the premise that the FST has a measure of value in predicting driving impairment. In essence, NHTSA representatives have for over a decade enjoyed a free ride, but the road has recently developed some serious pot holes.
Research (Cole & Cole, 1991; Cole & Nowaczyk, 1994) and expert testimony offered by Cole & Nowaczyk have enabled judges and attorneys to better understand the limitations of the FST. In the past, NHTSA representatives have made outlandish claims as to the effectiveness of the FST even though these claims are not supported by their own research data. Because of these sins of omission and an occasional sin of commission, many myths have developed concerning the validity and reliability of the FST battery. The present article attempts to separate the facts from the myths.
Myth 1: The Field Sobriety TFST (FST) battery predicts driving impairment.
Fact: NHTSA never attempted to determine if the FST could predict driving Impairment. There is not a single study linking the recommended FST battery directly to driving impairment. The fact is, there never wilt be a simple roadside coordination task that can predict driving impairment. In one of NHTSA’s own reports, the following statement is made “… even valid, behavioral tests are likely to be poor predictors either of actual behind-the-wheel driving …or of accidents” (p. 2-7, Snapper, Seaver & Schwartz, 1981.) The stated goal in the 1977 study was to determine the relationship between FST and intoxication and driving impairment. However, they did not investigate the relationship between the FST and driving impairment.
While there is a relationship between BAC level and driving impairment, the relationship is not likely to be a simple linear one. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assume that 1) if FST performance and BAC are related and 2) if BAC and driving Impairment are related, therefore, 3) FST and driving impairment are related. The relationships among these factors are too complex to assume a simple relationship as NHTSA might like you to conclude. There are comments among NHTSA researchers themselves alluding to this conclusion. In the 1981 NHTSA study, the researchers conclude,”…Individuals vary in alcohol tolerance, and infrequent drinker may be severely impaired at a BAC of 0.05, whereas a heavy drinker may show only minimal Impairment at this level” (p. 19). Dr. Moskowitz, one of the co-authors of both the 1977 and 1981 NHTSA studies, co-authored a later review of research on driving and alcohol, levels and concluded in a presentation at a scientific conference that,”... studies of driving simulator and on-the-road testing varied widely in results. This is due to the wide range of behavioral demands required by diverse control and visual search requirements” (Moskowitz & Robinson, 1987, p. 85). It is obvious that research is needed examining the relationship between FST and driving performance directly. That research has not yet been conducted. Dr. Burns herself indicated that the FST battery has its value in predicting BAG levels (Burns, 1984).
Myth 2: The FST battery is 80 percent accurate in differentiating between Individuals with BAC levels above or below .10.
Fact: The 1981 NHTSA study is the one cited by NHTSA as evidence of an 80 percent accuracy rate with the use of the FST battery. That study tested 296 subjects. Thirty-three percent of the subjects in the study had a BAC level of .00 and 34 percent were given dose levels calculated to raise BAG levels to .05. Another 11 percent of the subjects had BAG levels approximating .15, with some having BACs as high as .18. An officer should have no difficulty correctly identifying totally alcohol-free subjects as being unimpaired. Although slightly more difficult, one would expect officers to correctly classify subjects with BAC levels of .05 as being unimpaired. They should also have little difficulty correctly classifying subjects with the BAG levels of .15. In effect, 78 percent of the subjects fall into these extreme categories. Only 22 percent of the subjects were in the critical BAC range around .10. When the tests must differentiate in this critical range, they fail miserably. The overall accuracy rate of .80 is. misleading when over two-thirds of the decisions are “gimmies,” people with little or no alcohol or levels of .15.
For the remaining subjects, the officers have a 50/50 chance of being correct just on the basis of guessing. With the “easy” decisions and a guessing rate of .50, the reported 80 percent accuracy rate does not look exceptionally good. The question should not be how does the FST help officers correctly classify subjects 80 percent of the time. Instead, the question asked should be “Why doesn’t the FST do a better job helping the officers reach the correct decision?” In fact, the 1977 NHTSA report contains the following admonition, “Again, it should be pointed out that all the evidence from these data suggest it is unrealistic to attempt to use behavioral tests to discriminate BACS in a .02 margin around a given level” (P.41).
Myth 3: The FSTs are tests accepted by the scientific community.
Fact: Anastasi (1988) defines a test as being an objective and standardized measure of behavior, in the behavioral sciences, specific criteria must be met for a behavioral test to be accepted. The primary criteria include establishing the reliability, validity, and standardized administration of the test. Reliability and validity involve the consistency of test scores and the relationship of the score to the behavior it is designed to measure. Standardization includes uniformity of procedure in administering the test as well as the scoring of the test. For test scores to be meaningful the test conditions under which the tests are administered must not be causing differences in test scores. A test that has not been standardized or does not outline exact procedures for administration and scoring would not be considered a scientific test.
An important step in the standardization of a test is the development of norms and as the name suggests, a norm is the normal, average or typical score. Scores can only be interpreted by comparing them with scores obtained by others. There are no adequate norms for the FST battery. Common sense dictates and research supports the belief that motor skills decline with age. The FST, however, provides no basis for interpreting the results for individuals at various age levels. Although, manuals for DWl training suggest that tests should not be given to individuals who are 60 years of age or older or to a person more than 50 pounds overweight, it provides no information on how to evaluate the performance of a 45 year old versus a 20 year old (NHTSA, 1992).
Examiners cannot adequately interpret a score, unless they know the mean and the standard deviation of the distribution. NHTSA leads us to believe that the “norm” for a sober person would be a test score of 0; that is, no errors in performance. Yet, we know from the 1977 NHTSA study that all of the sober people in that study made at least one error. In fact, the mean number of error “cues” scored among the sober individuals was 10.56.3
Even if NHTSA’s claim that the FST is not a norm-referenced test, but rather a criterion-referenced test (that is, that a certain score (criterion point) indicates failure), there are no data indicating how this criterion score might vary as a function of age, gender, or motor coordination. Even, if such norms were produced from the NHTSA 1977 and 1981 studies, they would be of limited value given that they are based on laboratory testing, not testing in the field.
Myth 4: The field sobriety tests are reliable.
Fact: Reliability refers to the consistency n test scores. Reliability scores can range from a low of .00, which indicates no consistency, to 1 .00, which indicates perfect consistency. A test with a reliability value of .90 would indicate that 90 percent of the variability in the test scores is attributed to true differences in performance and 10 percent would be due to error. Most well-established tests (e.g., Wechsler scales for lQ, SAT, GRE) have reliability values greater than .90. The scientific community expects reliability coefficients to be in the upper .80s or .90s for a test to be scientifically reliable (Anastasi, 1958; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1990).
The HGN, One-leg stand, and Walk-and-turn tests have test-retest reliabilities of .66, .72, and .61 respectively with a combined reliability of 77. This means that 34 percent of the HGN, 28 percent of the One-leg stand and 39 percent of the Walk-and-turn test scores can be attributed to errors in scoring. If 23 percent of the score on a breathalyzer depended on the manufacturer of the device, would it be allowed into evidence? Quite possibly the most telling lack of reliability of the FST battery is that when different officers tested the same subjects at the same dose level on different days, the reliability was only .59. This means that 41 percent of the score was due to error. These reliabilities are far too low to be useful in making important decisions. By contrast the reliability of the BAC machine readings was .96, indicating a high level of reliability.
Myth 5: The field sobriety tests are scientifically valid.
Fact: The 1977 NHTSA study reported the results in terms of validity coefficients. The validity coefficient for HGN, One-leg stand and Walk-and-turn tests was .67, .48, and .55 respectively with a combined validity coefficient of 67. For example, if the officer used the individual FSTs, the accuracy in predicting the BAC levels would increase by only 26 percent with the HGN test, 12 percent with the one-leg stand test and 16 percent with the walk-and-turn test. If all three tests were administered, accuracy in predicting BAC levels would improve by only 26 percent. The error in predicting BAG levels using the HGN, the one leg stand, and the walk-and-turn combined would be 74 percent as large as it would be by chance.
For the FST battery to be a valid predictor of BAC, it must not only identify individuals above a BAC level of .10 as “failing, “ but also identify individuals below .10 as “passing.” That is, the test must have discriminative power. In NHTSA’s own studies, a significant proportion of people who were below the .10 BAG standard in effect at that time were falsely viewed as being impaired. In the 1977 Burns and Moskowitz study, 46.5 percent of the “arrest” decisions by participating officers were incorrect. Of the 101 arrest decisions, 47 subjects had BAG levels less than .10. The authors, themselves conclude, “Obviously, an error rate of 46.5 percent in making arrests is not acceptable” (p.25).
In the follow-up study by Tharp et. Al. (1981), the false arrest rate was 32 percent. The primary reason for the decrease in false alarm from 46.5 percent in the ‘77 NHTSA study to 32 percent in the 1981 study was not due solely to the “new improved FST,” but partly to the distribution of subjects across the dose levels. In the ‘77 NHTSA study 27 percent of subjects were in the critical range (BAC in the middle range) and in the ‘81 NHTSA study only 22 percent of subjects were in the middle range. In other words the distribution in the ‘81 NHTSA study made discriminations easier. If the ‘81 NHTSA study had used the same distribution of BAC levels that were employed in the ‘77 NHTSA study, the false arrest rate would have been higher than 32 percent and probably would have matched the “unacceptable” 46.5 level of the ’77 NHTSA study. These validity scores are quite low and suggest that the FST battery is of little benefit for an officer determining BAC levels.
Myth 6: NHTSA has validated the FST in a field setting.
Fact: The 1977 and 1981 NHTSA studies were conducted in a laboratory setting. It is obvious that laboratory studies are very different from studies performed in a natural or field setting. Laboratories are quite different from real life situations. For example, the influence of alcohol on the individual depends greatly on the social context, as well as the expectations of the person. Subjects in these NHTSA studies were told not to eat eight hours prior to the testing. Test subjects were tested at 15-minute intervals, and the study began early in the morning. This would mean that many subjects had not eaten for long as 12 hours before being tested. It is doubtful that a person drinking in a natural setting would fast for hours and then consume alcohol at unknown ethanol levels.
Laboratories are artificial by nature and only gives an indication of what one might expect in a field setting. In the conclusions of the 1981 NHTSA study, the authors recommended that the field sobriety test should be validated in the field for 18 months and in various localities across the nation. The 1983 NHTSA study by Anderson, et al., the purported “field validation” of the FST battery, did not meet those recommendations, A 3-month study was conducted in a limited number of locations on the east coast. Dr. Bums has testified on cross examination4 that the FST has never been adequately field tested. Most importantly the FST has never been standardized or validated in a field getting.
Myth 7: The NHTSA studies have been published in Peer Reviewed Journals.
Fact: Neither of the 1977 or 1981 NHTSA studies has been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. The publications have been limited to technical reports issued by NHTSA. Dr. Burns has admitted on cross examination3 that the method and results sections were too lengthy to be published in a scientific journal. Based on this logic lengthy but important studies would never be published. It is difficult to see how the NHTSA could claim that the FST Is accepted in the scientific community, when results of studies on the validation of the FST have never appeared in a scientific peer reviewed journal, which is’ a basic requirement for acceptance by the scientific community.
Myth 8: There is a consistent relationship between BAC levels and driving impairment.
Fact: The literature on the effects of alcohol is so diverse that one can only conclude that any demanding task may be impaired at almost any BAC level. Research indicates that there are substantial individual variations in the metabolism of alcohol which would, most likely affect performance. Performance is also affected by individual differences and individuals with identical BAC levels, may very well have different levels of impairment (Hurst and Bagley, 1972; Moskowitz, Daily and Henderson, 1974). Many studies involving the influence of alcohol on impairment find a rather significant number of subjects whose performance actually increases after the consumption of alcohol. In a study conducted under the auspices of the California Highway Patrol and various law enforcement agencies, Giguire (1985) found that 17 percent of his subjects with doses calculated to achieve BAG levels of .10 improved driving performance on a closed course. Mangarin & Standery (1989) also found no effects of alcohol dose on a video driving performance despite an unusually high dose calculated to achieve a BAG of .16. These studies and others suggest a complex relationship between BAC levels and performance and offers little support for setting specific BAC impairment levels and certainly does not support the assumption that BAG levels could be used as a substitute criteria for driving impairment.
Myth 9: People who are not impaired can “pass” the Field Sobriety Tests.
Fact: Cole and Nowaczyk (1991) had 21 adults perform field sobriety tests who were completely alcohol free, as confirmed by breath tests. The subjects were given six tests including a heel to toe test and a one leg stand test. None of the subjects was under the extreme pressure that is associated with a roadside detention situation. Two separate groups of law enforcement officers gathered at different times to judge the performance of the participants. These were actual police officers who had received standard training in the observation and Identification of intoxicated drivers. The officers were then asked to identify individuals who had too much to drink to drive. Of 147 responses by the police officers, 68 of those responses (46 percent) indicated that a completely sober person was too intoxicated to drive, The average police experience was 12 years. Interestingly, the officer with the least experience had the fewest wrong responses.
Compton (1985) found false positive rates for totally alcohol free participants to be as high as 54 percent for some police departments. In the 1981 NHTSA study 18 percent of alcohol-free subjects and 31 percent of subjects with BAC levels of .05 were judged to be impaired. Clearly, there is a strong tendency for certified alcohol-free participants to fail Field Sobriety Tests.
Myth 10: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test is the most sensitive test for measuring Impairment.
Fact: Because the HGN test is a physiological task unlike the other Field Sobriety Tests which are psychomotor, divided-attention tasks, it is sometimes viewed as being the most sensitive of the three tests. Also, some of NHTSA’S research indicates it has the strongest relationship with BAC (e.g., Burns & Moskowitz, 1977 (p. 17
View the Original article
Spurgeon Cole
&
Ronald H. Nowaczyk
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
For over a decade Marcelline Burns, senior author of an often-cited 1977 NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) report and co-author of a 1981 NHTSA study, has traveled across the country extolling the virtues of the new and improved Field Sobriety test (FST) battery. The FST battery, as recommended by NHTSA, consists of three tests that are supposed to predict an individual’s blood alcohol (BAG) level. The tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-turn test and the One-leg stand test. None of these tests were specifically developed to identify BAG level, but have been used by law enforcement as indicators of driving impairment.
NHTSA claims that the new version of the FST battery is scientific and can differentiate between impaired and unimpaired drivers. Until recently Burns’ testimony has gone unchallenged because few attorneys have the prerequisite understanding of statistics and test development to critically evaluate the NHTSA reports and effectively cross-examine NHTSA’s witnesses. Judges who have recently heard the “rFST of the story” are either not admitting the FST entirely or declaring it unscientific and not allowing police to use such terms as “tests” “results” “passed” or “failure.”2
The prosecution in DUI trials has long held a decided advantage over the defense because of misconceptions about the effectiveness of the FST. Even defense attorneys have often accepted the premise that the FST has a measure of value in predicting driving impairment. In essence, NHTSA representatives have for over a decade enjoyed a free ride, but the road has recently developed some serious pot holes.
Research (Cole & Cole, 1991; Cole & Nowaczyk, 1994) and expert testimony offered by Cole & Nowaczyk have enabled judges and attorneys to better understand the limitations of the FST. In the past, NHTSA representatives have made outlandish claims as to the effectiveness of the FST even though these claims are not supported by their own research data. Because of these sins of omission and an occasional sin of commission, many myths have developed concerning the validity and reliability of the FST battery. The present article attempts to separate the facts from the myths.
Myth 1: The Field Sobriety TFST (FST) battery predicts driving impairment.
Fact: NHTSA never attempted to determine if the FST could predict driving Impairment. There is not a single study linking the recommended FST battery directly to driving impairment. The fact is, there never wilt be a simple roadside coordination task that can predict driving impairment. In one of NHTSA’s own reports, the following statement is made “… even valid, behavioral tests are likely to be poor predictors either of actual behind-the-wheel driving …or of accidents” (p. 2-7, Snapper, Seaver & Schwartz, 1981.) The stated goal in the 1977 study was to determine the relationship between FST and intoxication and driving impairment. However, they did not investigate the relationship between the FST and driving impairment.
While there is a relationship between BAC level and driving impairment, the relationship is not likely to be a simple linear one. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assume that 1) if FST performance and BAC are related and 2) if BAC and driving Impairment are related, therefore, 3) FST and driving impairment are related. The relationships among these factors are too complex to assume a simple relationship as NHTSA might like you to conclude. There are comments among NHTSA researchers themselves alluding to this conclusion. In the 1981 NHTSA study, the researchers conclude,”…Individuals vary in alcohol tolerance, and infrequent drinker may be severely impaired at a BAC of 0.05, whereas a heavy drinker may show only minimal Impairment at this level” (p. 19). Dr. Moskowitz, one of the co-authors of both the 1977 and 1981 NHTSA studies, co-authored a later review of research on driving and alcohol, levels and concluded in a presentation at a scientific conference that,”... studies of driving simulator and on-the-road testing varied widely in results. This is due to the wide range of behavioral demands required by diverse control and visual search requirements” (Moskowitz & Robinson, 1987, p. 85). It is obvious that research is needed examining the relationship between FST and driving performance directly. That research has not yet been conducted. Dr. Burns herself indicated that the FST battery has its value in predicting BAG levels (Burns, 1984).
Myth 2: The FST battery is 80 percent accurate in differentiating between Individuals with BAC levels above or below .10.
Fact: The 1981 NHTSA study is the one cited by NHTSA as evidence of an 80 percent accuracy rate with the use of the FST battery. That study tested 296 subjects. Thirty-three percent of the subjects in the study had a BAC level of .00 and 34 percent were given dose levels calculated to raise BAG levels to .05. Another 11 percent of the subjects had BAG levels approximating .15, with some having BACs as high as .18. An officer should have no difficulty correctly identifying totally alcohol-free subjects as being unimpaired. Although slightly more difficult, one would expect officers to correctly classify subjects with BAC levels of .05 as being unimpaired. They should also have little difficulty correctly classifying subjects with the BAG levels of .15. In effect, 78 percent of the subjects fall into these extreme categories. Only 22 percent of the subjects were in the critical BAC range around .10. When the tests must differentiate in this critical range, they fail miserably. The overall accuracy rate of .80 is. misleading when over two-thirds of the decisions are “gimmies,” people with little or no alcohol or levels of .15.
For the remaining subjects, the officers have a 50/50 chance of being correct just on the basis of guessing. With the “easy” decisions and a guessing rate of .50, the reported 80 percent accuracy rate does not look exceptionally good. The question should not be how does the FST help officers correctly classify subjects 80 percent of the time. Instead, the question asked should be “Why doesn’t the FST do a better job helping the officers reach the correct decision?” In fact, the 1977 NHTSA report contains the following admonition, “Again, it should be pointed out that all the evidence from these data suggest it is unrealistic to attempt to use behavioral tests to discriminate BACS in a .02 margin around a given level” (P.41).
Myth 3: The FSTs are tests accepted by the scientific community.
Fact: Anastasi (1988) defines a test as being an objective and standardized measure of behavior, in the behavioral sciences, specific criteria must be met for a behavioral test to be accepted. The primary criteria include establishing the reliability, validity, and standardized administration of the test. Reliability and validity involve the consistency of test scores and the relationship of the score to the behavior it is designed to measure. Standardization includes uniformity of procedure in administering the test as well as the scoring of the test. For test scores to be meaningful the test conditions under which the tests are administered must not be causing differences in test scores. A test that has not been standardized or does not outline exact procedures for administration and scoring would not be considered a scientific test.
An important step in the standardization of a test is the development of norms and as the name suggests, a norm is the normal, average or typical score. Scores can only be interpreted by comparing them with scores obtained by others. There are no adequate norms for the FST battery. Common sense dictates and research supports the belief that motor skills decline with age. The FST, however, provides no basis for interpreting the results for individuals at various age levels. Although, manuals for DWl training suggest that tests should not be given to individuals who are 60 years of age or older or to a person more than 50 pounds overweight, it provides no information on how to evaluate the performance of a 45 year old versus a 20 year old (NHTSA, 1992).
Examiners cannot adequately interpret a score, unless they know the mean and the standard deviation of the distribution. NHTSA leads us to believe that the “norm” for a sober person would be a test score of 0; that is, no errors in performance. Yet, we know from the 1977 NHTSA study that all of the sober people in that study made at least one error. In fact, the mean number of error “cues” scored among the sober individuals was 10.56.3
Even if NHTSA’s claim that the FST is not a norm-referenced test, but rather a criterion-referenced test (that is, that a certain score (criterion point) indicates failure), there are no data indicating how this criterion score might vary as a function of age, gender, or motor coordination. Even, if such norms were produced from the NHTSA 1977 and 1981 studies, they would be of limited value given that they are based on laboratory testing, not testing in the field.
Myth 4: The field sobriety tests are reliable.
Fact: Reliability refers to the consistency n test scores. Reliability scores can range from a low of .00, which indicates no consistency, to 1 .00, which indicates perfect consistency. A test with a reliability value of .90 would indicate that 90 percent of the variability in the test scores is attributed to true differences in performance and 10 percent would be due to error. Most well-established tests (e.g., Wechsler scales for lQ, SAT, GRE) have reliability values greater than .90. The scientific community expects reliability coefficients to be in the upper .80s or .90s for a test to be scientifically reliable (Anastasi, 1958; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1990).
The HGN, One-leg stand, and Walk-and-turn tests have test-retest reliabilities of .66, .72, and .61 respectively with a combined reliability of 77. This means that 34 percent of the HGN, 28 percent of the One-leg stand and 39 percent of the Walk-and-turn test scores can be attributed to errors in scoring. If 23 percent of the score on a breathalyzer depended on the manufacturer of the device, would it be allowed into evidence? Quite possibly the most telling lack of reliability of the FST battery is that when different officers tested the same subjects at the same dose level on different days, the reliability was only .59. This means that 41 percent of the score was due to error. These reliabilities are far too low to be useful in making important decisions. By contrast the reliability of the BAC machine readings was .96, indicating a high level of reliability.
Myth 5: The field sobriety tests are scientifically valid.
Fact: The 1977 NHTSA study reported the results in terms of validity coefficients. The validity coefficient for HGN, One-leg stand and Walk-and-turn tests was .67, .48, and .55 respectively with a combined validity coefficient of 67. For example, if the officer used the individual FSTs, the accuracy in predicting the BAC levels would increase by only 26 percent with the HGN test, 12 percent with the one-leg stand test and 16 percent with the walk-and-turn test. If all three tests were administered, accuracy in predicting BAC levels would improve by only 26 percent. The error in predicting BAG levels using the HGN, the one leg stand, and the walk-and-turn combined would be 74 percent as large as it would be by chance.
For the FST battery to be a valid predictor of BAC, it must not only identify individuals above a BAC level of .10 as “failing, “ but also identify individuals below .10 as “passing.” That is, the test must have discriminative power. In NHTSA’s own studies, a significant proportion of people who were below the .10 BAG standard in effect at that time were falsely viewed as being impaired. In the 1977 Burns and Moskowitz study, 46.5 percent of the “arrest” decisions by participating officers were incorrect. Of the 101 arrest decisions, 47 subjects had BAG levels less than .10. The authors, themselves conclude, “Obviously, an error rate of 46.5 percent in making arrests is not acceptable” (p.25).
In the follow-up study by Tharp et. Al. (1981), the false arrest rate was 32 percent. The primary reason for the decrease in false alarm from 46.5 percent in the ‘77 NHTSA study to 32 percent in the 1981 study was not due solely to the “new improved FST,” but partly to the distribution of subjects across the dose levels. In the ‘77 NHTSA study 27 percent of subjects were in the critical range (BAC in the middle range) and in the ‘81 NHTSA study only 22 percent of subjects were in the middle range. In other words the distribution in the ‘81 NHTSA study made discriminations easier. If the ‘81 NHTSA study had used the same distribution of BAC levels that were employed in the ‘77 NHTSA study, the false arrest rate would have been higher than 32 percent and probably would have matched the “unacceptable” 46.5 level of the ’77 NHTSA study. These validity scores are quite low and suggest that the FST battery is of little benefit for an officer determining BAC levels.
Myth 6: NHTSA has validated the FST in a field setting.
Fact: The 1977 and 1981 NHTSA studies were conducted in a laboratory setting. It is obvious that laboratory studies are very different from studies performed in a natural or field setting. Laboratories are quite different from real life situations. For example, the influence of alcohol on the individual depends greatly on the social context, as well as the expectations of the person. Subjects in these NHTSA studies were told not to eat eight hours prior to the testing. Test subjects were tested at 15-minute intervals, and the study began early in the morning. This would mean that many subjects had not eaten for long as 12 hours before being tested. It is doubtful that a person drinking in a natural setting would fast for hours and then consume alcohol at unknown ethanol levels.
Laboratories are artificial by nature and only gives an indication of what one might expect in a field setting. In the conclusions of the 1981 NHTSA study, the authors recommended that the field sobriety test should be validated in the field for 18 months and in various localities across the nation. The 1983 NHTSA study by Anderson, et al., the purported “field validation” of the FST battery, did not meet those recommendations, A 3-month study was conducted in a limited number of locations on the east coast. Dr. Bums has testified on cross examination4 that the FST has never been adequately field tested. Most importantly the FST has never been standardized or validated in a field getting.
Myth 7: The NHTSA studies have been published in Peer Reviewed Journals.
Fact: Neither of the 1977 or 1981 NHTSA studies has been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. The publications have been limited to technical reports issued by NHTSA. Dr. Burns has admitted on cross examination3 that the method and results sections were too lengthy to be published in a scientific journal. Based on this logic lengthy but important studies would never be published. It is difficult to see how the NHTSA could claim that the FST Is accepted in the scientific community, when results of studies on the validation of the FST have never appeared in a scientific peer reviewed journal, which is’ a basic requirement for acceptance by the scientific community.
Myth 8: There is a consistent relationship between BAC levels and driving impairment.
Fact: The literature on the effects of alcohol is so diverse that one can only conclude that any demanding task may be impaired at almost any BAC level. Research indicates that there are substantial individual variations in the metabolism of alcohol which would, most likely affect performance. Performance is also affected by individual differences and individuals with identical BAC levels, may very well have different levels of impairment (Hurst and Bagley, 1972; Moskowitz, Daily and Henderson, 1974). Many studies involving the influence of alcohol on impairment find a rather significant number of subjects whose performance actually increases after the consumption of alcohol. In a study conducted under the auspices of the California Highway Patrol and various law enforcement agencies, Giguire (1985) found that 17 percent of his subjects with doses calculated to achieve BAG levels of .10 improved driving performance on a closed course. Mangarin & Standery (1989) also found no effects of alcohol dose on a video driving performance despite an unusually high dose calculated to achieve a BAG of .16. These studies and others suggest a complex relationship between BAC levels and performance and offers little support for setting specific BAC impairment levels and certainly does not support the assumption that BAG levels could be used as a substitute criteria for driving impairment.
Myth 9: People who are not impaired can “pass” the Field Sobriety Tests.
Fact: Cole and Nowaczyk (1991) had 21 adults perform field sobriety tests who were completely alcohol free, as confirmed by breath tests. The subjects were given six tests including a heel to toe test and a one leg stand test. None of the subjects was under the extreme pressure that is associated with a roadside detention situation. Two separate groups of law enforcement officers gathered at different times to judge the performance of the participants. These were actual police officers who had received standard training in the observation and Identification of intoxicated drivers. The officers were then asked to identify individuals who had too much to drink to drive. Of 147 responses by the police officers, 68 of those responses (46 percent) indicated that a completely sober person was too intoxicated to drive, The average police experience was 12 years. Interestingly, the officer with the least experience had the fewest wrong responses.
Compton (1985) found false positive rates for totally alcohol free participants to be as high as 54 percent for some police departments. In the 1981 NHTSA study 18 percent of alcohol-free subjects and 31 percent of subjects with BAC levels of .05 were judged to be impaired. Clearly, there is a strong tendency for certified alcohol-free participants to fail Field Sobriety Tests.
Myth 10: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test is the most sensitive test for measuring Impairment.
Fact: Because the HGN test is a physiological task unlike the other Field Sobriety Tests which are psychomotor, divided-attention tasks, it is sometimes viewed as being the most sensitive of the three tests. Also, some of NHTSA’S research indicates it has the strongest relationship with BAC (e.g., Burns & Moskowitz, 1977 (p. 17
View the Original article
Monday, July 30, 2012
DUI Rogue Cop injustamente encarcelados decenas
TAMPA - Daniel Brock ganó grandes elogios para encarcelar a los automovilistas con problemas. Mothers Against Drunk Driving le honró. También lo hicieron a sus jefes. Pero uno de los diputados de DUI más agresivos del Condado de Hillsborough haya erróneamente enviado docenas de personas a la cárcel, la Oficina del Sheriff reconoció en jueves, 14 de junio de 2007.
La Agencia dispararon Brock el 24 de mayo. En un año, Brock detenido 58 personas cuyo contenido de alcohol en sangre estaba por debajo de 0,08, el nivel en que la ley estatal presume que un conductor se vea afectado, mostró una auditoría de asuntos internos. "No prescribir a la teoría de que de alguna manera tienes que ser 0,08 a ser bebido o deterioro", Brock, 38, dijeron los investigadores. (Nota del editor: apuesto a que "prescribe" a la teoría de que de alguna manera todo el mundo se deteriora o demasiado borracho para conducir a.08)
Un controlador puede cargarse con DUI en Florida, si el nivel de alcohol en sangre es entre 0.05 y 0.08 por ciento, pero debe haber otra evidencia de deterioro, como por ejemplo un vehículo apreciar. En 43 de los 58 casos, los automovilistas no demostraron ningún deterioro visible detrás del volante, según un informe de asuntos internos hizo público jueves. En 41 arrestos, Brock tampoco hacer una caja con muestras de orina, señala el informe.
Repetidamente, los investigadores encontraron que Brock reportó fallas en las pruebas de sobriedad de campo cuando su cámara de video de patrulla documentado todo lo contrario. Por ejemplo, escribió que un conductor de 25 de octubre de 2005, había perdido el equilibrio mientras girando. El video del encuentro mostró que no era el caso. El controlador sopló un 0.01 en la prueba de aliento, pero fue detenido de todos modos. Dijo que los controladores incorrectamente recitan el alfabeto, utilizaban armas para equilibrio e incoherentemente discurso - cuando el video mostró correctos alfabetos, equilibrio perfecto y claro discurso.
Los registros muestran que sacó gente en paradas de DUI 17 veces mientras su crucero fue ocupada con otros presos. Es contra el procedimiento. Rutinariamente presentó informes de arresto días, incluso semanas, después de realizar un arresto. Le dijo a asuntos internos Detective Bruce Crumpler que siempre informó los resultados de pruebas de sobriedad de campo basados en memoria. ¿No dejar margen para errores, Crumpler preguntó? "Bueno, no hay margen para el error,"Brock dijo Crumpler."Nunca he tenido un problema." (Nota del editor: hasta ahora su trabajo no fue en la línea, no fue restringida su libertad y su licencia no estaba en peligro. No es extraño que nunca había tenido un problema.)
Su papeleo se convirtió en objeto de desprecio en la Oficina del fiscal del estado de Hillsborough, donde los fiscales dijeron que el diputado ha empañado su reputación mediante la presentación de informes de arresto inexacta que carecían de detalles importantes. "No tiene una muy buena reputación por ser un muy buen oficial de DUI que nos preocupamos de trabajar con," fiscal Jennifer Gabbard dijo a Crumpler."Es casi como lo que usted puede hacer para que luzca como está arrestando a gente."
Desde octubre de 2005 a octubre de 2006, Brock realizaron 313 detenciones por conducir bajo la influencia. Él no pudo activar el equipo de audio y vídeo de su crucero en 40 por ciento de sus paradas, en lugar de ello confía en su "memoria de forjado" importante recordar arresta detalles, mostró la auditoría. Dentro de la Oficina del Sheriff, Brock adjunto previamente había sido elogiado por su "destacado servicio profesional" y recomendó consistentemente aumentos. Sus superiores clasificaron su desempeño "satisfactorio" y lo llamaban un crédito a la Oficina. Él fue elogiado como un adjunto dedicado quien habló a los estudiantes de secundaria acerca de los peligros de conducir.
"Sentíamos siempre fue un buen oficial," dijo Becky Gage, 55, el abogado de la víctima para el capítulo de MADD de Hillsborough.Como oficiales están dentro del alcance de la ley, entonces apoyamos sus esfuerzos para quitar controladores de deteriorados". (Nota del editor: liderazgo de MADD abraza un estándar de "tolerancia cero" para todos, por lo que ellos creen que una persona que bebía una cerveza en un juego de pelota debe ser detenido.)
Sin embargo, el ex diputado encontró unos baches de la carretera. Fue suspendido y enviado a la escuela de manejo en 2000 después de una cadena de lo que la Oficina del Sheriff considera que los accidentes de tránsito evitables. En 2006, fue nombrado en un pleito federal alegando que atacó físicamente a la madre de un adolescente arrestado en 2002. La mujer del Condado de Hillsborough, dijo Brock obligó a sí mismo en su casa, empujó a una esquina y le rociado con aerosol de pimienta. La demanda no se ha resuelta.
Durante la reciente investigación de asuntos internos, Brock negó tratando de aumentar la cantidad de reconocimiento personal. Era jueves claro si Brock pretende apelar su despido. Le dijo a los investigadores que les da la oportunidad, él realizaría sus paradas DUI del mismo modo. Brock dijo: "quiero decir, un mundo perfecto, necesitamos más diputados y menos personas."Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat7:42 AM
View the Original article
La Agencia dispararon Brock el 24 de mayo. En un año, Brock detenido 58 personas cuyo contenido de alcohol en sangre estaba por debajo de 0,08, el nivel en que la ley estatal presume que un conductor se vea afectado, mostró una auditoría de asuntos internos. "No prescribir a la teoría de que de alguna manera tienes que ser 0,08 a ser bebido o deterioro", Brock, 38, dijeron los investigadores. (Nota del editor: apuesto a que "prescribe" a la teoría de que de alguna manera todo el mundo se deteriora o demasiado borracho para conducir a.08)
Un controlador puede cargarse con DUI en Florida, si el nivel de alcohol en sangre es entre 0.05 y 0.08 por ciento, pero debe haber otra evidencia de deterioro, como por ejemplo un vehículo apreciar. En 43 de los 58 casos, los automovilistas no demostraron ningún deterioro visible detrás del volante, según un informe de asuntos internos hizo público jueves. En 41 arrestos, Brock tampoco hacer una caja con muestras de orina, señala el informe.
Repetidamente, los investigadores encontraron que Brock reportó fallas en las pruebas de sobriedad de campo cuando su cámara de video de patrulla documentado todo lo contrario. Por ejemplo, escribió que un conductor de 25 de octubre de 2005, había perdido el equilibrio mientras girando. El video del encuentro mostró que no era el caso. El controlador sopló un 0.01 en la prueba de aliento, pero fue detenido de todos modos. Dijo que los controladores incorrectamente recitan el alfabeto, utilizaban armas para equilibrio e incoherentemente discurso - cuando el video mostró correctos alfabetos, equilibrio perfecto y claro discurso.
Los registros muestran que sacó gente en paradas de DUI 17 veces mientras su crucero fue ocupada con otros presos. Es contra el procedimiento. Rutinariamente presentó informes de arresto días, incluso semanas, después de realizar un arresto. Le dijo a asuntos internos Detective Bruce Crumpler que siempre informó los resultados de pruebas de sobriedad de campo basados en memoria. ¿No dejar margen para errores, Crumpler preguntó? "Bueno, no hay margen para el error,"Brock dijo Crumpler."Nunca he tenido un problema." (Nota del editor: hasta ahora su trabajo no fue en la línea, no fue restringida su libertad y su licencia no estaba en peligro. No es extraño que nunca había tenido un problema.)
Su papeleo se convirtió en objeto de desprecio en la Oficina del fiscal del estado de Hillsborough, donde los fiscales dijeron que el diputado ha empañado su reputación mediante la presentación de informes de arresto inexacta que carecían de detalles importantes. "No tiene una muy buena reputación por ser un muy buen oficial de DUI que nos preocupamos de trabajar con," fiscal Jennifer Gabbard dijo a Crumpler."Es casi como lo que usted puede hacer para que luzca como está arrestando a gente."
Desde octubre de 2005 a octubre de 2006, Brock realizaron 313 detenciones por conducir bajo la influencia. Él no pudo activar el equipo de audio y vídeo de su crucero en 40 por ciento de sus paradas, en lugar de ello confía en su "memoria de forjado" importante recordar arresta detalles, mostró la auditoría. Dentro de la Oficina del Sheriff, Brock adjunto previamente había sido elogiado por su "destacado servicio profesional" y recomendó consistentemente aumentos. Sus superiores clasificaron su desempeño "satisfactorio" y lo llamaban un crédito a la Oficina. Él fue elogiado como un adjunto dedicado quien habló a los estudiantes de secundaria acerca de los peligros de conducir.
"Sentíamos siempre fue un buen oficial," dijo Becky Gage, 55, el abogado de la víctima para el capítulo de MADD de Hillsborough.Como oficiales están dentro del alcance de la ley, entonces apoyamos sus esfuerzos para quitar controladores de deteriorados". (Nota del editor: liderazgo de MADD abraza un estándar de "tolerancia cero" para todos, por lo que ellos creen que una persona que bebía una cerveza en un juego de pelota debe ser detenido.)
Sin embargo, el ex diputado encontró unos baches de la carretera. Fue suspendido y enviado a la escuela de manejo en 2000 después de una cadena de lo que la Oficina del Sheriff considera que los accidentes de tránsito evitables. En 2006, fue nombrado en un pleito federal alegando que atacó físicamente a la madre de un adolescente arrestado en 2002. La mujer del Condado de Hillsborough, dijo Brock obligó a sí mismo en su casa, empujó a una esquina y le rociado con aerosol de pimienta. La demanda no se ha resuelta.
Durante la reciente investigación de asuntos internos, Brock negó tratando de aumentar la cantidad de reconocimiento personal. Era jueves claro si Brock pretende apelar su despido. Le dijo a los investigadores que les da la oportunidad, él realizaría sus paradas DUI del mismo modo. Brock dijo: "quiero decir, un mundo perfecto, necesitamos más diputados y menos personas."Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat7:42 AM
View the Original article
Sunday, July 29, 2012
GERD impacto en la prueba de aliento
Enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico (GERD) es una enfermedad común que afecta a aproximadamente 25 a 30 por ciento de la población estadounidense. GERD es una condición crónica que resulta de deterioro del esófago de erupciones de ácido estomacal en el tiempo. Mark Scott y Aimee R. Gelhot, enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico: diagnóstico y manejo, Am.Fam 59. Médico 1161 (1999) (disponible en línea en www.aafp.org/afp/990301ap/1161.html). El impacto en las pruebas de aliento es si alcohol en erupción desde el estómago hasta la boca de reflujo gástrico (generalmente una respuesta silenciosa) plantea un problema con aliento precisa pruebas durante un período de privación de 20 minutos. La investigación ha sido mínima o inexistente sobre esta cuestión. Investigaciones llevadas a cabo para intentar imitar el reflujo gástrico es problemático debido a una muy pequeña población no representativa (diez personas o menos) muestra y algunos investigadores utilizan un cinturón de compresión para invocar la erupción, en contraste con la erupción espontánea y natural.
En pueblo v. Bonutti, ___ ___ Ill.App.3d, 788 N.E.2d 331, 273 Ill.Dec. 22 (5th dist. 2003), testimonios de expertos identificaron que el acusado había sufrido de GERD desde 1992 y estaba recibiendo tratamiento para la condición. El experto testificó que el alcohol, café y bebidas carbonatadas dilatan el estómago y esfínter esofágico inferior. El reflujo es silencioso y regurgitación y reflujo son sinónimos. En Bonutti, el Tribunal de primera instancia había suprimido correctamente la prueba de aliento cuando el acusado testificó que empleada durante el período de observación de 20 minutos. Sin embargo, el Tribunal correctamente quiso rescindir la suspensión legal de resumen de la prueba de aliento donde el estado rechazado así reclamo del demandado era válido.
En el estado de Washington, la patrulla del estado de Washington examinó la cuestión de GERD y deben aplicarse salvaguardias concertadas para la prueba de aliento justa y precisa. Sus conclusiones para la prueba de alcohol de aliento adecuado sugieren que una sana práctica forense debe seguirse para garantizar la integridad de la prueba de aliento y reconocimiento GERD. Las salvaguardias deben incluir lo siguiente: al menos un período de 15 minutos de observación pre-sample, Duplicar comprobación, detección de instrumento de alcohol de boca, entrenados y operadores alertas que formular preguntas adecuadas y observaciones visuales buscando síntomas de GERD. Varilla G. Gullberg, análisis de Alcohol de aliento en un sujeto con enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico. 46 J. forense et 1498 (2001).
El problema en mayoría aliento prueba de programas es la falta de capacitación de GERD, ausencia de pruebas duplicadas y preguntas de prueba pre-evidentiary no incluyen información acerca de GERD. En un programa de la policía de estado de Midwest, un instructor de pruebas de aliento testificó que evita deliberadamente el tema GERD en su programa de entrenamiento de prueba de aliento. Nuevamente se admite el uso de un período de observación continua de 20 minutos. Debería prohibir a un oficial de conducir un coche, leyendo papeles, su espalda al demandado y abandonar la sala durante el período de privación de 20 minutos. Otra cosa que continua de 20 minutos observación debería prohibirse para ayudar a garantizar la integridad de la prueba de aliento. Cumplimiento de las normas general para una persona que padece GERD no es aceptable.
Dr. Ronald Henson, pH.d., C.P.C.T.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat7:45 AM
View the Original article
En pueblo v. Bonutti, ___ ___ Ill.App.3d, 788 N.E.2d 331, 273 Ill.Dec. 22 (5th dist. 2003), testimonios de expertos identificaron que el acusado había sufrido de GERD desde 1992 y estaba recibiendo tratamiento para la condición. El experto testificó que el alcohol, café y bebidas carbonatadas dilatan el estómago y esfínter esofágico inferior. El reflujo es silencioso y regurgitación y reflujo son sinónimos. En Bonutti, el Tribunal de primera instancia había suprimido correctamente la prueba de aliento cuando el acusado testificó que empleada durante el período de observación de 20 minutos. Sin embargo, el Tribunal correctamente quiso rescindir la suspensión legal de resumen de la prueba de aliento donde el estado rechazado así reclamo del demandado era válido.
En el estado de Washington, la patrulla del estado de Washington examinó la cuestión de GERD y deben aplicarse salvaguardias concertadas para la prueba de aliento justa y precisa. Sus conclusiones para la prueba de alcohol de aliento adecuado sugieren que una sana práctica forense debe seguirse para garantizar la integridad de la prueba de aliento y reconocimiento GERD. Las salvaguardias deben incluir lo siguiente: al menos un período de 15 minutos de observación pre-sample, Duplicar comprobación, detección de instrumento de alcohol de boca, entrenados y operadores alertas que formular preguntas adecuadas y observaciones visuales buscando síntomas de GERD. Varilla G. Gullberg, análisis de Alcohol de aliento en un sujeto con enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico. 46 J. forense et 1498 (2001).
El problema en mayoría aliento prueba de programas es la falta de capacitación de GERD, ausencia de pruebas duplicadas y preguntas de prueba pre-evidentiary no incluyen información acerca de GERD. En un programa de la policía de estado de Midwest, un instructor de pruebas de aliento testificó que evita deliberadamente el tema GERD en su programa de entrenamiento de prueba de aliento. Nuevamente se admite el uso de un período de observación continua de 20 minutos. Debería prohibir a un oficial de conducir un coche, leyendo papeles, su espalda al demandado y abandonar la sala durante el período de privación de 20 minutos. Otra cosa que continua de 20 minutos observación debería prohibirse para ayudar a garantizar la integridad de la prueba de aliento. Cumplimiento de las normas general para una persona que padece GERD no es aceptable.
Dr. Ronald Henson, pH.d., C.P.C.T.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat7:45 AM
View the Original article
Saturday, July 28, 2012
GERD PUEDE MOSTRAR FALSAMENTE INFLADA BAC
Enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico (GERD) es una enfermedad común que afecta a aproximadamente 25 a 30 por ciento de la población estadounidense. GERD es una condición crónica que resulta de deterioro del esófago de erupciones de ácido estomacal en el tiempo. Mark Scott y Aimee R. Gelhot, enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico: diagnóstico y manejo, Am.Fam 59. Médico 1161 (1999) (disponible en línea en www.aafp.org/afp/990301ap/1161.html). El impacto en las pruebas de aliento es si alcohol en erupción desde el estómago hasta la boca de reflujo gástrico (generalmente una respuesta silenciosa) plantea un problema con aliento precisa pruebas durante un período de privación de 20 minutos. La investigación ha sido mínima o inexistente sobre esta cuestión. Investigaciones llevadas a cabo para intentar imitar el reflujo gástrico es problemático debido a una muy pequeña población no representativa (diez personas o menos) muestra y algunos investigadores utilizan un cinturón de compresión para invocar la erupción, en contraste con la erupción espontánea y natural.
En pueblo v. Bonutti, ___ ___ Ill.App.3d, 788 N.E.2d 331, 273 Ill.Dec. 22 (5th dist. 2003), testimonios de expertos identificaron que el acusado había sufrido de GERD desde 1992 y estaba recibiendo tratamiento para la condición. El experto testificó que el alcohol, café y bebidas carbonatadas dilatan el estómago y esfínter esofágico inferior. El reflujo es silencioso y regurgitación y reflujo son sinónimos. En Bonutti, el Tribunal de primera instancia había suprimido correctamente la prueba de aliento cuando el acusado testificó que empleada durante el período de observación de 20 minutos. Sin embargo, el Tribunal de primera instancia correctamente quiso rescindir la suspensión Resumen legal donde el estado rechazado, así la defendant†™ s reclamar la prueba de aliento no era válida.
En el estado de Washington, la patrulla del estado de Washington examinó la cuestión de GERD y deben aplicarse salvaguardias concertadas para la prueba de aliento justa y precisa. Sus conclusiones para la prueba de alcohol de aliento adecuado sugieren que una sana práctica forense debe seguirse para garantizar la integridad de la prueba de aliento y reconocimiento GERD. Las salvaguardias deben incluir lo siguiente: al menos un período de 15 minutos de observación pre-sample, Duplicar comprobación, detección de instrumento de alcohol de boca, entrenados y operadores alertas que formular preguntas adecuadas y observaciones visuales buscando síntomas de GERD. Varilla G. Gullberg, análisis de Alcohol de aliento en un sujeto con enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico. 46 J. forense et 1498 (2001).
El problema en mayoría aliento prueba de programas es la falta de capacitación de GERD, ausencia de pruebas duplicadas y preguntas de prueba pre-evidentiary no incluyen información acerca de GERD. En un programa de la policía de estado de Midwest, un instructor de pruebas de aliento testificó que evita deliberadamente el tema GERD en su programa de entrenamiento de prueba de aliento. Nuevamente se admite el uso de un período de observación continua de 20 minutos. Debería prohibir a un oficial de conducir un coche, leyendo papeles, su espalda al demandado y abandonar la sala durante el período de privación de 20 minutos. Otra cosa que continua de 20 minutos observación debería prohibirse para ayudar a garantizar la integridad de la prueba de aliento. Cumplimiento de las normas general para una persona que padece GERD no es aceptable.
Dr. Ronald Henson, pH.d., C.P.C.T.
Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat10:30 AMView the Original article
Friday, July 27, 2012
Falta de Causa Probable requiere movimiento de represión no moción para despedir
Tribunal de Apelaciones Penal de Alabama.
Bradford salvaje Dominic MULDOONv.
ESTADO.CR-04-1758.
29 De septiembre de 2006.
Antecedentes: Tras una declaración de culpabilidad tras la denegación de movimiento para despedir, acusado fue declarado culpable en la corte de circuito de Houston, no. CC-04-4, S. Edward Jackson, J., de conducir bajo la influencia combinada de alcohol y sustancias controladas. Apeló el demandado.
Sosteniendo: La corte de Criminal apelaciones, Cobb, J., celebró que ese acusado no tenía derecho a despido de infracción de tránsito uniforme y queja (UTTC), incluso si oficial de detención carecía de causa probable para arresto de efecto y aunque separado de UTTC de arresto debe han sido obtenido.
Afirmó.
View the Original article
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Tapa de cinco años para Felony DUI jurisdicción
Afortunadamente la corte de Apelaciones de Alabama ha interpretado por último inciso (o) de los estatutos de dui de Alabama poniendo así fin a la confusión que algunos jueces y fiscales de distrito tenían en todo el estado en la lectura de inglés. Su confusión fue sorprendente dado el lenguaje del estatuto era clara e inequívoca. Uno de nuestros clientes, un conductor de camión de la pulpa del Condado de Walker, con una educación de sexto grado, no tenía ninguna comprensión de dificultad tan fuera ¿por qué la gente en Morgan, Shelby, Houston, Lee y St. Clair condados, sólo para nombrar unos pocos, teniendo tanta dificultad? Creo que esto subraya claramente la premisa que DUI en Alabama es un crimen político y en ese contexto que pocos funcionarios públicos serán "el hombre arriba" cuando se trata de hacer lo correcto. Un comentario triste para los jueces que juró defender las leyes del Estado y Constitución y fiscales éticamente obligados a hacer a justicia. Lea y disfrute!
Tribunal de Apelaciones Penal de Alabama.
Jeffery HANKINS
v.
Estado de Alabama.
CR-06-0310.
28 De septiembre de 2007.
Apelación de Tribunal de circuito de Lamar (CC-06-83).
SHAW, juez.
View the Original article
Tribunal de Apelaciones Penal de Alabama.
Jeffery HANKINS
v.
Estado de Alabama.
CR-06-0310.
28 De septiembre de 2007.
Apelación de Tribunal de circuito de Lamar (CC-06-83).
SHAW, juez.
View the Original article
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Draeger Alcotest 7110 código fuente reveló
Software de alcoholemia secreto finalmente revelado
Publicado por Lawrence Taylor el 04 de septiembre de 2007 en duiblog.com
"Como he indicado en anteriores posts, abogados de la defensa durante años han intentado descubrir el código fuente del software utilizado por fabricantes de diferentes modelos de alcoholemia. (Véase "Alcoholímetro secreto Software todavía secreto") La precisión de estas máquinas, que esencialmente determinar culpabilidad o inocencia del sospechoso, depende de la precisión del software conduciendo; como dicen los técnicos del equipo, "Garbage in, garbage out". Pero los fabricantes se han negado a producir la información, confiando en un reclamo de "secretos" — es decir, que el código de cada modelo es una creación única del fabricante. Y los fiscales, aparentemente más preocupados con ganancias que con justicia, les han unido en resistir a divulgación.
Recientemente, sin embargo, los jueces en Florida, Minnesota, Nueva Jersey y un número creciente de otros Estados han comenzado pedidos a los fabricantes para revelar el funcionamiento interno de sus máquinas a la defensa. (Ver "juez: divulgar el código de alcoholemia... o bien".) No en vano, los fabricantes se han negado a cumplir. Hasta hace unos días....
Nueva Jersey abogado Evan M. Levow fue finalmente capaz de obtener una orden de la Corte Suprema de Nueva Jersey, forzando al fabricante de la popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 para revelar el código fuente. Levow entregó el código a expertos, las tecnologías una Base, a anaylze.
Inicialmente, Base uno encuentra que, contrariamente a protestas de Draeger que el código era privativo, el código consistía principalmente de algoritmos generales: "es decir, el código no es realmente único o de propiedad." En otras palabras, el reclamo de "secretos" que los fabricantes se escondían detrás estaba completamente sin mérito.
Algunos de los extractos más interesantes del Base de un informe:
1. El Alcotest Software podría no pasar Estados Unidos estándares de la industria para el desarrollo de Software y Testing: el programa presentado muestra amplia evidencia de diseño incompleto, incompleto verificación de diseño y "caja blanca" incompleto y pruebas de "caja negra". Por lo tanto, el software tiene que ser considerada poco confiable y probada, y en varios casos no cumple los requisitos establecidos. La planificación y documentación del diseño es azarosa. Secciones del código modificado del código original y mostrar evidencia de la utilización de un enfoque experimental para la codificación, o utilizan lo que se describe mejor como el método de "ensayo y error". Varias secciones están marcadas como "temporales, por ahora". Otras secciones se agregaron a los módulos existentes o insertados en una secuencia de código, dando lugar a un diseño de patchwork y estilo de codificación...
Está claro que, como se presentó, el software de Alcotest no pasaría estándares de desarrollo y pruebas para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos o militar. Quebraría estándares de software para la administración de Aviación Federal (FAA) y alimentos y drogas (FDA), así como las normas comerciales utilizadas en dispositivos para la seguridad pública...Si la FAA había impuesto obligatorio alcohol pruebas para todos los pilotos comerciales, sería rechazado el Alcotest basado en los estándares de software y seguridad de la FAA...
2. Catastrófico Error detección está desactivada: Una interrupción que detecta que el microprocesador está intentando ejecutar una instrucción ilegal está desactivada, lo que significa que el software de Alcotest podría parecer que se ejecute correctamente al ejecutar ramas silvestres o código no válido por un período de tiempo. Otras ignoradas las interrupciones son la propiedad de funcionamiento del equipo (temporizador) y la interrupción de Software.
3. Diagnóstico lecturas de datos de ajuste/sustituto: Las rutinas de diagnósticas el convertidores de analógico a Digital (A/d) sustituir lecturas arbitrarias, favorables para el dispositivo de medida si la medida está fuera de rango, demasiado alta o demasiado baja. Los valores se forzará a un límite alto o bajo, respectivamente. Este error se suprime a menos que se presenta con bastante frecuencia...
4. Ajustada de las mediciones de flujo/sustituida: El software toma una medición de flujo de aire en el encendido y se presume este valor es la "línea cero" o medición de línea de base para los cálculos posteriores. No existe ninguna prueba de verificación o razonabilidad de calidad se realiza sobre esta medida...
5. Error detección lógica: El diseño de software detecta errores de medición, pero ignora estos errores a menos que se produzcan un número consecutivo de veces. Por ejemplo, en el flujo de aire medida lógica, si es una medición de flujo por encima del valor máximo prescrito, se llama un error, pero debe producirse este error 32 veces consecutivas para el error el desplazamiento y muestra. Esto significa que podría ocurrir el error 31 veces, luego aparecen dentro del alcance de una vez, y luego aparece 31 veces, etc. y nunca se informó...
Basado en un. 08% en la lectura de esta máquina, los ciudadanos estadounidenses son acusados de conducir borracho y, en el Tribunal, presume por ley a ser culpable. "Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:10 PM
View the Original article
Publicado por Lawrence Taylor el 04 de septiembre de 2007 en duiblog.com
"Como he indicado en anteriores posts, abogados de la defensa durante años han intentado descubrir el código fuente del software utilizado por fabricantes de diferentes modelos de alcoholemia. (Véase "Alcoholímetro secreto Software todavía secreto") La precisión de estas máquinas, que esencialmente determinar culpabilidad o inocencia del sospechoso, depende de la precisión del software conduciendo; como dicen los técnicos del equipo, "Garbage in, garbage out". Pero los fabricantes se han negado a producir la información, confiando en un reclamo de "secretos" — es decir, que el código de cada modelo es una creación única del fabricante. Y los fiscales, aparentemente más preocupados con ganancias que con justicia, les han unido en resistir a divulgación.
Recientemente, sin embargo, los jueces en Florida, Minnesota, Nueva Jersey y un número creciente de otros Estados han comenzado pedidos a los fabricantes para revelar el funcionamiento interno de sus máquinas a la defensa. (Ver "juez: divulgar el código de alcoholemia... o bien".) No en vano, los fabricantes se han negado a cumplir. Hasta hace unos días....
Nueva Jersey abogado Evan M. Levow fue finalmente capaz de obtener una orden de la Corte Suprema de Nueva Jersey, forzando al fabricante de la popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 para revelar el código fuente. Levow entregó el código a expertos, las tecnologías una Base, a anaylze.
Inicialmente, Base uno encuentra que, contrariamente a protestas de Draeger que el código era privativo, el código consistía principalmente de algoritmos generales: "es decir, el código no es realmente único o de propiedad." En otras palabras, el reclamo de "secretos" que los fabricantes se escondían detrás estaba completamente sin mérito.
Algunos de los extractos más interesantes del Base de un informe:
1. El Alcotest Software podría no pasar Estados Unidos estándares de la industria para el desarrollo de Software y Testing: el programa presentado muestra amplia evidencia de diseño incompleto, incompleto verificación de diseño y "caja blanca" incompleto y pruebas de "caja negra". Por lo tanto, el software tiene que ser considerada poco confiable y probada, y en varios casos no cumple los requisitos establecidos. La planificación y documentación del diseño es azarosa. Secciones del código modificado del código original y mostrar evidencia de la utilización de un enfoque experimental para la codificación, o utilizan lo que se describe mejor como el método de "ensayo y error". Varias secciones están marcadas como "temporales, por ahora". Otras secciones se agregaron a los módulos existentes o insertados en una secuencia de código, dando lugar a un diseño de patchwork y estilo de codificación...
Está claro que, como se presentó, el software de Alcotest no pasaría estándares de desarrollo y pruebas para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos o militar. Quebraría estándares de software para la administración de Aviación Federal (FAA) y alimentos y drogas (FDA), así como las normas comerciales utilizadas en dispositivos para la seguridad pública...Si la FAA había impuesto obligatorio alcohol pruebas para todos los pilotos comerciales, sería rechazado el Alcotest basado en los estándares de software y seguridad de la FAA...
2. Catastrófico Error detección está desactivada: Una interrupción que detecta que el microprocesador está intentando ejecutar una instrucción ilegal está desactivada, lo que significa que el software de Alcotest podría parecer que se ejecute correctamente al ejecutar ramas silvestres o código no válido por un período de tiempo. Otras ignoradas las interrupciones son la propiedad de funcionamiento del equipo (temporizador) y la interrupción de Software.
3. Diagnóstico lecturas de datos de ajuste/sustituto: Las rutinas de diagnósticas el convertidores de analógico a Digital (A/d) sustituir lecturas arbitrarias, favorables para el dispositivo de medida si la medida está fuera de rango, demasiado alta o demasiado baja. Los valores se forzará a un límite alto o bajo, respectivamente. Este error se suprime a menos que se presenta con bastante frecuencia...
4. Ajustada de las mediciones de flujo/sustituida: El software toma una medición de flujo de aire en el encendido y se presume este valor es la "línea cero" o medición de línea de base para los cálculos posteriores. No existe ninguna prueba de verificación o razonabilidad de calidad se realiza sobre esta medida...
5. Error detección lógica: El diseño de software detecta errores de medición, pero ignora estos errores a menos que se produzcan un número consecutivo de veces. Por ejemplo, en el flujo de aire medida lógica, si es una medición de flujo por encima del valor máximo prescrito, se llama un error, pero debe producirse este error 32 veces consecutivas para el error el desplazamiento y muestra. Esto significa que podría ocurrir el error 31 veces, luego aparecen dentro del alcance de una vez, y luego aparece 31 veces, etc. y nunca se informó...
Basado en un. 08% en la lectura de esta máquina, los ciudadanos estadounidenses son acusados de conducir borracho y, en el Tribunal, presume por ley a ser culpable. "Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:10 PM
View the Original article
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Cómo evitar un arresto DUI este verano.
Aplicación de la ley incrementará aplicación DUI durante el verano. Aplicación de la ley será realmente step it up durante las vacaciones, comenzando con el fin de semana de Memorial Day y cocer a fuego lento hacia abajo después del día del trabajo. Está comenzando ahora. Memorizar estos consejos. Pueden ser útiles durante las vacaciones.
1. Si usted conduce durante las vacaciones de verano, y planea tener un cóctel o dos, asegúrese de que sepa donde están su licencia, registro y comprobante de seguro. Policía históricamente escribe en sus informes DUI (poniendo sólo los hechos que dañan en ellos) que el sospechoso "soltó su monedero" y no pudo encontrar su registro. Utilizan esto para intentar demostrar que fueron deteriorados. Estar preparado.
2. Cuando se señala por el oficial para tirar por el oficial para una evaluación de DUI, hacerlo inmediatamente y de forma segura. Baje su ventana y poner las manos sobre el volante.
3. Si un oficial le pregunta si sabe por qué usted se queden, recuerde que usted no tiene que contestar. ¿Una pregunta tonta! Él sabe por qué él le está tirando encima. Él le está tirando encima le evaluar para conducir borracho, y él está usando el hecho de que usted podría haber cometido algunas violaciones del código de vehículos menores como excusa. No haga ninguna admisiones a él. Por lo tanto, usted puede sólo le pido, por qué?"
4. La siguiente pregunta es probable que pida el oficial es, "tienen nada a beber esta noche." ¿Recuerden sus derechos? No deberá hablar con los oficiales. Sé, sé, piensa, "pero si no hablo con el oficial, estará loco." Lo que sea. No estás en una reunión social; no es invitado a tu fiesta de año nuevo. Entonces no te preocupes acerca de cómo se siente. Él está acumulando evidencia contra usted. No le dan ninguna. Es mejor decir "Oficial, agradezco lo que haces para vivir, pero no quiero responder a cualquiera de sus preguntas". NO tienes que contestar. Menos de usted que obtiene, el mejor para usted en el largo plazo. Es la recopilación de evidencia. Pero, dices, tal vez él me deja ir si sabe que estoy siendo honesto con él. MAMÁ Mayoría de la gente que se tira y tener alcohol en su aliento es arrestada. Es simplemente un hecho de la vida. No le dé nada a poner en ese informe que él puede usar contra usted más tarde.
5. Él puede decir, "Me gustaría que usted complete una serie de pruebas para mí." Otra vez, hágale saber que usted no desea participar en las pruebas. No tienen que cumplir. Oficiales de intentar dar una serie de pruebas de campo para determinar si está dañada. Tengo nunca conocido cualquier oficial que hacer estos según el protocolo estandarizado. Tengo una certificación autorizada por el United declaró Departamento de transportación para administrar estas pruebas y tuvo que pasar un examen escrito y práctico para conseguir que la certificación dada por un sargento conocido a nivel nacional con la policía del estado de Idaho. Policias aprenden cómo hacer estas, y luego rápidamente olvidarse de ellos, inventando sus propias "pruebas". ¿No les. No deje que el oficial recoger más falso «pruebas» contra usted. Sólo reiterar que no deseen realizar y pruebas. Es su derecho.
6. El oficial de investigación de DUI puede entonces decirle que quiere que tenga un campo en aliento, mano, prueba de aliento. No tome esta "prueba". No es confiable y regularmente exhibe números de alcohol de la sangre superiores a lo que realmente eres. La Conferencia de las partes realmente, realmente quiere hacerlo ahora, porque ha hecho ninguna declaración, y han negado su campo "pruebas." Él quiere mal. Él necesita algunas pruebas. No hacerlo. NO se le pedirá a soplar en la maquinita de mano.
7. El oficial probablemente arrestar, brazalete y llevarlo en el centro de la ciudad. Deberá tomar un aliento o prueba de sangre. Debe elegir tomar uno de estos exámenes, o tomará lo que se llama una "prueba de sangre forzada" y su licencia de conducir será suspendido por un plazo de 90 días o más.
Algunas sugerencias: Si estás aún absorbiendo alcohol, la prueba de aliento leerá alto. También es una medida indirecta del nivel de alcohol en sangre. Si usted toma de sangre, no obtener un resultado de al menos una semana. También, SDPD y Sheriff no utilizan la cantidad adecuada de fluoruro de sodio y potasio oxalato en los tubos de sangre, por lo que puede atacar esos resultados más tarde. Personalmente, yo no dejaba que nadie contratado por la ciudad o condado para dibujar mi sangre, después de enterarse de todo saber sobre la incompetencia de las personas en el plano de la sangre y la falta de protocolo de sanitación en lugar. ¿Por qué el riesgo de infección?
Si usted es arrestado, usted saldrá con su promesa de aparecer dentro de 12 horas. Usted recibirá una pieza amarilla de papel que se llama un "AST 60)." Este documento le informa que usted o su abogado, debe llamar al Departamento de seguridad pública dentro de diez días de la detención para fijar una audiencia para determinar si o no el DPS tendrá su licencia. No te pierdas este plazo o será suspendido automáticamente.
Por lo tanto, tenga cuidado. No tomes y manejes si usted puede ayudar. Conducir con seguridad. No hablar con los policías. Ser Cortés, pero no dejes que reunir pruebas incriminatorio contra usted. Si recibe llamada detenido Polson & Robbins. 205 252-7000Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat6:57 PM
View the Original article
1. Si usted conduce durante las vacaciones de verano, y planea tener un cóctel o dos, asegúrese de que sepa donde están su licencia, registro y comprobante de seguro. Policía históricamente escribe en sus informes DUI (poniendo sólo los hechos que dañan en ellos) que el sospechoso "soltó su monedero" y no pudo encontrar su registro. Utilizan esto para intentar demostrar que fueron deteriorados. Estar preparado.
2. Cuando se señala por el oficial para tirar por el oficial para una evaluación de DUI, hacerlo inmediatamente y de forma segura. Baje su ventana y poner las manos sobre el volante.
3. Si un oficial le pregunta si sabe por qué usted se queden, recuerde que usted no tiene que contestar. ¿Una pregunta tonta! Él sabe por qué él le está tirando encima. Él le está tirando encima le evaluar para conducir borracho, y él está usando el hecho de que usted podría haber cometido algunas violaciones del código de vehículos menores como excusa. No haga ninguna admisiones a él. Por lo tanto, usted puede sólo le pido, por qué?"
4. La siguiente pregunta es probable que pida el oficial es, "tienen nada a beber esta noche." ¿Recuerden sus derechos? No deberá hablar con los oficiales. Sé, sé, piensa, "pero si no hablo con el oficial, estará loco." Lo que sea. No estás en una reunión social; no es invitado a tu fiesta de año nuevo. Entonces no te preocupes acerca de cómo se siente. Él está acumulando evidencia contra usted. No le dan ninguna. Es mejor decir "Oficial, agradezco lo que haces para vivir, pero no quiero responder a cualquiera de sus preguntas". NO tienes que contestar. Menos de usted que obtiene, el mejor para usted en el largo plazo. Es la recopilación de evidencia. Pero, dices, tal vez él me deja ir si sabe que estoy siendo honesto con él. MAMÁ Mayoría de la gente que se tira y tener alcohol en su aliento es arrestada. Es simplemente un hecho de la vida. No le dé nada a poner en ese informe que él puede usar contra usted más tarde.
5. Él puede decir, "Me gustaría que usted complete una serie de pruebas para mí." Otra vez, hágale saber que usted no desea participar en las pruebas. No tienen que cumplir. Oficiales de intentar dar una serie de pruebas de campo para determinar si está dañada. Tengo nunca conocido cualquier oficial que hacer estos según el protocolo estandarizado. Tengo una certificación autorizada por el United declaró Departamento de transportación para administrar estas pruebas y tuvo que pasar un examen escrito y práctico para conseguir que la certificación dada por un sargento conocido a nivel nacional con la policía del estado de Idaho. Policias aprenden cómo hacer estas, y luego rápidamente olvidarse de ellos, inventando sus propias "pruebas". ¿No les. No deje que el oficial recoger más falso «pruebas» contra usted. Sólo reiterar que no deseen realizar y pruebas. Es su derecho.
6. El oficial de investigación de DUI puede entonces decirle que quiere que tenga un campo en aliento, mano, prueba de aliento. No tome esta "prueba". No es confiable y regularmente exhibe números de alcohol de la sangre superiores a lo que realmente eres. La Conferencia de las partes realmente, realmente quiere hacerlo ahora, porque ha hecho ninguna declaración, y han negado su campo "pruebas." Él quiere mal. Él necesita algunas pruebas. No hacerlo. NO se le pedirá a soplar en la maquinita de mano.
7. El oficial probablemente arrestar, brazalete y llevarlo en el centro de la ciudad. Deberá tomar un aliento o prueba de sangre. Debe elegir tomar uno de estos exámenes, o tomará lo que se llama una "prueba de sangre forzada" y su licencia de conducir será suspendido por un plazo de 90 días o más.
Algunas sugerencias: Si estás aún absorbiendo alcohol, la prueba de aliento leerá alto. También es una medida indirecta del nivel de alcohol en sangre. Si usted toma de sangre, no obtener un resultado de al menos una semana. También, SDPD y Sheriff no utilizan la cantidad adecuada de fluoruro de sodio y potasio oxalato en los tubos de sangre, por lo que puede atacar esos resultados más tarde. Personalmente, yo no dejaba que nadie contratado por la ciudad o condado para dibujar mi sangre, después de enterarse de todo saber sobre la incompetencia de las personas en el plano de la sangre y la falta de protocolo de sanitación en lugar. ¿Por qué el riesgo de infección?
Si usted es arrestado, usted saldrá con su promesa de aparecer dentro de 12 horas. Usted recibirá una pieza amarilla de papel que se llama un "AST 60)." Este documento le informa que usted o su abogado, debe llamar al Departamento de seguridad pública dentro de diez días de la detención para fijar una audiencia para determinar si o no el DPS tendrá su licencia. No te pierdas este plazo o será suspendido automáticamente.
Por lo tanto, tenga cuidado. No tomes y manejes si usted puede ayudar. Conducir con seguridad. No hablar con los policías. Ser Cortés, pero no dejes que reunir pruebas incriminatorio contra usted. Si recibe llamada detenido Polson & Robbins. 205 252-7000Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat6:57 PM
View the Original article
Monday, July 23, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
DUI adjunto mayo han encarcelado injustamente docenas
TAMPA - Daniel Brock ganó grandes elogios para encarcelar a los automovilistas con problemas. Mothers Against Drunk Driving le honró. También lo hicieron a sus jefes. Pero uno de los diputados de DUI más agresivos del Condado de Hillsborough haya erróneamente enviado docenas de personas a la cárcel, la Oficina del Sheriff reconoció en jueves, 14 de junio de 2007.
La Agencia dispararon Brock el 24 de mayo. En un año, Brock detenido 58 personas cuyo contenido de alcohol en sangre estaba por debajo de 0,08, el nivel en que la ley estatal presume que un conductor se vea afectado, mostró una auditoría de asuntos internos. "No prescribir a la teoría de que de alguna manera tienes que ser 0,08 a ser bebido o deterioro", Brock, 38, dijeron los investigadores. (Nota del editor: apuesto a que "prescribe" a la teoría de que de alguna manera todo el mundo se deteriora o demasiado borracho para conducir a.08)
Un controlador puede cargarse con DUI en Florida, si el nivel de alcohol en sangre es entre 0.05 y 0.08 por ciento, pero debe haber otra evidencia de deterioro, como por ejemplo un vehículo apreciar. En 43 de los 58 casos, los automovilistas no demostraron ningún deterioro visible detrás del volante, según un informe de asuntos internos hizo público jueves. En 41 arrestos, Brock tampoco hacer una caja con muestras de orina, señala el informe.
Repetidamente, los investigadores encontraron que Brock reportó fallas en las pruebas de sobriedad de campo cuando su cámara de video de patrulla documentado todo lo contrario. Por ejemplo, escribió que un conductor de 25 de octubre de 2005, había perdido el equilibrio mientras girando. El video del encuentro mostró que no era el caso. El controlador sopló un 0.01 en la prueba de aliento, pero fue detenido de todos modos. Dijo que los controladores incorrectamente recitan el alfabeto, utilizaban armas para equilibrio e incoherentemente discurso - cuando el video mostró correctos alfabetos, equilibrio perfecto y claro discurso.
Los registros muestran que sacó gente en paradas de DUI 17 veces mientras su crucero fue ocupada con otros presos. Es contra el procedimiento. Rutinariamente presentó informes de arresto días, incluso semanas, después de realizar un arresto. Le dijo a asuntos internos Detective Bruce Crumpler que siempre informó los resultados de pruebas de sobriedad de campo basados en memoria. ¿No dejar margen para errores, Crumpler preguntó? "Bueno, no hay margen para el error,"Brock dijo Crumpler."Nunca he tenido un problema." (Editor†™ s Nota: hasta ahora su trabajo no fue en la línea, no fue restringida su libertad y su licencia no estaba en peligro. No es extraño que nunca había tenido un problema.)
Su papeleo se convirtió en objeto de desprecio en la Oficina del fiscal del estado de Hillsborough, donde los fiscales dijeron que el diputado ha empañado su reputación mediante la presentación de informes de arresto inexacta que carecían de detalles importantes. "No tiene una muy buena reputación por ser un muy buen oficial de DUI que nos preocupamos de trabajar con," fiscal Jennifer Gabbard dijo a Crumpler."Es casi como lo que usted puede hacer para que luzca como está arrestando a gente."
Desde octubre de 2005 a octubre de 2006, Brock realizaron 313 detenciones por conducir bajo la influencia. Él no pudo activar el equipo de audio y vídeo de su crucero en 40 por ciento de sus paradas, en lugar de ello confía en su "memoria de forjado" importante recordar arresta detalles, mostró la auditoría. Dentro de la Oficina del Sheriff, Brock adjunto previamente había sido elogiado por su "destacado servicio profesional" y recomendó consistentemente aumentos. Sus superiores clasificaron su desempeño "satisfactorio" y lo llamaban un crédito a la Oficina. Él fue elogiado como un adjunto dedicado quien habló a los estudiantes de secundaria acerca de los peligros de conducir.
"Sentíamos siempre fue un buen oficial," dijo Becky Gage, 55, el abogado de la víctima para el capítulo de MADD de Hillsborough.Como oficiales están dentro del alcance de la ley, entonces apoyamos sus esfuerzos para quitar controladores de deteriorados". (Nota de los editores: MADDs liderazgo abraza un estándar de "tolerancia cero" para todos, por lo que ellos creen que una persona que bebía una cerveza en un juego de pelota debe ser detenido.)
Sin embargo, el ex diputado encontró unos baches de la carretera. Fue suspendido y enviado a la escuela de manejo en 2000 después de una cadena de lo que la Oficina del Sheriff considera que los accidentes de tránsito evitables. En 2006, fue nombrado en un pleito federal alegando que atacó físicamente a la madre de un adolescente arrestado en 2002. La mujer del Condado de Hillsborough, dijo Brock obligó a sí mismo en su casa, empujó a una esquina y le rociado con aerosol de pimienta. La demanda no se ha resuelta.
Durante la reciente investigación de asuntos internos, Brock negó tratando de aumentar la cantidad de reconocimiento personal. Era jueves claro si Brock pretende apelar su despido. Le dijo a los investigadores que les da la oportunidad, él realizaría sus paradas DUI del mismo modo. Brock dijo: "quiero decir, un mundo perfecto, necesitamos más diputados y menos personas."Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat7:18 AM
View the Original article
La Agencia dispararon Brock el 24 de mayo. En un año, Brock detenido 58 personas cuyo contenido de alcohol en sangre estaba por debajo de 0,08, el nivel en que la ley estatal presume que un conductor se vea afectado, mostró una auditoría de asuntos internos. "No prescribir a la teoría de que de alguna manera tienes que ser 0,08 a ser bebido o deterioro", Brock, 38, dijeron los investigadores. (Nota del editor: apuesto a que "prescribe" a la teoría de que de alguna manera todo el mundo se deteriora o demasiado borracho para conducir a.08)
Un controlador puede cargarse con DUI en Florida, si el nivel de alcohol en sangre es entre 0.05 y 0.08 por ciento, pero debe haber otra evidencia de deterioro, como por ejemplo un vehículo apreciar. En 43 de los 58 casos, los automovilistas no demostraron ningún deterioro visible detrás del volante, según un informe de asuntos internos hizo público jueves. En 41 arrestos, Brock tampoco hacer una caja con muestras de orina, señala el informe.
Repetidamente, los investigadores encontraron que Brock reportó fallas en las pruebas de sobriedad de campo cuando su cámara de video de patrulla documentado todo lo contrario. Por ejemplo, escribió que un conductor de 25 de octubre de 2005, había perdido el equilibrio mientras girando. El video del encuentro mostró que no era el caso. El controlador sopló un 0.01 en la prueba de aliento, pero fue detenido de todos modos. Dijo que los controladores incorrectamente recitan el alfabeto, utilizaban armas para equilibrio e incoherentemente discurso - cuando el video mostró correctos alfabetos, equilibrio perfecto y claro discurso.
Los registros muestran que sacó gente en paradas de DUI 17 veces mientras su crucero fue ocupada con otros presos. Es contra el procedimiento. Rutinariamente presentó informes de arresto días, incluso semanas, después de realizar un arresto. Le dijo a asuntos internos Detective Bruce Crumpler que siempre informó los resultados de pruebas de sobriedad de campo basados en memoria. ¿No dejar margen para errores, Crumpler preguntó? "Bueno, no hay margen para el error,"Brock dijo Crumpler."Nunca he tenido un problema." (Editor†™ s Nota: hasta ahora su trabajo no fue en la línea, no fue restringida su libertad y su licencia no estaba en peligro. No es extraño que nunca había tenido un problema.)
Su papeleo se convirtió en objeto de desprecio en la Oficina del fiscal del estado de Hillsborough, donde los fiscales dijeron que el diputado ha empañado su reputación mediante la presentación de informes de arresto inexacta que carecían de detalles importantes. "No tiene una muy buena reputación por ser un muy buen oficial de DUI que nos preocupamos de trabajar con," fiscal Jennifer Gabbard dijo a Crumpler."Es casi como lo que usted puede hacer para que luzca como está arrestando a gente."
Desde octubre de 2005 a octubre de 2006, Brock realizaron 313 detenciones por conducir bajo la influencia. Él no pudo activar el equipo de audio y vídeo de su crucero en 40 por ciento de sus paradas, en lugar de ello confía en su "memoria de forjado" importante recordar arresta detalles, mostró la auditoría. Dentro de la Oficina del Sheriff, Brock adjunto previamente había sido elogiado por su "destacado servicio profesional" y recomendó consistentemente aumentos. Sus superiores clasificaron su desempeño "satisfactorio" y lo llamaban un crédito a la Oficina. Él fue elogiado como un adjunto dedicado quien habló a los estudiantes de secundaria acerca de los peligros de conducir.
"Sentíamos siempre fue un buen oficial," dijo Becky Gage, 55, el abogado de la víctima para el capítulo de MADD de Hillsborough.Como oficiales están dentro del alcance de la ley, entonces apoyamos sus esfuerzos para quitar controladores de deteriorados". (Nota de los editores: MADDs liderazgo abraza un estándar de "tolerancia cero" para todos, por lo que ellos creen que una persona que bebía una cerveza en un juego de pelota debe ser detenido.)
Sin embargo, el ex diputado encontró unos baches de la carretera. Fue suspendido y enviado a la escuela de manejo en 2000 después de una cadena de lo que la Oficina del Sheriff considera que los accidentes de tránsito evitables. En 2006, fue nombrado en un pleito federal alegando que atacó físicamente a la madre de un adolescente arrestado en 2002. La mujer del Condado de Hillsborough, dijo Brock obligó a sí mismo en su casa, empujó a una esquina y le rociado con aerosol de pimienta. La demanda no se ha resuelta.
Durante la reciente investigación de asuntos internos, Brock negó tratando de aumentar la cantidad de reconocimiento personal. Era jueves claro si Brock pretende apelar su despido. Le dijo a los investigadores que les da la oportunidad, él realizaría sus paradas DUI del mismo modo. Brock dijo: "quiero decir, un mundo perfecto, necesitamos más diputados y menos personas."Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat7:18 AM
View the Original article
Saturday, July 21, 2012
DEFENSA DE DUI DE SAN DIEGO: PRUEBAS DE ALCOHOLEMIA SON UNA MEDICIÓN INEXACTA DE CONTENIDO DE ALCOHOL DE LA SANGRE
Un grupo de jueces en New Hampshire fue servido varias bebidas alcohólicas como parte de un experimento que pretendía demostrar la efectividad de la alcoholemia. Un juez dio tantas bebidas que se convirtió en visible estado de embriaguez. Cuando el juez volaron a la alcoholemia, la máquina registró una puntuación de 0.0. Después de varios intentos más, el alcoholímetro dio el mismo resultado. Después de la demostración, jurisdicción de al menos un policía en el estado dejaron de usar el alcoholímetro en favor de los exámenes de sangre. (Véase Margaret Graham Tebo, nueva prueba para la defensa DUI, ABA Journal (febrero de 2005)).
El alcoholímetro es una prueba menos precisa que una prueba de sangre. Una prueba de sangre realmente mide la concentración de alcohol en sangre (BAC). Pero una alcoholemia simplemente lo estima. Mide la concentración de alcohol de "aliento" y requiere una conversión de matemáticos difíciles para correlacionarla con una concentración de alcohol de "sangre".
Lo que intenta medir la alcoholemia es la presencia de elementos químicos encontrados en alcohol. Pero la máquina mide a menudo químicos con estructuras moleculares similares a las encontradas en alcohol. Hay, de hecho, hay numerosos compuestos químicos que pueden engañar a una máquina de alcoholemia.
Según el Dr. David Hanson, sobre 100 compuestos pueden encontrarse en la respiración humana en cualquier momento, y 70 a 80 por ciento de ellos contienen
View the Original article
El alcoholímetro es una prueba menos precisa que una prueba de sangre. Una prueba de sangre realmente mide la concentración de alcohol en sangre (BAC). Pero una alcoholemia simplemente lo estima. Mide la concentración de alcohol de "aliento" y requiere una conversión de matemáticos difíciles para correlacionarla con una concentración de alcohol de "sangre".
Lo que intenta medir la alcoholemia es la presencia de elementos químicos encontrados en alcohol. Pero la máquina mide a menudo químicos con estructuras moleculares similares a las encontradas en alcohol. Hay, de hecho, hay numerosos compuestos químicos que pueden engañar a una máquina de alcoholemia.
Según el Dr. David Hanson, sobre 100 compuestos pueden encontrarse en la respiración humana en cualquier momento, y 70 a 80 por ciento de ellos contienen
View the Original article
Friday, July 20, 2012
"Tengo una insignia y puede detener en cualquier momento quiero incluso si no es una violación de la ley
DE LA PRENSA ASOCIADA
SOUTH CHARLESTON, residente — Hombre A West Virginia que policía dijo pasa gas y lo avivado hacia un policía ha sido acusado con la batería en un oficial de policía.
Jose A. Cruz, 34, de Clarksburg, se tiró sobre el martes temprano por conducir sin luces, dijo la policía. Según la denuncia penal, Cruz olía a alcohol, tenía dificultad para hablar y no tres pruebas de sobriedad de campo antes de que fue esposado y llevado a una estación de policía para una prueba de alcoholemia.
Como policía T.E. Parsons preparó la máquina, Cruz scooted su silla hacia Parsons, levantó su pierna y '' pasa gas ruidosamente,'' dijo la queja.
Cruz, según la denuncia, luego había avivado el gas hacia el oficial.
'' El gas era muy Oloroso y creado contacto de carácter insultante o provocando con policía Parsons,'' la queja alegada. También fue acusado de conducir bajo la influencia, conducir sin luces delanteras y dos cargos de obstrucción.
Cruz reconoció pasar gas, pero dijo que él no mueva su silla hacia el oficial ni objetivo gas al policía. Dijo que tenía molestias en el estómago en el momento, pero policía negó su petición para ir al baño cuando llegó por primera vez en la estación.
'' Yo no podía mantenerla sin más,'' dijo.
También negó estar ebrio y como la denuncia de la policía presuntamente. Añadió que estaba molesto por estar preparado para una prueba de alcoholemia teniendo un ataque de asma. La declaración de la policía dijo que más tarde se resistía a ser asegurado para un viaje a un hospital que solicitó para el tratamiento del asma.
Cruz dijo que los oficiales pensaron que el incidente del gas fue gracioso cuando pasó y se rió sobre ello con él.
'' Esto es ridículo '', dijo. '' Yo pude estar mirando tiempo.''Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat11:21 PM
View the Original article
SOUTH CHARLESTON, residente — Hombre A West Virginia que policía dijo pasa gas y lo avivado hacia un policía ha sido acusado con la batería en un oficial de policía.
Jose A. Cruz, 34, de Clarksburg, se tiró sobre el martes temprano por conducir sin luces, dijo la policía. Según la denuncia penal, Cruz olía a alcohol, tenía dificultad para hablar y no tres pruebas de sobriedad de campo antes de que fue esposado y llevado a una estación de policía para una prueba de alcoholemia.
Como policía T.E. Parsons preparó la máquina, Cruz scooted su silla hacia Parsons, levantó su pierna y '' pasa gas ruidosamente,'' dijo la queja.
Cruz, según la denuncia, luego había avivado el gas hacia el oficial.
'' El gas era muy Oloroso y creado contacto de carácter insultante o provocando con policía Parsons,'' la queja alegada. También fue acusado de conducir bajo la influencia, conducir sin luces delanteras y dos cargos de obstrucción.
Cruz reconoció pasar gas, pero dijo que él no mueva su silla hacia el oficial ni objetivo gas al policía. Dijo que tenía molestias en el estómago en el momento, pero policía negó su petición para ir al baño cuando llegó por primera vez en la estación.
'' Yo no podía mantenerla sin más,'' dijo.
También negó estar ebrio y como la denuncia de la policía presuntamente. Añadió que estaba molesto por estar preparado para una prueba de alcoholemia teniendo un ataque de asma. La declaración de la policía dijo que más tarde se resistía a ser asegurado para un viaje a un hospital que solicitó para el tratamiento del asma.
Cruz dijo que los oficiales pensaron que el incidente del gas fue gracioso cuando pasó y se rió sobre ello con él.
'' Esto es ridículo '', dijo. '' Yo pude estar mirando tiempo.''Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat11:21 PM
View the Original article
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Trooper grietas bajo la presión de muchos arrestos falsos
Un oficial de la patrulla de caminos de Carolina del Sur es el trabajo tras ser detenido en extrañas circunstancias el miércoles.
Los funcionarios dicen trooper que Leslie C. Hoover fue jalado John Dodd Road en el Condado de Spartanburg bajo sospecha de DUI. Esto se produjo después de que un automovilista llamó al 911 para informar vehículo personal de Hoover, un Isuzu Rodeo, desviándose erráticamente en Insterstate 26 sobre 18:40 en tráfico pesado rush hour. El Departamento de seguridad pública de SC dice Hoover rechazó una alcoholemia y falló una prueba de sobriedad de campo. Fue acusado de conducir bajo la influencia.
Mañana el jueves, Hoover compareció ante un juez y fue lanzado en su propio reconocer. Pero su aparición cuando ingresó en la cárcel ha suscitado un debate más que sus problemas legales.
Un oficial de alto rango que deseaban permanecer en el anonimato dice Noticias canal 7 que vio que Hoover traídos en la cárcel "con un vestido rojo". Dice Hoover también llevaba un sostén y fue visto "ajustar su bra" mientras esperaba a ser procesada. Y dice que la trooper avergonzada tenía un par de bragas tanga "en su posesión".
Eso explicaría las declaraciones hechas por el hombre que hizo la llamada al 911 en la Interestatal. El chofer, quien pidió no ser identificado, dijo Hoover "apareció a llevar una peluca rubia" cuando llegó volando allá él cerca de salida 22. En una grabación de su llamada al 911 - que fue obtenida por Noticias canal 7 - el hombre se refiere a Hoover como "ella" varias veces.
"Sí, estoy en Interestatal 26 rumbo oeste en la salida 22 y hay una roja, creo que es un Isuzu o un Rodeo y ella - creo que es una ella - es tejer en el camino," dice la persona que llama en la cinta de 911.Dispatcher: "crees que ella está intoxicada o....?"Llamada: "yo no puedo decir pero ella es tejer en el camino!". SID Gaulden, portavoz para el Departamento de seguridad pública, dice Hoover es del Condado de Lexington y fue en su tiempo personal, cuando fue arrestado. Dice que Hoover terminó el jueves por la mañana. Había trabajado para la patrulla de caminos durante 30 años. Dice Hoover retiró en 2000, pero volvió a trabajar en 2002 como miembro del equipo de aplicación seguros de la patrulla. El equipo trabaja con el Departamento de vehículos motorizados para apoderarse de las placas de matrícula de los propietarios de automóviles que han permitido su cobertura de seguro para el lapso.
"Ellos son empleados a tiempo parcial pero tienen la misma autoridad para realizar paradas de tráfico y emitir citaciones como un trooper estado a tiempo completo," dice Gaulden. Dice que Hoover no tenía ninguna acción de disciplanary contra él como oficial de patrulla desde 1976 a 2000. Pero después volvió en 2002, tuvo que asistir a una sesión de asesoría para la "operación negligente de un vehículo del Estado". Gaulden dice derivan de un incidente en el que Hoover rear-ended vehículo de un civil. Dice "there was que no alcohol indicación fue un factor" en ese accidente.
El hombre que llamó al 911 plantea otra cuestión interesante: dice trooper de otro Estado podría han dejado Hoover antes de que llamó al 911, pero no le tire. Dice como vehículo de Hoover desvió de la carretera cerca de salida 22, un trooper de estado en un SUV tirado Hoover "derecha detrás" y le siguieron. Dice que en el momento, vehículo de Hoover fue transzonales la dividida línea blanca que separa los carriles.
"Realmente pensé (the trooper) iba a le tire encima porque él claramente estaba tejiendo," dice la persona que llama. "Pero sólo fue derecha a su alrededor y despegó real rápido como tenía prisa".
Dice como the trooper iba todo vehículo de Hoover, Hoover desvió el hombro de la carretera interestatal.
"Pensé que habría sido lo suficientemente evidente para la trooper notar que pero me imagino que no lo hizo," dice el hombre. Dice que minutos más tarde, después de que vio Hoover casi chocan con varios vehículos, recogió su celular y marcó el 911.
Nos informó el Departamento de seguridad pública de la declaración del hombre sobre la trooper no tire encima de Hoover. Gaulden dijo que no eran conscientes de la situación ", pero investigaremos completamente" para ver si efectivamente era un trooper de Estado quien se paró detrás de Hoover y si es así, por qué optaron no a le tire encima.
Haga clic en la ficha vídeo para ver la historia de Chris Catón en la detención y el audio de la 911 llamar.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:10 AM
View the Original article
Los funcionarios dicen trooper que Leslie C. Hoover fue jalado John Dodd Road en el Condado de Spartanburg bajo sospecha de DUI. Esto se produjo después de que un automovilista llamó al 911 para informar vehículo personal de Hoover, un Isuzu Rodeo, desviándose erráticamente en Insterstate 26 sobre 18:40 en tráfico pesado rush hour. El Departamento de seguridad pública de SC dice Hoover rechazó una alcoholemia y falló una prueba de sobriedad de campo. Fue acusado de conducir bajo la influencia.
Mañana el jueves, Hoover compareció ante un juez y fue lanzado en su propio reconocer. Pero su aparición cuando ingresó en la cárcel ha suscitado un debate más que sus problemas legales.
Un oficial de alto rango que deseaban permanecer en el anonimato dice Noticias canal 7 que vio que Hoover traídos en la cárcel "con un vestido rojo". Dice Hoover también llevaba un sostén y fue visto "ajustar su bra" mientras esperaba a ser procesada. Y dice que la trooper avergonzada tenía un par de bragas tanga "en su posesión".
Eso explicaría las declaraciones hechas por el hombre que hizo la llamada al 911 en la Interestatal. El chofer, quien pidió no ser identificado, dijo Hoover "apareció a llevar una peluca rubia" cuando llegó volando allá él cerca de salida 22. En una grabación de su llamada al 911 - que fue obtenida por Noticias canal 7 - el hombre se refiere a Hoover como "ella" varias veces.
"Sí, estoy en Interestatal 26 rumbo oeste en la salida 22 y hay una roja, creo que es un Isuzu o un Rodeo y ella - creo que es una ella - es tejer en el camino," dice la persona que llama en la cinta de 911.Dispatcher: "crees que ella está intoxicada o....?"Llamada: "yo no puedo decir pero ella es tejer en el camino!". SID Gaulden, portavoz para el Departamento de seguridad pública, dice Hoover es del Condado de Lexington y fue en su tiempo personal, cuando fue arrestado. Dice que Hoover terminó el jueves por la mañana. Había trabajado para la patrulla de caminos durante 30 años. Dice Hoover retiró en 2000, pero volvió a trabajar en 2002 como miembro del equipo de aplicación seguros de la patrulla. El equipo trabaja con el Departamento de vehículos motorizados para apoderarse de las placas de matrícula de los propietarios de automóviles que han permitido su cobertura de seguro para el lapso.
"Ellos son empleados a tiempo parcial pero tienen la misma autoridad para realizar paradas de tráfico y emitir citaciones como un trooper estado a tiempo completo," dice Gaulden. Dice que Hoover no tenía ninguna acción de disciplanary contra él como oficial de patrulla desde 1976 a 2000. Pero después volvió en 2002, tuvo que asistir a una sesión de asesoría para la "operación negligente de un vehículo del Estado". Gaulden dice derivan de un incidente en el que Hoover rear-ended vehículo de un civil. Dice "there was que no alcohol indicación fue un factor" en ese accidente.
El hombre que llamó al 911 plantea otra cuestión interesante: dice trooper de otro Estado podría han dejado Hoover antes de que llamó al 911, pero no le tire. Dice como vehículo de Hoover desvió de la carretera cerca de salida 22, un trooper de estado en un SUV tirado Hoover "derecha detrás" y le siguieron. Dice que en el momento, vehículo de Hoover fue transzonales la dividida línea blanca que separa los carriles.
"Realmente pensé (the trooper) iba a le tire encima porque él claramente estaba tejiendo," dice la persona que llama. "Pero sólo fue derecha a su alrededor y despegó real rápido como tenía prisa".
Dice como the trooper iba todo vehículo de Hoover, Hoover desvió el hombro de la carretera interestatal.
"Pensé que habría sido lo suficientemente evidente para la trooper notar que pero me imagino que no lo hizo," dice el hombre. Dice que minutos más tarde, después de que vio Hoover casi chocan con varios vehículos, recogió su celular y marcó el 911.
Nos informó el Departamento de seguridad pública de la declaración del hombre sobre la trooper no tire encima de Hoover. Gaulden dijo que no eran conscientes de la situación ", pero investigaremos completamente" para ver si efectivamente era un trooper de Estado quien se paró detrás de Hoover y si es así, por qué optaron no a le tire encima.
Haga clic en la ficha vídeo para ver la historia de Chris Catón en la detención y el audio de la 911 llamar.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:10 AM
View the Original article
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Road Block Procedures
November 1990
DOT HS 807 656
The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints
for
Impaired Driving Enforcement
TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS
Office of Enforcement
and
Emergency Services
PREFACE
Impaired driving and impaired-related crashes constitute one of the nation's leading
health problems. These events result in more deaths each year than do total
homicides. The impact is particularly severe among young people, age 15-24, where
impaired driving is the leading cause of death. Clearly, impaired driving and impaired
related crashes constitute a major threat to the safety and well-being of the public. The
costs resulting from alcohol-related crashes should be recognized and weighed against
the costs and inconveniences associated with efforts to reduce them.
These guidelines have been designed to provide law enforcement agencies with a
uniform and successful method to plan, operate and evaluate sobriety checkpoints.
When implemented in conjunction with departmental policy and any constraints
imposed by state or local courts, sobriety checkpoints provide an effective enforcement
tool to combat the impaired driving problem.
Any agency considering the use of sobriety checkpoints should integrate them with a
continuing, systematic and aggressive program, including vigorous enforcement, public
information and education. The purpose of the program is to maximize the deterrent
effect and increase the perception of "risk of apprehension" of motorists who would
operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. There is convincing evidence
that the use of checkpoints has a marked, dramatic effect on reducing alcohol-related
crashes in a community.1
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wishes to express its appreciation
to Sergeant Barbara Bent, Dayton Police Department, Dayton, Ohio; Sheriff Earl Smith,
Franklin County Sheriff's Department, Columbus, Ohio; 1st Sergeant Larry Larkin,
Indiana State Police; Maryland State Police; Lieutenant Nancy Brunzos, Sergeant
David Kochubka and Technician Floyd Wing, Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C.; 1st Lieutenant Al Slaughter, Michigan State Police; Major Raymond
Dutcher, New York State Police; Deputy Charles Fortunato, Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Department, West Palm Beach, Florida; Sergeant Keith Adams, Redding
Police Department, Redding, California. We are grateful for the effort and contribution
from each of these individuals.
We also wish to acknowledge the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
and the National Sheriffs' Association for their recommendations and participation. Mr.
Charles Peltier (IACP) provided valuable technical assistance.
1 "Sobriety Checkpoints for DWI Enforcement - A Review of Current Research,"
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1987
GUIDELINES FOR SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
These guidelines suggest and describe operational procedures that police
administrators may want to consider in order to ensure that sobriety checkpoints are
used legally, effectively and safely. These points are consistent with those specified in
recent court decisions, including the United States Supreme Court ruling in Michigan
Department of State Police v. Sitz, upholding the constitutionality of sobriety
checkpoints. An effective sobriety checkpoint program consists of the following
components:
Ongoing Program to Deter Impaired Driving
Judicial Support
Existing Departmental Policy
Site Selection
Special Warning Devices
Visible Police Authority
Chemical Testing Logistics
Contingency Planning
Detection and Investigation Techniques
Operational Briefings
Comprehensive Public Information and Education Programs
Data Collection and Evaluation
Ongoing Program to Deter Impaired Driving - Agencies considering
implementing sobriety checkpoints should integrate them with a continuing,
systematic and aggressive enforcement program. Vigorous enforcement, public
information and education need to be part of this program. The purpose of the
checkpoint is to maximize the deterrent effect and increase the perception of "risk
of apprehension" to motorists who would operate a vehicle while impaired by
alcohol or other drugs. The use of checkpoints alone will not maintain the
perception of risk essential to an effective general deterrence program.
Judicial Support - When officials decide to use sobriety checkpoints, they should
involve their prosecuting attorney (district attorney, attorney general, etc.) in the
planning process to determine legally acceptable procedures. This person can
assist in identifying any legally mandated requirements and the types of evidential
information that will be needed to prosecute cases emanating from checkpoint
apprehension.
The jurisdiction's presiding judge should be informed of the proposed checkpoints
and procedures, an essential step if the judiciary is to accept their use. The judge
2
can provide insight on what activities would be required to successfully adjudicate
such cases.
Prosecutors, judges, and other involved members of the criminal justice system can
be invited to observe the actual operation of the checkpoint.
Existing Policy/Guidelines - Before using sobriety checkpoints, the agency must
have specifically established procedures outlining how the checkpoints are to be
conducted. The courts have been very clear in requiring the advance planning of
sobriety checkpoints. Failure to do so has been used as evidence that the
checkpoint techniques involved unfettered discretion. The policy should also
assure that the checkpoints are conducted with a minimal amount of intrusion or
motorist inconvenience.
Site Selection - Planning should assure the safety of the general public and law
enforcement officers when selecting an operational site. Sobriety checkpoints
must not create more of a traffic hazard than the results of the driving behavior they
are trying to modify.
Planners should remember to select a site that allows officers to pull vehicles out of
the traffic stream without causing significant subjective intrusion (fright) to the
drivers (United States v. Ortiz 422 U.S. 891 (1975)) and/or creating a safety
hazard, e.g., by creating a traffic backup. Furthermore, officers' safety must be
taken into account when deciding where to locate the checkpoint.
The department should objectively outline criteria used in the site selection
process, e.g., an unusual incidence of alcohol/drug involved crashes or driving
violations, unusual number of nighttime single vehicle crashes or other
documented alcohol/drug related vehicular incidents.
The site should permit the safe flow of traffic through the checkpoint.
Consideration should be given to the posted speed limits, traffic volume and
visibility. Most jurisdictions have the capability to review the Average Traffic
Volume (ATV) during the surveillance period for major roadways in their area.
Once a jurisdiction has decided on possible locations for the sobriety checkpoints,
the effect on traffic flow can be determined by ascertaining how long each interview
takes, then, multiplying that time by the number of available officers, and finally,
dividing that figure into the average number of vehicles which can be expected at
that location. This will suggest whether all vehicles can be examined without
causing a traffic build-up.
If the traffic volume precludes stopping every vehicle, a nondiscretionary scheme
should be adopted, in advance, for stopping some subset of vehicles. In Delaware
3
v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) the United States Supreme Court indicates that
stopping all cars would be an acceptable method of conducting spot checks. In a
concurring opinion, Justice Blackmum (joined by Justice Powell) suggests that
other methods would also be acceptable, such as stopping every tenth car that
passes a given point. If every vehicle is not stopped, the method used to
determine which ones will be stopped must appear in the administrative order
authorizing the use of the sobriety checkpoint.
The site should have maximum visibility from each direction and sufficient
illumination for the safety of both the motorists and officers. If permanent lighting is
unavailable, ensure that adequate portable lighting is provided. Planners should
also ensure that sufficient adjoining space is available to pull vehicles off the
traveled portion of the roadway. Any other conditions that may pose a hazard
should be taken into consideration.
Warning Devices - Special care should be taken to warn approaching motorists of
the sobriety checkpoint. Such notice can be accomplished using warning signs
indicating the upcoming checkpoint; flares or fusees (if weather permits) and safety
cones or similar devices for marking and/or closing lanes on the roadway;
permanent or portable lighting to illuminate the checkpoint area; and, marked patrol
vehicles with warning lights flashing.
A sign or device should be placed to provide advance warning stating why
motorists are stopped. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that visible signs of the
officers' authority generate less concern and fright on the part of lawful travelers,
and is therefore less of a subjective intrusion (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,
428 U.S. 643 (1976)).
The placement and types of traffic control devices used should comply with federal,
state or local transportation codes. Planners should check with appropriate
agencies administering the location and placement of signing devices.
Visible Police Authority - The visibility of uniformed officers and their marked
vehicles makes the police presence obvious. It also serves to reassure motorists
of the legitimate nature of the activity. This is an important aspect of the sobriety
checkpoint and part of the effort to reduce the intrusion to the passing motorists
affected by the checkpoint.
A sworn, uniformed officer should be assigned to provide on- site supervision of
the checkpoint operation. This officer should be responsible for the overall
operation and should be well versed in contingency planning for the checkpoint.
The checkpoint should be staffed by a sufficient number of uniformed personnel to
4
assure a safe and efficient operation, based on traffic volume, roadway size, type
of location, etc.
Chemical Testing Logistics - Since impaired driving arrests are anticipated at the
selected location, the logistics of chemical testing must also be included. If
possible, a mobile breath testing unit with a qualified operator could be physically
located at the checkpoint. If one is not available, a system for expeditiously
transporting suspected violators to chemical test sites should be established. In
applicable locations, a Drug Recognition Technician (DRT) should be available, at
a suitable location, to examine subjects who may be impaired by drugs other than
or in combination with alcohol.
Contingency Planning - Any deviation from the predetermined plan for stopping
vehicles should be thoroughly documented and the reason for the deviation given
(e.g., traffic backing up, intermittent inclement weather). Courts have allowed this
as long as documentation of the reason requiring the deviation from the interview
sequence is kept (United States v. Prichard, 645 F2d 854). If such an event
occurs, jurisdictions should have prepared an alternative plan, in advance, to
handle the checkpoint.
Detection and Investigation Techniques - An agency considering the use of
sobriety checkpoints should ensure that the participating officers are properly
trained in detecting impaired drivers. The use of sobriety checkpoints which allow
impaired drivers to pass through undetected will not achieve the desired
deterrence effect. Officers should look for the following indicators of impairment
during initial contact with a driver at a checkpoint: odor of alcoholic beverages or
other drugs (marijuana, hashish, some inhalants); bloodshot eyes; alcohol
containers or drug paraphernalia; fumbling fingers; slurred speech; admission of
drinking or drug use; inconsistent responses; detection of alcohol by a passive
alcohol sensor; etc. It is highly desirable that officers assigned to conduct the
sobriety checkpoint receive the DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety
Testing (SFST) training. Police are using these techniques taught in the SFST
course to quickly detect whether a driver is impaired.
Once an officer's suspicion is raised, further investigation can take place out of the
traffic lane without impeding the flow of traffic. If an officer believes it is necessary
to move a suspect's car after he or she has reasonable suspicion of impairment, it
should be moved by someone other than the suspect.
The officer should then continue the investigation using non- incriminating divided
attention questions (e.g., by the officer simultaneously asking for driver's license
and vehicle registration, requiring the subject to do two things at once) and the
administration of the SFST battery, which includes the Walk and Turn test,
5
One-Leg Stand test, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. After the completion of the
SFST, the officer may use a portable breath testing device (PBT), if permissible in
that jurisdiction. An evidential test to determine the blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) should then be administered.
If the officer determines the subject is impaired and obtains a low BAC, a DRT
should be utilized for further investigation. If a DRT is not available, normal
departmental procedures regarding drug impaired drivers should be followed.
Operational Briefings - The success of a sobriety checkpoint depends greatly
upon smooth and efficient operations. The persons selected as supervisors of the
operation should be briefed thoroughly on all procedures. This includes
maintaining as little delay to the motoring public as possible and keeping records of
any deviation from the original operational plan.
Persons selected to staff the checkpoint should be briefed on both its purpose and
operation. They should understand the necessity for standard and uniform
questions asked of drivers to avoid subjectivity. The use of an operational briefing
is one way to accomplish this.
Public Information and Education - To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its
general deterrent effect, sobriety checkpoints should be publicized aggressively.
Most drivers will probably never encounter a sobriety checkpoint, but will only learn
of it through media reports or by word of mouth. These two valuable forms of
public communication will greatly enhance any such program and should be
employed consistently.
Checkpoints are an ideal opportunity to give educational materials regarding
impaired driving, speeding, child restraint and seat belt usage, as well as seasonal
reminders such as schools opening, to persons stopped at the checkpoint.
Data Collection and Evaluation - A systematic method of data collection and
evaluation should be used to monitor and ensure standardization and consistency
of sobriety checkpoints. This may be done by measuring the reaction of the public
to the checkpoint and administrative evaluation of collected data.
Public reaction - This can be measured by immediate feedback received by
officers at the site of the sobriety checkpoint. Also, a short questionnaire which
includes an explanation of why the checkpoint is conducted, given to drivers
stopped at the checkpoint, can provide data. It may ask of the driver such
questions as; Does the driver believe the checkpoint is fair? Did the driver mind
being stopped briefly? Did the driver feel checkpoints help deter driving while
impaired? The response can be completed later and mailed back to the agency.
6
If the jurisdiction has the resources, a stamped, self-addressed postcard can be
used as the questionnaire.
Evaluation - This concerns the extent to which the program's implementation,
operation and efficiency meets targets set for the program. The following items
may be addressed:
Number of vehicles passing through the checkpoint
Average time delay to motorists
Number of motorists detained for field sobriety testing
Number and types of arrests
Identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems or other
concerns
Reaction of police officers participating in the sobriety checkpoint,
including degree of support and effect on morale
Perception of the quality of checkpoint cases brought before
prosecutors and judges, including special problems
Change in number of impaired driving arrests
Change in number of impaired driving related nighttime crashes
Other information deemed necessary by individual agencies
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration strongly supports the regular use of
sobriety checkpoints. They should be integrated into an overall drunk and drugged
driving program, along with vigorous selective enforcement, public information and
education. Effective enforcement of drunk driving laws, combined with swift and sure
license removal, provides the most important element for reducing alcohol-related fatal
and serious injury crashes. Roadside sobriety checkpoints have provided among the
most effective results of any enforcement procedure. Checkpoints are an important
part of a comprehensive enforcement program designed to raise the perceived
probability among potential impaired drivers that they will be stopped and arrested for
DWI.
7
Sample Questionnarie
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
1. Has your agency used sobriety checkpoints in the past?
YES _______ NO _______
2. Is your agency currently using sobriety checkpoints?
YES _______ NO _______
3. Does your agency plan on using sobriety checkpoints in the future?
YES _______ NO _______
4. If your agency uses checkpoints, how many arrests were made at checkpoints for
impaired driving offenses? Add additional years if necessary.
NUMBER _______ YEAR _______
5. List other law enforcement agencies in your state who conduct sobriety checkpoints.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
6. List any significant decline in blood alcohol levels of impaired
driving arrests or reduction in alcohol related crashes attributed to sobriety
checkpoints.
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
7. Does your agency have a written policy governing sobriety checkpoints?
YES _______ NO _______
A - 1
APPENDIX A
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS BRIEFING GUIDE
Prior to conducting the sobriety checkpoint, the following items should be discussed
and thoroughly explained to all officers and supervisors participating in the detail.
Routine information, such as location, times, and personnel assignments, including
chemical test operators, should be included at each briefing.
Explain the goal(s) of the roadside sobriety checkpoint.
Discuss the sobriety checkpoint location and the statistical data
supporting the chosen checkpoint site.
Stress the need for safety for both the officers and motorists
Assign the sobriety checkpoint operational supervisor. The
supervisor shall remain at the checkpoint location to oversee all
on-site enforcement activities.
Discuss the placement of personnel and traffic control devices in
conformance with established roadside sobriety checkpoint
guidelines and federal, state and/or municipal signing regulations.
Develop and establish a systematic approach to stopping the
vehicles as they enter the checkpoint location. For example, all
vehicles or every fifth vehicle will be stopped. At no time will a
random stop be utilized. If a problem such as traffic congestion
occurs and requires a change in the pattern of stopping vehicles,
the on-scene supervisor will determine if there will be a change
from the systematic vehicles stopping sequence. All changes, no
matter how slight, shall be documented including the time of
change with an appropriate explanation of the reason for the
change.
Instruct all participating officers to explain the purpose of the
checkpoint to the motorist as they approach a vehicle. A uniform
statement/question to the driver should be used, for example:
A - 2
"Good Evening. You have been stopped at a Department Name
sobriety checkpoint. We use checkpoints in an effort to detect and
deter the impaired driver. Have you consumed any alcohol or
controlled substance today?"
If the driver's answer is no and there is no other compelling reason
to detain the vehicle, the officer should permit the motorist to
proceed.
If the driver's answer is yes, ask how much and when. Depending
on the answers and other circumstances, the officer should decide
if further investigation is warranted. If so, direct the driver to safely
exit the vehicle and escort him or her to the designated area for
further investigation. If not, permit the motorist to proceed.
Sobriety checkpoint pamphlets, questionnaires and occupant
protection booklets should be given to each motorist stopped
during the detection phase.
Also during the detection phase, the officer should see if the
occupants of the stopped vehicle are properly using required
safety restraints (including child safety seats). If a violation exists
a verbal reminder may be given.
Instruct officers to inspect the driver for the smell of alcoholic
beverages or other drugs, bloodshot eyes, fumbling fingers, slurred
speech, admission of drinking or drug use, abusive language,
inconsistent responses, etc. Be observant of the interior of the
vehicle for alcoholic beverage containers, drug paraphernalia or
other contraband, such as weapons, that are in plain view.
The motorist should be permitted to proceed on his/her way unless
the officer observes evidence of intoxication, or there is evidence
of another serious violation requiring immediate action.
Those persons suspected of impairment should be subjected to the
battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. If impairment is
obvious and the blood alcohol level (BAC) is low, a Drug
Recognition Technician (DRT) should evaluate the subject. If a
DRT is not available, normal departmental policy for handling
impaired drivers should be followed.
A - 3
Searches of a motor vehicle, the driver, or passengers, shall be
conducted only when consistent with departmental policies or when
legally permissible.
A motorist who wishes to avoid the checkpoint by legally turning
before enterning the checkpoint area should be allowed to do so
unless a traffic violation(s) is observed or probable cause exists to
take other action. The act of avoiding a sobriety checkpoint does
not consititute grounds for a stop.
An accurate and complete written evaluation report shall be
prepared for each sobriety checkpoint operation. Items in the
report should include but are not limited to:
- number of vehicles passing through the checkpoints
- number of motorists detained for Standardized Field
Sobriety Testing
- average time delay for motorists
- number and types of arrests
- identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems
or other concerns
- reaction of police officers participating in the sobriety
checkpoint, including the effect on morale and degree of
officer support
- reaction of the motoring public to the sobriety checkpoint
B - 1
MODEL POLICY
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT GUIDELINES
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the physical
construction and operation of a sobriety checkpoint in order to maximize
the deterrent effect and increase the perception of "risk of apprehension"
of motorists who would operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or
other drugs.
II. POLICY
It shall be the policy of this law enforcement agency to implement a
sobriety checkpoint program. This will be done as part of a
comprehensive enforcement program. To ensure standardization of this
program a clear and concise set of written guidelines has been developed
governing procedures on how checkpoints will be operated within this
jurisdiction.
To implement this policy this agency must:
. Satisfy federal, state and local legal requirements.
. Conduct checkpoints with a minimal amount of intrusion or motorist
inconvenience.
. Assure the safety of the general public as well as law enforcement
officers involved.
. Provide for an objective site selection process based on relevant
data.
. Provide for public information and education to maximize the
deterrent effect and heighten awareness of the impaired driving
problem.
B - 2
. Provide for a systematic procedure for data collection and after
impact analysis report to monitor and ensure standardization and
consistency of the sobriety checkpoint program.
. Officer selection should be based on experience and training.
Operational procedures will be covered during a briefing period
prior to each checkpoint.
III. DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
Written guidelines, consistent with existing agency policies, prepared in
advance of the checkpoint program must:
A. Be approved by the agency's chief law enforcement official or
designee prior to commencement of the checkpoint.
B. Specify signing, safety equipment, warning devices, barriers, etc. that
will be used, their placement and proper use at the scene. This
specification will be consistent with applicable standards and
regulations. (See the relevant state or local manuals on traffic control
devices, etc.)
C. Specify the method for selecting motorists to be contacted, e.g.,
"every vehicle, every fifth vehicle," etc. to ensure objectivity.
D. Provide for an operational briefing of personnel prior to each
checkpoint. At this time designate assignments and respective
duties.
E. Specify dialogue and educational material to be used by checkpoint
personnel.
F. Provide for the removal of vehicles to the predetermined area when
further investigation is required.
G. Public reaction to the use of sobriety checkpoints can be obtained by
several different methods. Recommended procedures for obtaining
feedback are:
1. Mail in surveys.
2. Verbal feedback from motorists at checkpoint site.
3. Periodic public opinion polls.
B - 3
IV. PROCEDURES
A. Site Selection
This department must be able to objectively outline criteria utilized in the
site selection process:
1. Alcohol/Drug related traffic experiences.
a. Unusual incidence of alcohol/drug related crashes.
b. Alcohol/drug impaired driving violations.
c. Unusual number of nighttime single vehicle crashes.
d. Any other documented alcohol/drug related vehicular incidents.
2. Select locations which permit the safe flow of traffic through the
checkpoint.
a. Consideration should be given to posted speed limits, traffic
volume and visibility.
b. Ensure sufficient adjoining space is available to pull vehicles off
the traveled portion of the roadway.
c. Consider other conditions that may pose a hazard.
3. The site should have maximum visibility from each direction and
sufficient illumination. If permanent lighting is unavailable ensure that
portable lighting is provided.
B. PERSONNEL
1. A sworn, uniformed officer will be assigned to provide on-scene
supervision of the checkpoint.
2. The checkpoint will be staffed by a sufficient number of uniformed
personnel to assure a safe and efficient operation.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
1. For the purpose of public information and education, this agency will
announce to the media that checkpoints will be conducted.
B - 4
2. This agency will encourage media interest in the sobriety checkpoint
program to enhance public perception of aggressive enforcement, to
heighten the deterrent effect and to assure protection of constitutional
rights.
3. This agency will provide advance notification of the checkpoint to
public safety agencies expected to be impacted.
D. MOTORISTS WARNINGS / SAFETY METHODS
1. Special care is required to warn approaching motorists of the sobriety
checkpoint.
2. Basic equipment will include, but is not limited to:
a. Warning signs placed in advance of the checkpoint
b. Flares, fusees, or similar devices
c. Safety cones or similar devices
d. Permanent/portable lighting
e. Marked patrol vehicles
3. The use, placement and types of traffic control devices must comply
with federal, state, or local transportation codes.
E. CONTINGENCY PLANNING
Any deviation from the predetermined guidelines must thoroughly
document the reason for the deviation. (i.e. traffic backing up, intermittent
inclement weather.)
F. DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION
To monitor and ensure standardization and consistency of the sobriety
checkpoint program a systematic method of data collection will be
incorporated.
1. After action report may include, but is not limited to:
a. Time, date, and location of checkpoint.
b. Weather conditions.
c. Number of vehicles passing through checkpoint.
d. Average time delay to motorists.
e. Predetermined order of selecting motorists.
B - 5
f. Number and types of arrests.
g. Number of motorists detained for field sobriety testing.
h. Identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems/other
concerns.
2. To assist in determining the effectiveness of a checkpoint operation, a
periodic impact analysis will include the following types of information.
a. Crash rate reduction.
b. Impaired driving offenses.
c. Impaired driving convictions
d. Public opinion survey to determine increased perception of
detection and apprehension of impaired drivers.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:18 AM
View the Original article
DOT HS 807 656
The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints
for
Impaired Driving Enforcement
TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS
Office of Enforcement
and
Emergency Services
PREFACE
Impaired driving and impaired-related crashes constitute one of the nation's leading
health problems. These events result in more deaths each year than do total
homicides. The impact is particularly severe among young people, age 15-24, where
impaired driving is the leading cause of death. Clearly, impaired driving and impaired
related crashes constitute a major threat to the safety and well-being of the public. The
costs resulting from alcohol-related crashes should be recognized and weighed against
the costs and inconveniences associated with efforts to reduce them.
These guidelines have been designed to provide law enforcement agencies with a
uniform and successful method to plan, operate and evaluate sobriety checkpoints.
When implemented in conjunction with departmental policy and any constraints
imposed by state or local courts, sobriety checkpoints provide an effective enforcement
tool to combat the impaired driving problem.
Any agency considering the use of sobriety checkpoints should integrate them with a
continuing, systematic and aggressive program, including vigorous enforcement, public
information and education. The purpose of the program is to maximize the deterrent
effect and increase the perception of "risk of apprehension" of motorists who would
operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. There is convincing evidence
that the use of checkpoints has a marked, dramatic effect on reducing alcohol-related
crashes in a community.1
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wishes to express its appreciation
to Sergeant Barbara Bent, Dayton Police Department, Dayton, Ohio; Sheriff Earl Smith,
Franklin County Sheriff's Department, Columbus, Ohio; 1st Sergeant Larry Larkin,
Indiana State Police; Maryland State Police; Lieutenant Nancy Brunzos, Sergeant
David Kochubka and Technician Floyd Wing, Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C.; 1st Lieutenant Al Slaughter, Michigan State Police; Major Raymond
Dutcher, New York State Police; Deputy Charles Fortunato, Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Department, West Palm Beach, Florida; Sergeant Keith Adams, Redding
Police Department, Redding, California. We are grateful for the effort and contribution
from each of these individuals.
We also wish to acknowledge the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
and the National Sheriffs' Association for their recommendations and participation. Mr.
Charles Peltier (IACP) provided valuable technical assistance.
1 "Sobriety Checkpoints for DWI Enforcement - A Review of Current Research,"
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1987
GUIDELINES FOR SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
These guidelines suggest and describe operational procedures that police
administrators may want to consider in order to ensure that sobriety checkpoints are
used legally, effectively and safely. These points are consistent with those specified in
recent court decisions, including the United States Supreme Court ruling in Michigan
Department of State Police v. Sitz, upholding the constitutionality of sobriety
checkpoints. An effective sobriety checkpoint program consists of the following
components:
Ongoing Program to Deter Impaired Driving
Judicial Support
Existing Departmental Policy
Site Selection
Special Warning Devices
Visible Police Authority
Chemical Testing Logistics
Contingency Planning
Detection and Investigation Techniques
Operational Briefings
Comprehensive Public Information and Education Programs
Data Collection and Evaluation
Ongoing Program to Deter Impaired Driving - Agencies considering
implementing sobriety checkpoints should integrate them with a continuing,
systematic and aggressive enforcement program. Vigorous enforcement, public
information and education need to be part of this program. The purpose of the
checkpoint is to maximize the deterrent effect and increase the perception of "risk
of apprehension" to motorists who would operate a vehicle while impaired by
alcohol or other drugs. The use of checkpoints alone will not maintain the
perception of risk essential to an effective general deterrence program.
Judicial Support - When officials decide to use sobriety checkpoints, they should
involve their prosecuting attorney (district attorney, attorney general, etc.) in the
planning process to determine legally acceptable procedures. This person can
assist in identifying any legally mandated requirements and the types of evidential
information that will be needed to prosecute cases emanating from checkpoint
apprehension.
The jurisdiction's presiding judge should be informed of the proposed checkpoints
and procedures, an essential step if the judiciary is to accept their use. The judge
2
can provide insight on what activities would be required to successfully adjudicate
such cases.
Prosecutors, judges, and other involved members of the criminal justice system can
be invited to observe the actual operation of the checkpoint.
Existing Policy/Guidelines - Before using sobriety checkpoints, the agency must
have specifically established procedures outlining how the checkpoints are to be
conducted. The courts have been very clear in requiring the advance planning of
sobriety checkpoints. Failure to do so has been used as evidence that the
checkpoint techniques involved unfettered discretion. The policy should also
assure that the checkpoints are conducted with a minimal amount of intrusion or
motorist inconvenience.
Site Selection - Planning should assure the safety of the general public and law
enforcement officers when selecting an operational site. Sobriety checkpoints
must not create more of a traffic hazard than the results of the driving behavior they
are trying to modify.
Planners should remember to select a site that allows officers to pull vehicles out of
the traffic stream without causing significant subjective intrusion (fright) to the
drivers (United States v. Ortiz 422 U.S. 891 (1975)) and/or creating a safety
hazard, e.g., by creating a traffic backup. Furthermore, officers' safety must be
taken into account when deciding where to locate the checkpoint.
The department should objectively outline criteria used in the site selection
process, e.g., an unusual incidence of alcohol/drug involved crashes or driving
violations, unusual number of nighttime single vehicle crashes or other
documented alcohol/drug related vehicular incidents.
The site should permit the safe flow of traffic through the checkpoint.
Consideration should be given to the posted speed limits, traffic volume and
visibility. Most jurisdictions have the capability to review the Average Traffic
Volume (ATV) during the surveillance period for major roadways in their area.
Once a jurisdiction has decided on possible locations for the sobriety checkpoints,
the effect on traffic flow can be determined by ascertaining how long each interview
takes, then, multiplying that time by the number of available officers, and finally,
dividing that figure into the average number of vehicles which can be expected at
that location. This will suggest whether all vehicles can be examined without
causing a traffic build-up.
If the traffic volume precludes stopping every vehicle, a nondiscretionary scheme
should be adopted, in advance, for stopping some subset of vehicles. In Delaware
3
v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) the United States Supreme Court indicates that
stopping all cars would be an acceptable method of conducting spot checks. In a
concurring opinion, Justice Blackmum (joined by Justice Powell) suggests that
other methods would also be acceptable, such as stopping every tenth car that
passes a given point. If every vehicle is not stopped, the method used to
determine which ones will be stopped must appear in the administrative order
authorizing the use of the sobriety checkpoint.
The site should have maximum visibility from each direction and sufficient
illumination for the safety of both the motorists and officers. If permanent lighting is
unavailable, ensure that adequate portable lighting is provided. Planners should
also ensure that sufficient adjoining space is available to pull vehicles off the
traveled portion of the roadway. Any other conditions that may pose a hazard
should be taken into consideration.
Warning Devices - Special care should be taken to warn approaching motorists of
the sobriety checkpoint. Such notice can be accomplished using warning signs
indicating the upcoming checkpoint; flares or fusees (if weather permits) and safety
cones or similar devices for marking and/or closing lanes on the roadway;
permanent or portable lighting to illuminate the checkpoint area; and, marked patrol
vehicles with warning lights flashing.
A sign or device should be placed to provide advance warning stating why
motorists are stopped. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that visible signs of the
officers' authority generate less concern and fright on the part of lawful travelers,
and is therefore less of a subjective intrusion (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,
428 U.S. 643 (1976)).
The placement and types of traffic control devices used should comply with federal,
state or local transportation codes. Planners should check with appropriate
agencies administering the location and placement of signing devices.
Visible Police Authority - The visibility of uniformed officers and their marked
vehicles makes the police presence obvious. It also serves to reassure motorists
of the legitimate nature of the activity. This is an important aspect of the sobriety
checkpoint and part of the effort to reduce the intrusion to the passing motorists
affected by the checkpoint.
A sworn, uniformed officer should be assigned to provide on- site supervision of
the checkpoint operation. This officer should be responsible for the overall
operation and should be well versed in contingency planning for the checkpoint.
The checkpoint should be staffed by a sufficient number of uniformed personnel to
4
assure a safe and efficient operation, based on traffic volume, roadway size, type
of location, etc.
Chemical Testing Logistics - Since impaired driving arrests are anticipated at the
selected location, the logistics of chemical testing must also be included. If
possible, a mobile breath testing unit with a qualified operator could be physically
located at the checkpoint. If one is not available, a system for expeditiously
transporting suspected violators to chemical test sites should be established. In
applicable locations, a Drug Recognition Technician (DRT) should be available, at
a suitable location, to examine subjects who may be impaired by drugs other than
or in combination with alcohol.
Contingency Planning - Any deviation from the predetermined plan for stopping
vehicles should be thoroughly documented and the reason for the deviation given
(e.g., traffic backing up, intermittent inclement weather). Courts have allowed this
as long as documentation of the reason requiring the deviation from the interview
sequence is kept (United States v. Prichard, 645 F2d 854). If such an event
occurs, jurisdictions should have prepared an alternative plan, in advance, to
handle the checkpoint.
Detection and Investigation Techniques - An agency considering the use of
sobriety checkpoints should ensure that the participating officers are properly
trained in detecting impaired drivers. The use of sobriety checkpoints which allow
impaired drivers to pass through undetected will not achieve the desired
deterrence effect. Officers should look for the following indicators of impairment
during initial contact with a driver at a checkpoint: odor of alcoholic beverages or
other drugs (marijuana, hashish, some inhalants); bloodshot eyes; alcohol
containers or drug paraphernalia; fumbling fingers; slurred speech; admission of
drinking or drug use; inconsistent responses; detection of alcohol by a passive
alcohol sensor; etc. It is highly desirable that officers assigned to conduct the
sobriety checkpoint receive the DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety
Testing (SFST) training. Police are using these techniques taught in the SFST
course to quickly detect whether a driver is impaired.
Once an officer's suspicion is raised, further investigation can take place out of the
traffic lane without impeding the flow of traffic. If an officer believes it is necessary
to move a suspect's car after he or she has reasonable suspicion of impairment, it
should be moved by someone other than the suspect.
The officer should then continue the investigation using non- incriminating divided
attention questions (e.g., by the officer simultaneously asking for driver's license
and vehicle registration, requiring the subject to do two things at once) and the
administration of the SFST battery, which includes the Walk and Turn test,
5
One-Leg Stand test, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. After the completion of the
SFST, the officer may use a portable breath testing device (PBT), if permissible in
that jurisdiction. An evidential test to determine the blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) should then be administered.
If the officer determines the subject is impaired and obtains a low BAC, a DRT
should be utilized for further investigation. If a DRT is not available, normal
departmental procedures regarding drug impaired drivers should be followed.
Operational Briefings - The success of a sobriety checkpoint depends greatly
upon smooth and efficient operations. The persons selected as supervisors of the
operation should be briefed thoroughly on all procedures. This includes
maintaining as little delay to the motoring public as possible and keeping records of
any deviation from the original operational plan.
Persons selected to staff the checkpoint should be briefed on both its purpose and
operation. They should understand the necessity for standard and uniform
questions asked of drivers to avoid subjectivity. The use of an operational briefing
is one way to accomplish this.
Public Information and Education - To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its
general deterrent effect, sobriety checkpoints should be publicized aggressively.
Most drivers will probably never encounter a sobriety checkpoint, but will only learn
of it through media reports or by word of mouth. These two valuable forms of
public communication will greatly enhance any such program and should be
employed consistently.
Checkpoints are an ideal opportunity to give educational materials regarding
impaired driving, speeding, child restraint and seat belt usage, as well as seasonal
reminders such as schools opening, to persons stopped at the checkpoint.
Data Collection and Evaluation - A systematic method of data collection and
evaluation should be used to monitor and ensure standardization and consistency
of sobriety checkpoints. This may be done by measuring the reaction of the public
to the checkpoint and administrative evaluation of collected data.
Public reaction - This can be measured by immediate feedback received by
officers at the site of the sobriety checkpoint. Also, a short questionnaire which
includes an explanation of why the checkpoint is conducted, given to drivers
stopped at the checkpoint, can provide data. It may ask of the driver such
questions as; Does the driver believe the checkpoint is fair? Did the driver mind
being stopped briefly? Did the driver feel checkpoints help deter driving while
impaired? The response can be completed later and mailed back to the agency.
6
If the jurisdiction has the resources, a stamped, self-addressed postcard can be
used as the questionnaire.
Evaluation - This concerns the extent to which the program's implementation,
operation and efficiency meets targets set for the program. The following items
may be addressed:
Number of vehicles passing through the checkpoint
Average time delay to motorists
Number of motorists detained for field sobriety testing
Number and types of arrests
Identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems or other
concerns
Reaction of police officers participating in the sobriety checkpoint,
including degree of support and effect on morale
Perception of the quality of checkpoint cases brought before
prosecutors and judges, including special problems
Change in number of impaired driving arrests
Change in number of impaired driving related nighttime crashes
Other information deemed necessary by individual agencies
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration strongly supports the regular use of
sobriety checkpoints. They should be integrated into an overall drunk and drugged
driving program, along with vigorous selective enforcement, public information and
education. Effective enforcement of drunk driving laws, combined with swift and sure
license removal, provides the most important element for reducing alcohol-related fatal
and serious injury crashes. Roadside sobriety checkpoints have provided among the
most effective results of any enforcement procedure. Checkpoints are an important
part of a comprehensive enforcement program designed to raise the perceived
probability among potential impaired drivers that they will be stopped and arrested for
DWI.
7
Sample Questionnarie
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
1. Has your agency used sobriety checkpoints in the past?
YES _______ NO _______
2. Is your agency currently using sobriety checkpoints?
YES _______ NO _______
3. Does your agency plan on using sobriety checkpoints in the future?
YES _______ NO _______
4. If your agency uses checkpoints, how many arrests were made at checkpoints for
impaired driving offenses? Add additional years if necessary.
NUMBER _______ YEAR _______
5. List other law enforcement agencies in your state who conduct sobriety checkpoints.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
6. List any significant decline in blood alcohol levels of impaired
driving arrests or reduction in alcohol related crashes attributed to sobriety
checkpoints.
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
7. Does your agency have a written policy governing sobriety checkpoints?
YES _______ NO _______
A - 1
APPENDIX A
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS BRIEFING GUIDE
Prior to conducting the sobriety checkpoint, the following items should be discussed
and thoroughly explained to all officers and supervisors participating in the detail.
Routine information, such as location, times, and personnel assignments, including
chemical test operators, should be included at each briefing.
Explain the goal(s) of the roadside sobriety checkpoint.
Discuss the sobriety checkpoint location and the statistical data
supporting the chosen checkpoint site.
Stress the need for safety for both the officers and motorists
Assign the sobriety checkpoint operational supervisor. The
supervisor shall remain at the checkpoint location to oversee all
on-site enforcement activities.
Discuss the placement of personnel and traffic control devices in
conformance with established roadside sobriety checkpoint
guidelines and federal, state and/or municipal signing regulations.
Develop and establish a systematic approach to stopping the
vehicles as they enter the checkpoint location. For example, all
vehicles or every fifth vehicle will be stopped. At no time will a
random stop be utilized. If a problem such as traffic congestion
occurs and requires a change in the pattern of stopping vehicles,
the on-scene supervisor will determine if there will be a change
from the systematic vehicles stopping sequence. All changes, no
matter how slight, shall be documented including the time of
change with an appropriate explanation of the reason for the
change.
Instruct all participating officers to explain the purpose of the
checkpoint to the motorist as they approach a vehicle. A uniform
statement/question to the driver should be used, for example:
A - 2
"Good Evening. You have been stopped at a Department Name
sobriety checkpoint. We use checkpoints in an effort to detect and
deter the impaired driver. Have you consumed any alcohol or
controlled substance today?"
If the driver's answer is no and there is no other compelling reason
to detain the vehicle, the officer should permit the motorist to
proceed.
If the driver's answer is yes, ask how much and when. Depending
on the answers and other circumstances, the officer should decide
if further investigation is warranted. If so, direct the driver to safely
exit the vehicle and escort him or her to the designated area for
further investigation. If not, permit the motorist to proceed.
Sobriety checkpoint pamphlets, questionnaires and occupant
protection booklets should be given to each motorist stopped
during the detection phase.
Also during the detection phase, the officer should see if the
occupants of the stopped vehicle are properly using required
safety restraints (including child safety seats). If a violation exists
a verbal reminder may be given.
Instruct officers to inspect the driver for the smell of alcoholic
beverages or other drugs, bloodshot eyes, fumbling fingers, slurred
speech, admission of drinking or drug use, abusive language,
inconsistent responses, etc. Be observant of the interior of the
vehicle for alcoholic beverage containers, drug paraphernalia or
other contraband, such as weapons, that are in plain view.
The motorist should be permitted to proceed on his/her way unless
the officer observes evidence of intoxication, or there is evidence
of another serious violation requiring immediate action.
Those persons suspected of impairment should be subjected to the
battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. If impairment is
obvious and the blood alcohol level (BAC) is low, a Drug
Recognition Technician (DRT) should evaluate the subject. If a
DRT is not available, normal departmental policy for handling
impaired drivers should be followed.
A - 3
Searches of a motor vehicle, the driver, or passengers, shall be
conducted only when consistent with departmental policies or when
legally permissible.
A motorist who wishes to avoid the checkpoint by legally turning
before enterning the checkpoint area should be allowed to do so
unless a traffic violation(s) is observed or probable cause exists to
take other action. The act of avoiding a sobriety checkpoint does
not consititute grounds for a stop.
An accurate and complete written evaluation report shall be
prepared for each sobriety checkpoint operation. Items in the
report should include but are not limited to:
- number of vehicles passing through the checkpoints
- number of motorists detained for Standardized Field
Sobriety Testing
- average time delay for motorists
- number and types of arrests
- identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems
or other concerns
- reaction of police officers participating in the sobriety
checkpoint, including the effect on morale and degree of
officer support
- reaction of the motoring public to the sobriety checkpoint
B - 1
MODEL POLICY
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT GUIDELINES
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the physical
construction and operation of a sobriety checkpoint in order to maximize
the deterrent effect and increase the perception of "risk of apprehension"
of motorists who would operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or
other drugs.
II. POLICY
It shall be the policy of this law enforcement agency to implement a
sobriety checkpoint program. This will be done as part of a
comprehensive enforcement program. To ensure standardization of this
program a clear and concise set of written guidelines has been developed
governing procedures on how checkpoints will be operated within this
jurisdiction.
To implement this policy this agency must:
. Satisfy federal, state and local legal requirements.
. Conduct checkpoints with a minimal amount of intrusion or motorist
inconvenience.
. Assure the safety of the general public as well as law enforcement
officers involved.
. Provide for an objective site selection process based on relevant
data.
. Provide for public information and education to maximize the
deterrent effect and heighten awareness of the impaired driving
problem.
B - 2
. Provide for a systematic procedure for data collection and after
impact analysis report to monitor and ensure standardization and
consistency of the sobriety checkpoint program.
. Officer selection should be based on experience and training.
Operational procedures will be covered during a briefing period
prior to each checkpoint.
III. DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
Written guidelines, consistent with existing agency policies, prepared in
advance of the checkpoint program must:
A. Be approved by the agency's chief law enforcement official or
designee prior to commencement of the checkpoint.
B. Specify signing, safety equipment, warning devices, barriers, etc. that
will be used, their placement and proper use at the scene. This
specification will be consistent with applicable standards and
regulations. (See the relevant state or local manuals on traffic control
devices, etc.)
C. Specify the method for selecting motorists to be contacted, e.g.,
"every vehicle, every fifth vehicle," etc. to ensure objectivity.
D. Provide for an operational briefing of personnel prior to each
checkpoint. At this time designate assignments and respective
duties.
E. Specify dialogue and educational material to be used by checkpoint
personnel.
F. Provide for the removal of vehicles to the predetermined area when
further investigation is required.
G. Public reaction to the use of sobriety checkpoints can be obtained by
several different methods. Recommended procedures for obtaining
feedback are:
1. Mail in surveys.
2. Verbal feedback from motorists at checkpoint site.
3. Periodic public opinion polls.
B - 3
IV. PROCEDURES
A. Site Selection
This department must be able to objectively outline criteria utilized in the
site selection process:
1. Alcohol/Drug related traffic experiences.
a. Unusual incidence of alcohol/drug related crashes.
b. Alcohol/drug impaired driving violations.
c. Unusual number of nighttime single vehicle crashes.
d. Any other documented alcohol/drug related vehicular incidents.
2. Select locations which permit the safe flow of traffic through the
checkpoint.
a. Consideration should be given to posted speed limits, traffic
volume and visibility.
b. Ensure sufficient adjoining space is available to pull vehicles off
the traveled portion of the roadway.
c. Consider other conditions that may pose a hazard.
3. The site should have maximum visibility from each direction and
sufficient illumination. If permanent lighting is unavailable ensure that
portable lighting is provided.
B. PERSONNEL
1. A sworn, uniformed officer will be assigned to provide on-scene
supervision of the checkpoint.
2. The checkpoint will be staffed by a sufficient number of uniformed
personnel to assure a safe and efficient operation.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
1. For the purpose of public information and education, this agency will
announce to the media that checkpoints will be conducted.
B - 4
2. This agency will encourage media interest in the sobriety checkpoint
program to enhance public perception of aggressive enforcement, to
heighten the deterrent effect and to assure protection of constitutional
rights.
3. This agency will provide advance notification of the checkpoint to
public safety agencies expected to be impacted.
D. MOTORISTS WARNINGS / SAFETY METHODS
1. Special care is required to warn approaching motorists of the sobriety
checkpoint.
2. Basic equipment will include, but is not limited to:
a. Warning signs placed in advance of the checkpoint
b. Flares, fusees, or similar devices
c. Safety cones or similar devices
d. Permanent/portable lighting
e. Marked patrol vehicles
3. The use, placement and types of traffic control devices must comply
with federal, state, or local transportation codes.
E. CONTINGENCY PLANNING
Any deviation from the predetermined guidelines must thoroughly
document the reason for the deviation. (i.e. traffic backing up, intermittent
inclement weather.)
F. DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION
To monitor and ensure standardization and consistency of the sobriety
checkpoint program a systematic method of data collection will be
incorporated.
1. After action report may include, but is not limited to:
a. Time, date, and location of checkpoint.
b. Weather conditions.
c. Number of vehicles passing through checkpoint.
d. Average time delay to motorists.
e. Predetermined order of selecting motorists.
B - 5
f. Number and types of arrests.
g. Number of motorists detained for field sobriety testing.
h. Identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems/other
concerns.
2. To assist in determining the effectiveness of a checkpoint operation, a
periodic impact analysis will include the following types of information.
a. Crash rate reduction.
b. Impaired driving offenses.
c. Impaired driving convictions
d. Public opinion survey to determine increased perception of
detection and apprehension of impaired drivers.Posted byAlabamaDUIDefense.comat8:18 AM
View the Original article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)