Originally Posted by marlinspike

I don't drink or use drugs, at all.

Still, I think it's ridiculous to force someone to take the breath test. Why else would you refuse the test? Look into to how the Intoxilyzer works, it's garbage. There are many problems with it, but to help you in searching for just one google "intoxilyzer partition ratio." Again, hitting you with the charge in spite of refusing the test is one thing, hitting you with an auto-conviction is another thing.

I can understand how a blood draw is held not to be a violation of your right against compelled self-incrimination because it's more or less scientifically testable (but then, they're given immense weight and there is plenty of opportunity to mess it up), but the Intoxilyzer is no better than a polygraph. I think rather than let you refuse the blood draw and just give you what amounts to an auto-conviction, the state ought to either compel the draw (because the state can do so), or the state should convict you the old fashioned way, i.e. by showing that you exhibited evidence of impairment.

If the state is so convinced that the Intoxilyzer is good, why don't they use the attachment that is available to store the sample for subsequent independant testing by the defendant?

On the blood draw, one problem is that it takes time for alcohol to get into your blood stream and actually impair you. You might not have been impaired at the time of arrest, even though you were at the time of the blood draw.

We build these tests up like they're fool proof, and they're not. The Intoxilyzer is plain bad. There are lots of points at which bad administration can ruin a blood test, but without giving you a sample for your own independant testing, you'll never know. Why would you refuse? Maybe because you don't like being found guilty of a crime you didn't commit. It'd be one thing if the tests were afforded the appropriate weight, but they're not.

Originally Posted by marlinspike

No, I'm not talking about the PBT. Thank God that thing isn't admissible, though I do actually like it in its current role, i.e. helping the cop know if he has PC (also, I don't know about in VA, but in NC the highway patrol don't bother with field sobriety tests, they make observations of the driver in the car and use the PBT to determine if they need to arrest the driver and then conduct further testing at the station - this is a good use because we don't need highway patrolmen and defendants getting run over on the interstate). I'm talking about the Intoxilyzer. At a given moment the accurate partition ratio for the person may be 900:1, but the machine doesn't know that and sticks with 2100:1. That person's .04 just got him a DUI. Also, where's the temperature control? Yes, temperature has a very small impact on the accuracy, but it can be enough to send you over the edge. It can be thrown off by mouth alcohol, a long blow, and a variety of other things. Yes, outside of the partition ratio these only create small errors, but they have a way of adding up. And again, CMI makes an attachment to preserve the sample. If the state is so sure of its intoxilyzers, why don't they buy that attachment (it's not all that expensive) and provide the defendant with a sample for independant testing if he so chooses?

I agree, if you're impaired and you're driving, you deserve a stiff penalty, but if you're not inmpaired you should not be penalized. We can find out if someone is impaired through properly conducted field sobriety tests, and those actually test impairment rather than the ability to accurately assess a breath/blood sample.