Archive for May 9th, 2007

.00% = Under the Influence of Alcohol

Wednesday, May 9th, 2007

Never let facts get in the way of a drunk driving bust:
 

Man Passes Breathalyzer, Cited Anyway

Lancaster, OH.  May 8 â€” When Russell Errett went out to play a game of pickup basketball with friends April 19, he didn’t expect it to cost him thousands of dollars and end up in a court case. But that’s exactly where it is headed.

Errett, 50, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and weaving outside lanes of traffic.

“It makes no sense to me,” said Errett’s attorney, James Linehan. “He cooperated with police, took the breathalyzer test and scored zeros, and yet he was still cited for OVI (Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated). Clearly he wasn’t intoxicated.”

A review of the police reports and the supplementary investigation report say Errett was polite, but failed the field sobriety test. Errett was then read his Miranda rights and arrested; his car was impounded.

Errett readily agreed to take the breathalyzer test, maintaining his innocence. He told the officer he had been confused and nervous when taking the field sobriety test.

When he took the test, the result came back with all zeros. He had no alcohol in his system…

Errett was given the ticket, had to put up a $1,000 bond, pay to get his car out of the impound lot and hire an attorney with his trial scheduled for later this month…

“In this case the officer had a scientific test, a scientific test which officers ask juries to believe everyday, which told the officer that my client was innocent,” Linehan said.  “And even with the knowledge that my client was innocent, he was still charged.”


Have you ever tried to take a field sobriety test — under field conditions?  As the studies have repeatedly shown, these so-called “tests” are designed for failure.  Of course, cops don’t like being told they’re wrong…and certainly not by a machine.


(Thanks to Bruce Korol.)

PinterestRedditDiggShare