Comments on: N.J. Supreme Court Rules on Breathalyzer Challenges

By: scottiek

scottiek — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:50:23 +0000

“We saw your BLOG pertaining to the issues of Drunk Driving and Underage Drinking and would love to see you enter your piece in the 2008 MADD Media Awards competition.”

Yeah, that would go over well. Send’em something and see what they say

As for the article, sounds typical. I wonder what any of those judges would say if they had one drink and blew a .08.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:12:11 +0000

i feel so strongly i have the right to know how the alcotest works, the calculation it uses, and the raw data fro my breath test!!!!!!!
i am beside myself!
if the alcotest works there is no legitimate reason to hide this information from defendants.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:21:59 +0000

well, lawyers are not scientists. they were fooled into a mismash of crap, on all sides. none of the lawyers from the defense, the state, drager, or the nj supreme court got to have the basic fundamental principals of instrument and method validation explained to them nor did they get to hear about what is needed to support an analytical result.
what i am talking about is so b asic i can not understand why none of the four defense attorneys brought it up after i made it clear to each of them what it was all about for almost a year.
we shouldnt have to have this alcotest convict people.
even if it just gave us the numeric value of the signal for stanards and samples so we can calculate by hand that would be a huge step in the right direction. and that is so basic and fundamental, i am speechleess at time contemplating what is going on

By: dwiattorney

dwiattorney — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:49:00 +0000

Interesting story. It seems the NJ SC took no concern for the accuracy of the breathalizers.

By: Police Using DUI Roadblocks Illegally - DUI Blog

Police Using DUI Roadblocks Illegally - DUI Blog — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:02:29 +0000

[…] Policy and the Evidence for Alcohol Intoxicationâ€, American Psychologist 1070 (Sept. 1983). N.J. Supreme Court Rules on Breathalyzer Challenges Posted by Lawrence Taylor on March 20th, […]

By: martifox54

martifox54 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:02:51 +0000

Hello from MADD National HQ –

We are very excited to be adding an Interactive Media category to the 6th Annual MADD Media Awards. We saw your BLOG pertaining to the issues of Drunk Driving and Underage Drinking and would love to see you enter your piece in the 2008 MADD Media Awards competition. Entries from blogs must have been originally posted April 1, 2007 – March 31, 2008 qualify..

All entries must be postmarked in the next week…before March 31 to be considered.
MAIL ENTRIES TO:
MADD Media Awards
ATTN: Tanesia Henderson

511 E. John Carpenter Freeway
Suite 700
Irving, Texas 75062

Send me an email in advance if I should be looking for a piece from you…with your name, outlet, and phone in the body of the email.

For the on-line brochure, go to:
http://www.madd.org/Media-Center/Media-Center/Media-Awards.aspx

Can I share this Media Awards entry information with someone else? Yes! If someone in your network has done an outstanding piece on these issues, please forward this email on to them.

Marti Fox, CTC, CMP, CMM
GlobalGoals, Inc. for MADD National Headquarters
Suite 700
511 E. John Carpenter Freeway
Irving, Texas 75062
972-417-7232

By: jim

jim — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:31:10 +0000

of the 1000 points i can bring up as to instrument validsation, here is on e side note.

how can the state prove the software loaded into the alcotest machine i was tested on uses the 2100-1 ratio?

they can not , because there are no formal checks as to this.

this is why in my other posts where i said the raw data for a breath test is needed in order the bac can be calculated by hand to ensure the program was using the 2100-1 ratio.

By: jim

jim — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:21:48 +0000

it’s not that it doesnt work right. my issue it that there are absolutley no regulations governing its manufacture or use in regards to method and instrument validation. none whatsoever. the point being that drager can slap these things together, sell them, and not have to prove they work in terms of real analytical validation of any kind.

By: master zopper

master zopper — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:47:31 +0000

the mechine dosent work right !!! they just want the cash! we all know its a big bunch of b— s—!
cases should be dropped and the mechine fixed , then put back out .court systems need fixed too i think

By: jim

jim — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:33:02 +0000

THE REALLY AD PART ABOUT THIS IS PEOPLE LIKE ME HAVE HAD TO PUT THEIR LIFE ON HOLD FOR OVER 2 1/2 YEARS.
BEING CALLED INTO COURT NOW 14 TIMES BY THE JUDGE FOR NO REASON.
ITS A CATCH 22, BUT SOMEONE VIOLATED MY RIGHTS TO A TRIAL.