Comments on: Law Trumps Science…in Drunk Driving http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/ Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution Sat, 25 May 2013 08:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: JIMHPLC http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1384 JIMHPLC Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:41:17 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1384 here is the case law below posted here as information... and i submitt, how can the courts think a breath testing device such as the alcotest or intoxalyzer be accepted by scientific community , when it simnply is not, nor could be.. because it would need to provide raw data to support such an important result. “”To allow the admission of scientific evidence in criminal cases, there must be general acceptance by the relevant scientific community. State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 169-70 (1997) (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923); Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 80 (1984); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 170-71 (1964); Foley, 370 N.J. Super. at 349. To establish general acceptance, test results must have “’sufficient scientific basis to produce uniform and reasonably reliable results [which] will contribute materially to the ascertainment of the truth.’” Romano, 96 N.J. at 80 (quoting State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 536 (1981)). “Proving general acceptance ‘entails the strict application of the scientific method, which requires the extraordinarily high level of proof based on prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience.’” Harvey, 151 N.J. at 171 (quoting Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 436 (1991)).”" here is the case law below posted here as information… and i submitt, how can the courts think a breath testing device such as the alcotest or intoxalyzer be accepted by scientific community , when it simnply is not, nor could be.. because it would need to provide raw data to support such an important result.

“”To allow the admission of scientific evidence in criminal cases, there must be general acceptance by the relevant scientific community. State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 169-70 (1997) (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923); Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 80 (1984); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 170-71 (1964); Foley, 370 N.J. Super. at 349. To establish general acceptance, test results must have “’sufficient scientific basis to produce uniform and reasonably reliable results [which] will contribute materially to the ascertainment of the truth.’” Romano, 96 N.J. at 80 (quoting State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 536 (1981)). “Proving general acceptance ‘entails the strict application of the scientific method, which requires the extraordinarily high level of proof based on prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience.’” Harvey, 151 N.J. at 171 (quoting Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 436 (1991)).””

]]> By: JIMHPLC http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1311 JIMHPLC Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:11:24 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1311 again, i am sorry i have posted a lopt in this thread, but dui and analytical chemistry is complicated, and not easily summed up in a few lines. i am actually providing mr, taylor, with something he can and should truly sink his teeth into. and i posted my 4 part arument on here in the pasdt and emailed it to him,.,..... the fact is, even with raw data, that doesnt mean challanging cant be made, it means more challanges can be made,.... because it is simply more to look at and review,. and afterall, do we all not want to know, at the very least, the alcotest or intoxalyzer produced the result that it is claiming to be able to produce. everyone, lawyers, defendants, and the State again, i am sorry i have posted a lopt in this thread, but dui and analytical chemistry is complicated, and not easily summed up in a few lines. i am actually providing mr, taylor, with something he can and should truly sink his teeth into. and i posted my 4 part arument on here in the pasdt and emailed it to him,.,….. the fact is, even with raw data, that doesnt mean challanging cant be made, it means more challanges can be made,…. because it is simply more to look at and review,. and afterall, do we all not want to know, at the very least, the alcotest or intoxalyzer produced the result that it is claiming to be able to produce. everyone, lawyers, defendants, and the State

]]> By: JIMHPLC http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1306 JIMHPLC Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:58:37 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1306 i am strong minded on this point because i have been an analytical chemist in nj for 20 years, with much experience in many areas within analytical chemistry, and have been under the gun for 20 years to ensure raw data is not only available, but preserved. that is why i strongly say the alcotest is programmed correctly. there is not an hplc, gc, aa, ir, uv, that produces a quantitative result of significance, in nj, or in california, as audited by the fda, epa, and state dep's, that do not provide raw data, so any and every result can be checked by hand. i am strong minded on this point because i have been an analytical chemist in nj for 20 years, with much experience in many areas within analytical chemistry, and have been under the gun for 20 years to ensure raw data is not only available, but preserved. that is why i strongly say the alcotest is programmed correctly. there is not an hplc, gc, aa, ir, uv, that produces a quantitative result of significance, in nj, or in california, as audited by the fda, epa, and state dep’s, that do not provide raw data, so any and every result can be checked by hand.

]]> By: JIMHPLC http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1305 JIMHPLC Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:46:59 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1305 i think, the most basic point here, we at least, and this is where we part thinking,.. that at least, we should be able to know the result produced, right or wrong as far as others issues, is at least the right result as to what the instrument should produce. and we do not know this. there is absolutley no way to do this without raw data, and this is the best argument we have, i feel. instead of attacking the instrument by complaints, take the real life, everydfay approach, where is the beef. where is the data, for a breath test, that once can take the digital result, and do the caluculation by hand, like every instrument, millions of instruments in nj, and california by the way, do. i think, the most basic point here, we at least, and this is where we part thinking,.. that at least, we should be able to know the result produced, right or wrong as far as others issues, is at least the right result as to what the instrument should produce. and we do not know this. there is absolutley no way to do this without raw data, and this is the best argument we have, i feel. instead of attacking the instrument by complaints, take the real life, everydfay approach, where is the beef. where is the data, for a breath test, that once can take the digital result, and do the caluculation by hand, like every instrument, millions of instruments in nj, and california by the way, do.

]]> By: JIMHPLC http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1303 JIMHPLC Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:34:15 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1303 what if the defendant wanted to offer proof that the actually machine he was tested on , that the software was programmed at 2500-1 or 1500-1, and not at 2100-1. this is the real true argument. no one knows, not even the police, what it was programmed for, because a breath terat on machines like the alcotest and intoxalyzer, do not provide the raw data signal, the analog converted to digital result, in order that someone could do the calculation by hand , using 2100-1 factor, and come out with the same bac answer as the computer did. this is my argument, that i have been waiting 35 months to make in a nj municipal court, as my own expert witness. what if the defendant wanted to offer proof that the actually machine he was tested on , that the software was programmed at 2500-1 or 1500-1, and not at 2100-1. this is the real true argument. no one knows, not even the police, what it was programmed for, because a breath terat on machines like the alcotest and intoxalyzer, do not provide the raw data signal, the analog converted to digital result, in order that someone could do the calculation by hand , using 2100-1 factor, and come out with the same bac answer as the computer did. this is my argument, that i have been waiting 35 months to make in a nj municipal court, as my own expert witness.

]]> By: joe http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1302 joe Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:43:01 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1302 If this is the court's stance, why bother having a trial at all? Why not just take the alleged DUI perpetrator straight to jail from the squad car and lock them up for a few years? This tramples on the individual's state and federal constitutional rights. The courts are being lazy and bowing down to public pressure. If this is the court’s stance, why bother having a trial at all? Why not just take the alleged DUI perpetrator straight to jail from the squad car and lock them up for a few years? This tramples on the individual’s state and federal constitutional rights. The courts are being lazy and bowing down to public pressure.

]]> By: koivisto http://www.duiblog.com/2008/07/16/law-trumps-sciencein-drunk-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-1299 koivisto Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:52:01 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=724#comment-1299 Oh where do we stop? When will it stop? I don't think the DUI situation will ever go away, it will just get worse. Prohibition, here we come! Oh where do we stop? When will it stop? I don’t think the DUI situation will ever go away, it will just get worse. Prohibition, here we come!

]]>