General warrants, anyone?
This does not even address the problems inherent in breathalyzer tests.
- the sample cannot be kept, and therefore cannot be independently analyzed by a person in their own defense, should they seek to do so
- every time a breath sample with alcohol in it is analyzed by the breathalyzer, some amount of the alcohol will adhere to the sensors: thus, after a large umber of samples, the instrument will give higher readings (this is a known problem and something the manufacturers inform their customers about: in order to get accurate readings, the instruments need to be taken apart, cleaned and re-calibrated regularly…yet this seldom occurs in reality)
- refusing to take a roadside breathalyzer test is accepted in court as admission of intoxication!!!
In other words, if we refuse to submit to a test with an instrument we know is likely to give an artificially high reading and against which there is no defense (as the analyzed sample cannot be retained for more accurate re-testing), we are automatically deemed guilty.
Please, don’t get me wrong: I do not advocate drunk driving. As a matter of fact, I will not drive after having had any alcohol – and will abstain from drinking alcohol if I expect to be driving. Even if I were well under the legal limit, if I were to get into an accident and harmed someone, knowing my reflexes might have been impaired by my irresponsible consumption of alcohol, I would have a hard time living with myself. So, I always drive sober!
In other words, the inaccurate readings of the breathalysers are not likely to ever affect me in the least and I truly ‘have nothing to hide’ – as the video stresses! It is not about ‘hiding something’ – it is about the principle involved!!!
How can so many of our ‘best and brightest’ be so dense?
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 