FDLE hosted booze party to test breathalyzer machine

reply to post by MeesterB


I'm concerned with a lot of things in the world, so I resent your insinuation.

I believe this falls under police corruption, which I consider to be a major issue. I'm sorry you don't feel the same. If I had been pulled over and this particular breathilyzer was used to determine my BAC, I'd want the study to be done properly instead of the half assed, convoluted way it was done. In my opinion, it seems as though the police may also believe that this machine is faulty, which is why they threw the "study" together and hastily had their expert testify in court before all the results are in. The last time I checked, trying to persuade a judge without accurate evidence is a big no no.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by MeesterB

 

Yeah, I'd get excited about an after work party, but I consider myself to be very professional when it comes to studies and experiments. Plus, I'm only 83 pounds, so I don't think I'd need even half of one bottle for just myself.

How do you know they all weighed differently? The article only stated that 15 were chosen. Considering they have stats on all their employees, they may have chosen them according to weight. I'm also wondering if half were male and half were female.

All I'm saying is that a scientific study is in order for trying to determine if a piece of machinery works or not. In order to see if it produces accurate results, you would need a controlled environment. This environment didn't appear to be controlled.

Yes weight does matter as far as intoxication goes, but all healthy people catabolize alcohol at the same rate. A healthy person will break down 1 ounce of alcohol in about 40 minutes on an empty stomach.

If they weighed each participant and accurately measured intake the results should be good.

Male/female makes no difference, but body mass does.

Welp to me this looks like they wanted an excuse to get completely and utterly fit shaced on tax payer money..

I have no particular objection to this except the amount spent on it, its work not play they should have given them enough for the cheapest rot gut they could find and given the police the option to add there own money to the pot.

Another thing to note, they couldn't use citizens for this.

If they had used volunteer's they would have to house and care for them until sober, otherwise they would be liable for any act's the drunk person did.

So it wasn't a taxpayer funded party.

If they had been testing a cocainalyser or a Marijuanalizer there might be a problem, but alcohol is legal, and real people get drunk every day. Some of us even more often than that.

reply to post by Afterthought


Whats the problem?

$330 is about what we spent on our office party, and we sure has hell didn't get any Jim Beam, nor did we do any productive testing. It was just "team-building." In other words, a social engagement during work hours so people can communicate and get to know each other a little better and treat each other more like human beings than titles or office chairs.

So, $330 to test a piece of equipment sounds like a good deal.

I wonder how much it would have cost taxpayers if they had sent this thing out for private testing? $1500? $5000? I guarantee it would have been far more than $330.

Folks, please read the entire thread. The study actually cost a total of $8000.
I'm guessing this was for the alcohol, Doritos, hourly pay, and the cost of the blood tests that haven't even come in yet. Not to mention, expert testimony costs a lot per hour. Considering they jumped the gun on taking their "evidence" to court before the blood tests' results were in, it seems as though the money and time spent was useless because they couldn't prove anything to the judges.

reply to post by Afterthought


Still, the blood tests, man-hours, and experts would have been required whether they did it in-house or through a private company.

Believe me, as a State Employee, I can tell you we have PLENTY of wasteful spending, but I can also tell you that privatizing ALWAYS costs MORE!

The real issue in the article is State Employees getting intoxicated on taxpayer money, but in the grand scheme of things, that really isn't an issue. In the private industry people often have expense accounts, wine and dine clients, have a few beers at lunch, etc. In the public sector these things are completely unheard of, and here we have it happening, with a good reason, and the intention of saving the state a few dollars, and yet it gets flamed anyway? I don't understand what the issue is? They were of legal age, and consenting adults. Nobody was forced to drink, no civil liberties were violated, nobody got tazed. I just think this is a headhunt by the press to attack a state agency. Cliche.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Well, even though no civil liberties were affected during the "party", the fact they tried to jump the gun in court speaks volumes to me. I mean, really. How can you even testify to evidence that's, so far, inconclusive and incomplete? I'm surprised the judges didn't throw their case out and make them pay back the tax payer money.

reply to post by Afterthought


I agree with that part. I don't think that was a result of the party, but that is a problem for the prosecuting attorneys.

To be honest, with what I know of the State's attorneys, and state politics, I am amazed that anyone ever gets convicted of anything! Any decent attorney should be able to send the State's underpaid, undertrained, overworked prosecutors running and hiding long before the trial date ever arrives.

reply to post by getreadyalready


You can say that again. It seems as though the state's departments usually do toss things together and that's what I see with this entire thing. Seeing that the "study" was put together in three days, it seems as though something else was lighting the fire under them. I'm going to have to see if I can find more information about this particular breathilyzer machine. Maybe there's a class action suit questioning its use? I just can't imagine that this "study" wasn't six months in the making. Plus, why the rush to court? Maybe they got a summons on recent tests that had been performed on the machine and someone said "Oh crap! We haven't done our semi annual test of this particular machine yet, so let's hurry up and get 15 people together while you go and stock up on booze and Doritos."

Something just smells fishy about this whole thing, but I'm still digging, so I'll post if I find anything.

As an aside, I'm not against alcohol consumption, but I am against shoddy testing procedures and convoluted "expert" testimony.

Seems as though the Intoxilyzer has been failing since the 5000 model.
www.mndwidefenseblog.com...

Where was this confident sense of justice when the Intoxilyzer 5000 was failing? Are we honestly expected to have confidence in an agency that knew for years that the Intoxilyzer was experiencing critical flaws, and boldly refused to fix those errors because of fears that fixing their mistakes would undermine the aura of perfection the BCA attempted to create around the Intoxilyzer? That’s neither justice nor good science.

What we have here is an agency that claims, in the newspapers, to be using scientific principles to ensure justice in the courtroom. What every Minnesotan needs to know, however, is that those scientific principles are typically ignored by the BCA for purely political reasons, and that always leads to injustice.

A truly independent scientific agency would not refuse to fix its Intoxilyzers for fear of looking foolish. An agency dedicated to sound science and fair convictions would not cling to an outdated and discredited method of urine testing to convict Minnesotan drivers of DWI.

Maybe a better title for that article would have been, “Science Only When it Suits Us.”

Here's something I didn't know:
www.kanslaw.com...

For example, did you know that statute requires that your Intoxilyzer results be rounded off - not rounded up or down, but off? This means that if you blow a 0.089, your result is a 0.08 - not a 0.09.

The same website as above goes on to say:

The source code is the magic link between your breath, the science used by the Intoxilyzer, and the State's evidence against you: Remember, source code is how the Intoxilyzer turns infrared light particles into a number that the prosecution uses as evidence. If there is an inherent flaw in the machine's computer program, then the way the machine applies the science to your breath to generate that number may not be reliable evidence and the state is still using it against you! But, without having a copy of the source code for computer scientists to look at and analyze, there's no real way to know if the code is unflawed, and the results reliable.

That's why source code is a big deal to Minnesota DUI lawyers, and to you. Why does CMI, the company that wrote the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, not want anyone to see it, though? They claim their competitors would be able to copy it and that would violate their intellectual property rights. Criminal defense attorneys in Washington, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have argued that not disclosing the source code violates a defendant's rights.

So, as far as I can see so far, Minnesota is where these machines are being scrutinized, which means that every other states' defense attorneys are also jumping on the bandwagon. I don't blame them. It seem as though there is a problem with the machines and there has been for a while now.

I'll post any more info I might find.

Not a big deal a decent lawyer could still get them thrown out. Let me see the test were done by somebody who have vested results in the results???? Waste of tapayer money. Hell i could get it thrown out with just common sense