A South Carolina Highway Patrol officer is off the job after being arrested under bizarre circumstances on Wednesday.
Officials say trooper Leslie C. Hoover was pulled over on John Dodd Road in Spartanburg County under suspicion of DUI. This came after a motorist called 911 to report Hoover’s personal vehicle, an Isuzu Rodeo, swerving erratically on Insterstate 26 about 6:40pm in heavy rush hour traffic. The SC Department of Public Safety says Hoover refused a breathalyzer and failed a field sobriety test. He was charged with driving under the influence.
Thursday morning, Hoover appeared before a magistrate and was released on his own recognizance. But his appearance when he entered the jail has stirred more discussion than his legal troubles.
A high-ranking official who wished to remain anonymous tells News Channel 7 he saw Hoover brought into the jail “wearing a red dress”. He says Hoover was also wearing a bra and was seen “adjusting his bra” while he waited to be processed. And he says the shamed trooper had a pair of thong panties “in his possession”.
That would explain statements made by the man who made the 911 call on the interstate. The driver, who asked not to be identified, said Hoover “appeared to be wearing a blonde wig” when he came flying past him near exit 22. On a recording of his 911 call - which was obtained by News Channel 7 - the man refers to Hoover as “she” several times.
“Yes, I’m on interstate 26 heading west at exit 22 and there is a red, I think it’s an Isuzu or a Rodeo, and she - I think it’s a she - is weaving all over the road,“ says the caller on the 911 tape.Dispatcher: “Do you think she’s intoxicated or….?“Caller: “I can’t tell but she is weaving all over the road!“. Sid Gaulden, spokesperson for the Department of Public Safety, says Hoover is from Lexington County and was on his personal time when he was arrested. He says Hoover was terminated Thursday morning. He had worked for the Highway Patrol for 30 years. He says Hoover retired in 2000 but came back to work in 2002 as a member of the patrol’s Insurance Enforcement Team. The team works with the Department of Motor Vehicles to seize license plates from car owners who have allowed their insurance coverage to lapse.
“They are part-time employees but they have the same authority to conduct traffic stops and issue citations as a full-time state trooper,“ says Gaulden. He says Hoover did not have any disciplanary actions against him as a patrol officer from 1976 to 2000. But after he came back in 2002, he had to attend one counseling session for “negligent operation of a state vehicle”. Gaulden says that stemmed from an incident in which Hoover rear-ended a civilian’s vehicle. He says “there was no indication alcohol was a factor” in that crash.
The man who called 911 raises another interesting issue: he says another state trooper could have stopped Hoover before he called 911 but did not pull him over. He says as Hoover’s vehicle swerved all over the road near exit 22, a state trooper in an SUV pulled “right up behind” Hoover and followed him. He says at the time, Hoover’s vehicle was straddling the divided white line that separates lanes.
“I really thought (the trooper) was going to pull him over because he was clearly weaving,“ says the caller. “But he just went right around him and took off real fast like he was in a hurry.“
He says as the trooper was going around Hoover’s vehicle, Hoover swerved off the shoulder of the interstate.
“I thought that would have been obvious enough for the trooper to notice that but I guess he didn’t,“ says the man. He says minutes later, after he saw Hoover almost collide with several vehicles, he picked up his cell phone and dialed 911.
We informed Department of Public Safety of the man’s statement about the trooper failing to pull over Hoover. Gaulden said they were not aware of the scenario “but we will investigate it fully” to see if it was indeed a state trooper who pulled up behind Hoover and if so, why they opted not to pull him over.
Click on the video tab to see Chris Cato’s story on the arrest and audio of the 911 call.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, September 25, 2008
"I have a badge and can arrest you anytime I want even if it isn't a violation of law
FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A West Virginia man who police said passed gas and fanned it toward a patrolman has been charged with battery on a police officer.
Jose A. Cruz, 34, of Clarksburg, was pulled over early Tuesday for driving without headlights, police said. According to the criminal complaint, Cruz smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and failed three field sobriety tests before he was handcuffed and taken to a police station for a breathalyzer test.
As Patrolman T.E. Parsons prepared the machine, Cruz scooted his chair toward Parsons, lifted his leg and ‘‘passed gas loudly,’’ the complaint said.
Cruz, according to complaint, then fanned the gas toward the officer.
‘‘The gas was very odorous and created contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Patrolman Parsons,’’ the complaint alleged. He was also charged with driving under the influence, driving without headlights and two counts of obstruction.
Cruz acknowledged passing gas, but said he didn’t move his chair toward the officer nor aim gas at the patrolman. He said he had an upset stomach at the time, but police denied his request to go to the bathroom when he first arrived at the station.
‘‘I couldn’t hold it no more,’’ he said.
He also denied being drunk and uncooperative as the police complaint alleged. He added he was upset at being prepared for a breathalyzer test while having an asthma attack. The police statement said he later resisted being secured for a trip to a hospital that he requested for asthma treatment.
Cruz said the officers thought the gas incident was funny when it happened and laughed about it with him.
‘‘This is ridiculous,’’ he said. ‘‘I could be facing time.’’
SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A West Virginia man who police said passed gas and fanned it toward a patrolman has been charged with battery on a police officer.
Jose A. Cruz, 34, of Clarksburg, was pulled over early Tuesday for driving without headlights, police said. According to the criminal complaint, Cruz smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and failed three field sobriety tests before he was handcuffed and taken to a police station for a breathalyzer test.
As Patrolman T.E. Parsons prepared the machine, Cruz scooted his chair toward Parsons, lifted his leg and ‘‘passed gas loudly,’’ the complaint said.
Cruz, according to complaint, then fanned the gas toward the officer.
‘‘The gas was very odorous and created contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Patrolman Parsons,’’ the complaint alleged. He was also charged with driving under the influence, driving without headlights and two counts of obstruction.
Cruz acknowledged passing gas, but said he didn’t move his chair toward the officer nor aim gas at the patrolman. He said he had an upset stomach at the time, but police denied his request to go to the bathroom when he first arrived at the station.
‘‘I couldn’t hold it no more,’’ he said.
He also denied being drunk and uncooperative as the police complaint alleged. He added he was upset at being prepared for a breathalyzer test while having an asthma attack. The police statement said he later resisted being secured for a trip to a hospital that he requested for asthma treatment.
Cruz said the officers thought the gas incident was funny when it happened and laughed about it with him.
‘‘This is ridiculous,’’ he said. ‘‘I could be facing time.’’
Thursday, May 15, 2008
SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: BREATHALYZER TESTS ARE AN INACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT
A group of judges in New Hampshire was served several alcoholic drinks as part of an experiment that was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Breathalyzer. One judge was given so many drinks that he became visibly intoxicated. When the judge blew into the Breathalyzer, the machine registered a score of 0.0. After a few more tries, the Breathalyzer gave the same result. Following the demonstration, at least one police jurisdiction in the state ceased using the Breathalyzer in favor of blood tests. (See Margaret Graham Tebo, New Test for DUI Defense, ABA Journal (Feb. 2005).)
The Breathalyzer is by far a less accurate test than a blood test. A blood test actually measures blood alcohol concentration (BAC). But a Breathalyzer merely estimates it. It measures "breath" alcohol concentration, and requires a difficult mathmatical conversion to correlate it to a "blood" alcohol concentration.
What the Breathalyzer attempts to measure is the presence of chemicals found in alcohol. But the machine often measures chemicals with molecular structures similar to those found in alcohol. There are, in fact, there are numerous chemical compounds that can fool a Breathalyzer machine.
According to Dr. David Hanson, Over 100 compounds can be found in the human breath at any one time, and 70 to 80 percent of them contain [a] methyl group structure and will be incorrectly detected as ethyl alcohol. (See David Hanson, Ph.D., Breath Analyzer Accuracy, at http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html.) As a result, false positives can occur for a plethora of reasons.
Body chemistry is one factor that can lead to false positives. People with diabetes, acid reflux disease, or some cancers can fail Breathalyzer tests even if their bloodstreams are perfectly free of alcohol. Diabetics, for example, have extraordinarily high levels of acetone, a substance that some breath machines mistake for ethyl alcohol.
Police recognize that regurgitation can render unreliable the results of a Breathalyzer. Thus, most departments require that the arresting officer observe the subject of a breath test for a period of time prior to administerting the test. In California, police should watch the suspect for at least fifteen minutes to make sure he or she did not burp, hiccup or regurgitate prior to applying the test. Regurgitation includes any instance of fluids or gases that rise through the esophagus.
In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled inadmissible the results of a breath test where the defendant presented evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In People v. Bonutti, 817 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. 2004), the defendant had blown a BAC of 0.174 after being stopped and showing outward signs of intoxication. Defendants motion to suppress the Breathalyzer evidence was granted because the court found that the results could have been compromised by a silent, unobservable episode of reflux.
Two years ago, when I attended the Intox 8000 Certification seminar in New Orleans (the San Diego Police Department had just implemented the machine), I was able to get a Fort Lauderdale judge who was acting as a guinney pig for us to blow a .20 breath alcohol level using the Intox 8000 machine. His true blood alcohol level at the time was .02 (he had one drink in him). I got the machine to measure a breath alcohol concentration of ten times the actual true blood alcohol level. How? I just manipulated the machine and the judge's breathing techniques.
If you think I can do this, imagine the flawed results an inexperienced cop might use against you?
The Breathalyzer is by far a less accurate test than a blood test. A blood test actually measures blood alcohol concentration (BAC). But a Breathalyzer merely estimates it. It measures "breath" alcohol concentration, and requires a difficult mathmatical conversion to correlate it to a "blood" alcohol concentration.
What the Breathalyzer attempts to measure is the presence of chemicals found in alcohol. But the machine often measures chemicals with molecular structures similar to those found in alcohol. There are, in fact, there are numerous chemical compounds that can fool a Breathalyzer machine.
According to Dr. David Hanson, Over 100 compounds can be found in the human breath at any one time, and 70 to 80 percent of them contain [a] methyl group structure and will be incorrectly detected as ethyl alcohol. (See David Hanson, Ph.D., Breath Analyzer Accuracy, at http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html.) As a result, false positives can occur for a plethora of reasons.
Body chemistry is one factor that can lead to false positives. People with diabetes, acid reflux disease, or some cancers can fail Breathalyzer tests even if their bloodstreams are perfectly free of alcohol. Diabetics, for example, have extraordinarily high levels of acetone, a substance that some breath machines mistake for ethyl alcohol.
Police recognize that regurgitation can render unreliable the results of a Breathalyzer. Thus, most departments require that the arresting officer observe the subject of a breath test for a period of time prior to administerting the test. In California, police should watch the suspect for at least fifteen minutes to make sure he or she did not burp, hiccup or regurgitate prior to applying the test. Regurgitation includes any instance of fluids or gases that rise through the esophagus.
In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled inadmissible the results of a breath test where the defendant presented evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In People v. Bonutti, 817 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. 2004), the defendant had blown a BAC of 0.174 after being stopped and showing outward signs of intoxication. Defendants motion to suppress the Breathalyzer evidence was granted because the court found that the results could have been compromised by a silent, unobservable episode of reflux.
Two years ago, when I attended the Intox 8000 Certification seminar in New Orleans (the San Diego Police Department had just implemented the machine), I was able to get a Fort Lauderdale judge who was acting as a guinney pig for us to blow a .20 breath alcohol level using the Intox 8000 machine. His true blood alcohol level at the time was .02 (he had one drink in him). I got the machine to measure a breath alcohol concentration of ten times the actual true blood alcohol level. How? I just manipulated the machine and the judge's breathing techniques.
If you think I can do this, imagine the flawed results an inexperienced cop might use against you?
DUI Deputy May Have Wrongly Jailed Dozens
TAMPA - Daniel Brock won high praise for jailing impaired motorists. Mothers Against Drunk Driving honored him. So did his bosses. But one of Hillsborough County’s most aggressive DUI deputies may have wrongly sent dozens of people to jail, the Sheriff’s Office acknowledged on Thursday, June 14, 2007.
The agency fired Brock on May 24th. In one year, Brock arrested 58 people whose blood-alcohol content was below 0.08, the level at which state law presumes a driver is impaired, an internal affairs audit showed. “I don’t prescribe to the theory that somehow you have to be 0.08 to be drunk or impaired, ” Brock, 38, told investigators. (Editor Note: I bet he “prescribes” to the theory that somehow everyone is impaired or too drunk to drive at .08)
A driver may be charged with DUI in Florida if the blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08 percent, but there must be other evidence of impairment, such as a swerving vehicle. In 43 of those 58 cases, motorists demonstrated no visible impairment behind the wheel, according to an internal affairs report made public Thursday. In 41 arrests, Brock also failed to make a case with urine samples, the report states.
Repeatedly, investigators found Brock reported failures in field sobriety tests when his patrol car video camera documented the opposite. He wrote, for instance, that a driver on Oct. 25, 2005, lost balance while turning. The video of the encounter showed that wasn’t the case. The driver blew a 0.01 in the breath test but was arrested anyway. He said drivers incorrectly recited the alphabet, used arms for balance and slurred speech - when the video showed correct alphabets, perfect balance and clear speech.
Records show he pulled people over on DUI stops 17 times while his cruiser was occupied with other prisoners. That’s against procedure. He routinely filed arrest reports days, even weeks, after making an arrest. He told internal affairs Detective Bruce Crumpler that he always reported the results of field sobriety tests based on memory. Wouldn’t that leave room for errors, Crumpler asked? “Well, there’s room for error, ” Brock told Crumpler. “I’ve never had a problem.” (Editor’s Note: Until now his job was not on the line, his liberty was not restrained, and his license was not jeopardized. No wonder he had never had a problem.)
His paperwork became the subject of scorn at the Hillsborough State Attorney’s Office, where prosecutors said the deputy tarnished his reputation by filing inaccurate arrest reports that lacked important details. “He doesn’t have a very good reputation for being a very good DUI officer that we care to work with, ” prosecutor Jennifer Gabbard told Crumpler. “It’s almost like whatever you can do to make it look like you’re arresting people.”
From October 2005 to October 2006, Brock made 313 arrests for driving under the influence. He failed to activate his cruiser’s audio and video equipment in 40 percent of his stops, instead relying on his “wrought memory” to recall important arrest details, the audit showed. Within the Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Brock previously had been praised for his “outstanding professional service” and was consistently recommended for raises. His superiors rated his performance “satisfactory” and called him a credit to the office. He was lauded as a dedicated deputy who spoke to high school students about the perils of impaired driving.
“We always felt he was a good officer, ” said Becky Gage, 55, the victim advocate for Hillsborough’s MADD chapter. “As long as officers are within the scope of the law, then we support their efforts to remove impaired drivers.” (Editors Note: MADDs leadership embraces a “zero tolerance” standard for everyone, so they believe a person who drank one beer at a ball game should be arrested.)
However, the former deputy encountered a few bumps in the road. He was suspended and sent to driving school in 2000 after a string of what the Sheriff’s Office deemed avoidable traffic accidents. In 2006, he was named in a federal lawsuit alleging that he physically attacked the mother of a teenage boy he arrested in 2002. The Hillsborough County woman said Brock forced himself into her home, pushed her into a corner and sprayed her with pepper spray. The lawsuit is unresolved.
During the recent internal affairs investigation, Brock denied trying to boost numbers for personal recognition. It was unclear Thursday whether Brock intends to appeal his firing. He told investigators that given the chance, he would conduct his DUI stops the same way. Said Brock: “I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people.”
The agency fired Brock on May 24th. In one year, Brock arrested 58 people whose blood-alcohol content was below 0.08, the level at which state law presumes a driver is impaired, an internal affairs audit showed. “I don’t prescribe to the theory that somehow you have to be 0.08 to be drunk or impaired, ” Brock, 38, told investigators. (Editor Note: I bet he “prescribes” to the theory that somehow everyone is impaired or too drunk to drive at .08)
A driver may be charged with DUI in Florida if the blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08 percent, but there must be other evidence of impairment, such as a swerving vehicle. In 43 of those 58 cases, motorists demonstrated no visible impairment behind the wheel, according to an internal affairs report made public Thursday. In 41 arrests, Brock also failed to make a case with urine samples, the report states.
Repeatedly, investigators found Brock reported failures in field sobriety tests when his patrol car video camera documented the opposite. He wrote, for instance, that a driver on Oct. 25, 2005, lost balance while turning. The video of the encounter showed that wasn’t the case. The driver blew a 0.01 in the breath test but was arrested anyway. He said drivers incorrectly recited the alphabet, used arms for balance and slurred speech - when the video showed correct alphabets, perfect balance and clear speech.
Records show he pulled people over on DUI stops 17 times while his cruiser was occupied with other prisoners. That’s against procedure. He routinely filed arrest reports days, even weeks, after making an arrest. He told internal affairs Detective Bruce Crumpler that he always reported the results of field sobriety tests based on memory. Wouldn’t that leave room for errors, Crumpler asked? “Well, there’s room for error, ” Brock told Crumpler. “I’ve never had a problem.” (Editor’s Note: Until now his job was not on the line, his liberty was not restrained, and his license was not jeopardized. No wonder he had never had a problem.)
His paperwork became the subject of scorn at the Hillsborough State Attorney’s Office, where prosecutors said the deputy tarnished his reputation by filing inaccurate arrest reports that lacked important details. “He doesn’t have a very good reputation for being a very good DUI officer that we care to work with, ” prosecutor Jennifer Gabbard told Crumpler. “It’s almost like whatever you can do to make it look like you’re arresting people.”
From October 2005 to October 2006, Brock made 313 arrests for driving under the influence. He failed to activate his cruiser’s audio and video equipment in 40 percent of his stops, instead relying on his “wrought memory” to recall important arrest details, the audit showed. Within the Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Brock previously had been praised for his “outstanding professional service” and was consistently recommended for raises. His superiors rated his performance “satisfactory” and called him a credit to the office. He was lauded as a dedicated deputy who spoke to high school students about the perils of impaired driving.
“We always felt he was a good officer, ” said Becky Gage, 55, the victim advocate for Hillsborough’s MADD chapter. “As long as officers are within the scope of the law, then we support their efforts to remove impaired drivers.” (Editors Note: MADDs leadership embraces a “zero tolerance” standard for everyone, so they believe a person who drank one beer at a ball game should be arrested.)
However, the former deputy encountered a few bumps in the road. He was suspended and sent to driving school in 2000 after a string of what the Sheriff’s Office deemed avoidable traffic accidents. In 2006, he was named in a federal lawsuit alleging that he physically attacked the mother of a teenage boy he arrested in 2002. The Hillsborough County woman said Brock forced himself into her home, pushed her into a corner and sprayed her with pepper spray. The lawsuit is unresolved.
During the recent internal affairs investigation, Brock denied trying to boost numbers for personal recognition. It was unclear Thursday whether Brock intends to appeal his firing. He told investigators that given the chance, he would conduct his DUI stops the same way. Said Brock: “I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people.”
Could your blood inflate your blood alcohol level?
Your hematocrit level is the ratio of aqueous portions and solid portions of your blood. When alcohol enters your bloodstream it is carried in the plasma (liquid portion). Alcohol does not get absorbed into the red blood cells and other solid material in your blood Someone with a higher hematocrit level will have more solid parts in their blood and therefore will have less space for the alcohol to disperse in the liquid portion of the blood. Normal hematocrit differences can elevate a BAC by 10% to 14%.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
How To Avoid a DUI Arrest This Summer.
Law enforcement will step up DUI enforcement over the summer. Law enforcement will really step it up over the holidays, starting with Memorial Day weekend, and simmering down after Labor Day. It's starting now. Memorize these tips. They may come in handy over the holidays.
1. If you drive during the summer holidays, and you plan on having a cocktail or two, make sure you know where your license, registration and proof of insurance are. Police historically write in their DUI reports (putting only facts that harm you in them) that the suspect "fumbled for his wallet" and couldn't find his registration. They use this to try to show you were impaired. Be prepared.
2. When you get signaled by the officer to pull over by the officer for a DUI assessment, do so immediately and safely. Roll down your window and put your hands on the steering wheel.
3. If an officer asks you if you know why you are being pulled over, remember you don't have to answer. What a dumb question! He knows why he is pulling you over. He is pulling you over to assess you for drunk driving, and he's using the fact that you might have committed some minor vehicle code violations as an excuse. Don't make any admissions to him. So, you can just ask him, "why?"
4. The next question the officer is likely to ask is, "Have you had anything to drink tonight." Remember your rights? You are not required to speak to officers. I know, I know, you think, "But if I don't talk to the officer, he will be mad." Let him be. You are not at a social gathering; he is not invited to your New Year's day party. So don't worry about how he feels. He is collecting evidence against you. Don't give him any. It is best to say, "Officer, I appreciate what you do for a living, but I don't wish to answer any of your questions." You do NOT have to answer. The less from you he gets, the better for you in the long run. He is gathering evidence. But, you say, maybe he will let me go if he knows I'm being honest with him. NO. Most people who are pulled over and have alcohol on their breath get arrested. It's just a fact of life. Don't give him anything to put in that report that he can use against you later.
5. He may then say, "I'd like you to complete a series of tests for me." Again, let him know that you do not wish to participate in any tests. You are not required to comply. Officers try to give a series of field tests to determine if you are impaired. I have NEVER known any officer to do these as per the standardized protocol. I hold a certification authorized by the United Stated Department of Transportation to administer these tests, and was required to pass a practical and written test to get that certification given by a nationally known sergeant with the Idaho State Police. Cops learn how to do these, and then promptly forget them, making up their own "tests." Do not do them. Do NOT let the officer collect more false "evidence" against you. Just reiterate that you do not wish to perform and tests. It's your right.
6. The DUI investigation officer may then tell you he wants you to take an in field breath, hand held, breath test. Do not take this "test." It is unreliable, and regularly exhibits blood alcohol numbers higher than what you really are. The cop really, really wants you to do this now, because you have made no statements, and you have refused his field "tests." He wants this badly. He NEEDS some evidence. Do not do it. You are NOT required to blow into the little hand held machine.
7. The officer will most likely arrest you, cuff and take you downtown. You will be required to take a breath or blood test. You must choose to take one of these tests, or he will take what is called a "forced blood test" and your driver's license will be suspended for a 90 days or more.
A few pointers: If you are still absorbing alcohol, the breath test will read high. It is also an INDIRECT measurement of blood alcohol level. If you take blood, you won't get a result for at least a week. Also, SDPD and Sheriff's don't use the proper amount of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate in the blood tubes, so you can attack those results later. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone hired by the city or county to draw my blood, after learning all I know about the incompetence of the people drawing the blood, and the lack of sanitations protocol in place. Why risk infection?
If you are arrested, you will be released within 12 hours on your promise to appear. You will received a yellow piece of paper called a "AST 60)." This document tells you that you, or your lawyer, must call the Department of Public Safety within ten days of the arrest to secure a hearing to determine whether or not the DPS will take your license. Do not miss this deadline or you will be suspended automatically.
So, be careful. Don't drink and drive if you can help it. Drive safely. Don't talk to cops. Be polite, but do not let them gather inculpatory evidence against you. If you get arrested call Polson & Robbins. 205 252-7000
1. If you drive during the summer holidays, and you plan on having a cocktail or two, make sure you know where your license, registration and proof of insurance are. Police historically write in their DUI reports (putting only facts that harm you in them) that the suspect "fumbled for his wallet" and couldn't find his registration. They use this to try to show you were impaired. Be prepared.
2. When you get signaled by the officer to pull over by the officer for a DUI assessment, do so immediately and safely. Roll down your window and put your hands on the steering wheel.
3. If an officer asks you if you know why you are being pulled over, remember you don't have to answer. What a dumb question! He knows why he is pulling you over. He is pulling you over to assess you for drunk driving, and he's using the fact that you might have committed some minor vehicle code violations as an excuse. Don't make any admissions to him. So, you can just ask him, "why?"
4. The next question the officer is likely to ask is, "Have you had anything to drink tonight." Remember your rights? You are not required to speak to officers. I know, I know, you think, "But if I don't talk to the officer, he will be mad." Let him be. You are not at a social gathering; he is not invited to your New Year's day party. So don't worry about how he feels. He is collecting evidence against you. Don't give him any. It is best to say, "Officer, I appreciate what you do for a living, but I don't wish to answer any of your questions." You do NOT have to answer. The less from you he gets, the better for you in the long run. He is gathering evidence. But, you say, maybe he will let me go if he knows I'm being honest with him. NO. Most people who are pulled over and have alcohol on their breath get arrested. It's just a fact of life. Don't give him anything to put in that report that he can use against you later.
5. He may then say, "I'd like you to complete a series of tests for me." Again, let him know that you do not wish to participate in any tests. You are not required to comply. Officers try to give a series of field tests to determine if you are impaired. I have NEVER known any officer to do these as per the standardized protocol. I hold a certification authorized by the United Stated Department of Transportation to administer these tests, and was required to pass a practical and written test to get that certification given by a nationally known sergeant with the Idaho State Police. Cops learn how to do these, and then promptly forget them, making up their own "tests." Do not do them. Do NOT let the officer collect more false "evidence" against you. Just reiterate that you do not wish to perform and tests. It's your right.
6. The DUI investigation officer may then tell you he wants you to take an in field breath, hand held, breath test. Do not take this "test." It is unreliable, and regularly exhibits blood alcohol numbers higher than what you really are. The cop really, really wants you to do this now, because you have made no statements, and you have refused his field "tests." He wants this badly. He NEEDS some evidence. Do not do it. You are NOT required to blow into the little hand held machine.
7. The officer will most likely arrest you, cuff and take you downtown. You will be required to take a breath or blood test. You must choose to take one of these tests, or he will take what is called a "forced blood test" and your driver's license will be suspended for a 90 days or more.
A few pointers: If you are still absorbing alcohol, the breath test will read high. It is also an INDIRECT measurement of blood alcohol level. If you take blood, you won't get a result for at least a week. Also, SDPD and Sheriff's don't use the proper amount of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate in the blood tubes, so you can attack those results later. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone hired by the city or county to draw my blood, after learning all I know about the incompetence of the people drawing the blood, and the lack of sanitations protocol in place. Why risk infection?
If you are arrested, you will be released within 12 hours on your promise to appear. You will received a yellow piece of paper called a "AST 60)." This document tells you that you, or your lawyer, must call the Department of Public Safety within ten days of the arrest to secure a hearing to determine whether or not the DPS will take your license. Do not miss this deadline or you will be suspended automatically.
So, be careful. Don't drink and drive if you can help it. Drive safely. Don't talk to cops. Be polite, but do not let them gather inculpatory evidence against you. If you get arrested call Polson & Robbins. 205 252-7000
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Draeger Alcotest 7110 Source Code Revealed
Secret Breathalyzer Software Finally Revealed
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on September 4th, 2007 on duiblog.com
"As I’ve indicated in previous posts, defense attorneys for years have been trying to discover the software source code used by manufacturers of various breathalyzer models. (See “Secret Breathalyzer Software Still Secret”) The accuracy of these machines, which essentially determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence, depends upon the accuracy of the software driving them; as the computer techs say, “Garbage in, garbage out”. But the manufacturers have refused to produce the information, relying upon a claim of “trade secrets” — that is, that the code of each model is a unique creation of the manufacturer. And prosecutors, apparently more concerned with profits than with justice, have joined them in resisting disclosure.
Recently, however, judges in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey and a growing number of other states have begun ordering the manufacturers to reveal the inner workings of their machines to the defense. (See “Judge: Divulge Breathalyzer Code…or Else”.) Not surprisingly, the manufacturers have refused to comply. Until a few days ago….
New Jersey attorney Evan M. Levow was finally able to get an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey forcing the manufacturer of the popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 to reveal the source code. Levow turned the code over to experts, Base One Technologies, to anaylze.
Initially, Base One found that, contrary to Draeger’s protestations that the code was proprietary, the code consisted mostly of general algorithms: “That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary.“ In other words, the “trade secrets” claim which manufacturers were hiding behind was completely without merit.
Some of the more interesting excerpts from the Base One report:
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing: The program presented shows ample evidence of incomplete design, incomplete verification of design, and incomplete “white box” and “black box” testing. Therefore the software has to be considered unreliable and untested, and in several cases it does not meet stated requirements. The planning and documentation of the design is haphazard. Sections of the original code and modified code show evidence of using an experimental approach to coding, or use what is best described as the “trial and error” method. Several sections are marked as “temporary, for now”. Other sections were added to existing modules or inserted in a code stream, leading to a patchwork design and coding style…
It is clear that, as submitted, the Alcotest software would not pass development standards and testing for the U.S. Government or Military. It would fail software standards for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as commercial standards used in devices for public safety…If the FAA imposed mandatory alcohol testing for all commercial pilots, the Alcotest would be rejected based upon the FAA safety and software standards…
2. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled, meaning that the Alcotest software could appear to run correctly while executing wild branches or invalid code for a period of time. Other interrupts ignored are the Computer Operating Property (a watchdog timer), and the Software Interrupt.
3. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low. The values will be forced to a high or low limit, respectively. This error condition is suppressed unless it occurs frequently enough…
4. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substituted: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the “zero line” or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement…
5. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported…
Based upon a .08% reading from this machine, American citizens are accused of drunk driving and, in court, presumed by law to be guilty."
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on September 4th, 2007 on duiblog.com
"As I’ve indicated in previous posts, defense attorneys for years have been trying to discover the software source code used by manufacturers of various breathalyzer models. (See “Secret Breathalyzer Software Still Secret”) The accuracy of these machines, which essentially determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence, depends upon the accuracy of the software driving them; as the computer techs say, “Garbage in, garbage out”. But the manufacturers have refused to produce the information, relying upon a claim of “trade secrets” — that is, that the code of each model is a unique creation of the manufacturer. And prosecutors, apparently more concerned with profits than with justice, have joined them in resisting disclosure.
Recently, however, judges in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey and a growing number of other states have begun ordering the manufacturers to reveal the inner workings of their machines to the defense. (See “Judge: Divulge Breathalyzer Code…or Else”.) Not surprisingly, the manufacturers have refused to comply. Until a few days ago….
New Jersey attorney Evan M. Levow was finally able to get an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey forcing the manufacturer of the popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 to reveal the source code. Levow turned the code over to experts, Base One Technologies, to anaylze.
Initially, Base One found that, contrary to Draeger’s protestations that the code was proprietary, the code consisted mostly of general algorithms: “That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary.“ In other words, the “trade secrets” claim which manufacturers were hiding behind was completely without merit.
Some of the more interesting excerpts from the Base One report:
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing: The program presented shows ample evidence of incomplete design, incomplete verification of design, and incomplete “white box” and “black box” testing. Therefore the software has to be considered unreliable and untested, and in several cases it does not meet stated requirements. The planning and documentation of the design is haphazard. Sections of the original code and modified code show evidence of using an experimental approach to coding, or use what is best described as the “trial and error” method. Several sections are marked as “temporary, for now”. Other sections were added to existing modules or inserted in a code stream, leading to a patchwork design and coding style…
It is clear that, as submitted, the Alcotest software would not pass development standards and testing for the U.S. Government or Military. It would fail software standards for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as commercial standards used in devices for public safety…If the FAA imposed mandatory alcohol testing for all commercial pilots, the Alcotest would be rejected based upon the FAA safety and software standards…
2. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled, meaning that the Alcotest software could appear to run correctly while executing wild branches or invalid code for a period of time. Other interrupts ignored are the Computer Operating Property (a watchdog timer), and the Software Interrupt.
3. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low. The values will be forced to a high or low limit, respectively. This error condition is suppressed unless it occurs frequently enough…
4. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substituted: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the “zero line” or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement…
5. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported…
Based upon a .08% reading from this machine, American citizens are accused of drunk driving and, in court, presumed by law to be guilty."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
