Ferrari Mailing List: Re: Matt Rolloff's DUI - any lawyers around?

[Paul Bennett (pbennett]

Thanks for an understandable explanation, Scottie.   And, yes, 
I've heard it's best to take the blood test immediately as the BAC 
can  rises a tenth or two for about 4 hrs before dropping because 
of the way the body processes it...they prefer you to wait an hour or two.
p

At 05:30 PM 3/11/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Paul:
>
>I think you could make a pretty convincing argument to the jury that a  
>23% rate of error equals reasonable doubt (that means that the officer  
>is misreading the results of the test in almost 1/4 of the people he  
>examines - that is REALLY bad) - I didn't see the show and don't know  
>the facts but assume that the officer didn't do any other field  
>sobriety tests (or that the results were successfully attacked) and  
>that Mr. Rolloff refused the breathalyzer and that, by the time the  
>officer got a warrant that the blood alcohol reading was pretty low.
>
>On those facts, the prosecutions best argument would be the HGN  
>results since they would be indicative of intoxication at a point of  
>time relatively close to when Mr. Rolloff was observed driving.  A  
>finding of: nystagmus x3 or x4, each way, in both eyes - in a simple  
>"pen follow" test is generally a pretty solid indicator of a BAC > .01  
>and most officers rate in the 95%+ range in terms of correct  
>identification of intoxication based upon HGN.
>
>As I had stated, the eventual blood tests while conclusive as to  
>actual alcohol concentration are VERY attackable when it comes to any  
>kind of retrograde analysis.  If it had been, and it typically takes,  
>2-3 hours since Mr. Rolloff was behind the wheel,  it would have been  
>easy to find an expert who was be able to interpret the results to  
>indicate that it was possible that the actual BAC was within the legal  
>range at the time the motor vehicle was operated.
>
>There may also be issues with the FSTs because of Mr. Rolloff's  
>physical attributes - I don't know how well he could do the finger to  
>nose, balance , or walk and turn tests sober. Even if he is perfectly  
>capable,  an attorney could probably still argue that the police  
>officer misinterpreted Mr. Rolloff's performance because of his  
>disability, rather than as a sign of intoxication.
>
>So, without a close-in-time blood alcohol reading, and without any  
>meaningful field sobriety tests, HGN would be the dice roll and if the  
>officer had a 23% failure rate I would probably vote reasonable doubt.
>
>Scottie
>
>
>On Mar 11, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:
>
>> Scottie, thanks for all that ink...but what confused me was not
>> opinion about doubt...but a hard number -  77% - which he seemed
>> to hang the verdict on.
>>
>> Judge said "...the arresting officers accuracy rate of administering
>> the (eye) test was 77% "   How does that number decide reasonable  
>> doubt?
>>
>>
>> Color me confused.
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> 1980  308 GTBi  red/tan
>> Ferrari 308 Wiring Diagrams at
>> http://www.paul-bennett.com/Images/Wiring.htm
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
>> http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/ferrarisimo%40comcast.net
>>
>> Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper
>> http://www.BidNip.com/
>> and F1 Headlines
>> http://www.F1Headlines.com/
>
>