Monday, March 26, 2007

Online Blood Alcohol Calculators


There are a number of blood alcohol calculators available online.

They include "The Police Notebook" from the University of Oklahoma Police Department, "The Drink Wheel" by Intoximeters Inc., and Ron Jourard's Impaired Driving Defence Calculator.

They all claim to be accurate, but will arrive at different results based on the same inputs. Rely on them at your own risk!

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Questions About the Ignition Interlock


The introduction of the ignition interlock, announced in a 2006 ICBC press release, may or may not be a good thing for BC drivers. It will definitely be a good thing for the manufacturer, who will make a generous profit through its monopoly on servicing the devices.

Will it make our roads safer? They don't think so in California: a recent report by the state's Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the ignition interlock increased the risk of a motor vehicle accident.

If that's the case, can you tell me again why we are doing it here in BC?

Monday, March 12, 2007

Fooling the Breathalyzer

A common myth is that breath testers can be "fooled" (that is, made to generate estimates making one's blood alcohol content appear lower) by using certain substances. An episode of the Discovery Channel's MythBusters tested substances usually connected to this practice -- including breath mints, mouthwash, and onions -- and found them to be ineffective. Adding an odor to mask the smell of alcohol might fool a person, but does not change the actual alcohol concentration in the body or on the breath. Interestingly, substances that might actually reduce the BAC reading were not tested on the show. These include a bag of activated charcoal concealed in the mouth (to absorb alcohol vapor), an oxidizing gas (such as N2O, Cl2, and O3 etc.) which would fool a fuel cell type detector, or an organic interferent to fool an infra-red absorption detector. The infra-red absorption detector is especially vulnerable to countermeasures, since it only makes measurements at particular discrete wavelengths rather than producing a continuous absorption spectrum as a laboratory instrument would do.

On the other hand, products such as mouthwash or breath spray can "fool" breath machines by significantly raising test results. Listerine, for example, contains 27% alcohol; because the breath machine will assume the alcohol is coming from alcohol in the blood diffusing into the lung rather than directly from the mouth, it will apply a "partition ratio" of 2100:1 in computing blood alcohol concentration -- resulting in a false high test reading. To counter this, officers are not supposed to administer a screening device for 15 minutes after the subject eats, vomits, or put anything in their mouth.

This was clearly illustrated in a study conducted with Listerine mouthwash on a breath machine and reported in an article entitled "Field Sobriety Testing: Intoxilyzers and Listerine Antiseptic", published in the July 1985 issue of The Police Chief (page 70). Seven individuals were tested at a police station, with readings of .00%. Each then rinsed his mouth with 20 milliliters of Listerine mouthwash for 30 seconds in accordance with directions on the label. All seven were then tested on the machine at intervals of one, three, five and ten minutes.

The results indicated an average reading of .43% blood-alcohol concentration -- indicating a level that, if accurate, approaches lethal proportions. After three minutes, the average level was still .20%, despite the absence of any alcohol in the system. Even after five minutes, the average level was .11% -- well over the legal limit.

In another study, reported in 8 (22) Drinking/Driving Law Letter 1, a scientist tested the effects of Binaca breath spray on an Intoxilyzer 5000. He performed 23 tests with subjects who sprayed their throats, and obtained readings as high as .81% -- far beyond lethal levels. The scientist also noted that the effects of the spray did not fall below detectable levels until after 18 minutes.

Monday, March 5, 2007

Memories - How good are they, really?

I've done hundreds of impaired driving trials, but I've only testified in one. That experience left me with a deep skepticism about any witness who claims to remember exactly the details of an investigation many months in the past.

About 15 years ago, when I was a law student in Victoria, I was offered a chance to ride along with a police constable in Esquimalt on a night shift. The officer was a pretty good guy, and I got to watch him do two impaired driving investigations. The first one was memorable - we pulled around the corner in time to see a guy squatting beside his car, trying to change a flat tire. When he saw the police cruiser, he lost his balance and fell over flat on his back. He was arrested and taken back to the detachment, and then we went to back out on the road. The second investigation was boring by comparison. All I remember is a van that was stopped at the side of the road.

I wrote a statement for the police on each of the investigations, and then went home. I had school the next day.

Many months later, I received a subpoena for court. I went down to the Crown Counsel's office on the day of the trial, and I met the prosecutor for my pre-trial interview. He gave me a statement that was in my handwriting, and had a signature which that looked like mine, but I couldn't remember any of the things that the statement talked about. I thought I was coming to court to testify about the guy who fell over on his back, but the statement was something about a van at the side of the road. I told the prosecutor that it looked like my handwriting, and it was definitely my signature, but that even though I had no doubt that what I had written was accurate, I simply couldn't remember it without reading it from the page.

Jump forward 15 years, and I am cross-examining police officers every day who have conducted hundreds of similar investigations. Many come to court months after an investigation was concluded, and testify about detailed recollections of the event. I am always amazed - do these witnesses have exceptional memories, or are they sticking to a script?

Welcome to the DUI Centre

We've posted the first video on the DUI Centre site. Here it is: