DUILawDefense Blog » The Science of DUI

You want to SuperSize that Breath Test, Sir?

admin — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:19:47 +0000

By Kim Smith

ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.14.2009

Drunken drivers with the late-night munchies soon could get more than just a burger and fries at the drive-through window.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department’s new anti-drunken driving campaign — called Operation Would U Like Fries, or Operation WULF — hopes to put undercover deputies inside 24-hour fast-food restaurants to spot impaired drivers placing their orders, said Sgt. Doug Hanna, DUI unit supervisor.

If deputies notice someone with any of the classic symptoms of impairment — slurred speech, red or watery eyes, beer breath — they will radio a uniformed deputy stationed just outside, Hanna said.

The second deputy will then pull over the driver and, if field tests confirm what the officer at the drive-through suspected, arrest him or her for driving under the influence.

“The idea is to get them before they get back on the road,” Hanna said.

Bankrolling the intermittent program will be a $128,000 grant the Sheriff’s Department received from the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety for fiscal year 2008-2009, Hanna said. The grant also funds sobriety checkpoints and other anti-drunken driving programs.

Hanna said several local franchise owners and managers are interested in participating in the program, but are waiting for corporate approval. Once they get it, Hanna anticipates Operation WULF would take place every quarter or so.

Tucsonan Carlos Sanchez said he thinks the idea makes a lot of sense, since it’s a popular belief that people under the influence of drugs and alcohol often get hungry while partying.

“It’s just another way to get drunk drivers off the street,” Sanchez said.

Pamela Andrews, another local resident, has mixed feelings.

“I think it’s a good idea, but then again, isn’t it entrapment?” Andrews said. “I’d say do it anyway, though. I’d rather know the kids are safe out there — the ones who aren’t drinking, but are behind the wheel.”

Local defense attorneys and at least two local restaurateurs, were appalled at the idea.

“I have no love for drunk drivers, and I want them off the road, but this is too much like Big Brother,” said Tom O’Connor, owner of Tucson’s 21 Eegee’s.

Watching for impaired drivers from a parking lot is one thing; “fishing” for them from inside a business is another, O’Connor said.

Mike Herndon, who owns seven local Burger Kings, also was opposed.

Defense attorneys Joseph St. Louis, Michael Bloom and Brick Storts all questioned the allocation of resources in these economic times and the legality of such a program.

For example, alcohol on the breath doesn’t mean someone is impaired, Storts said.

St. Louis said law enforcement agencies spend a lot of money training officers to spot impaired drivers — and now those officers will be stuck behind a drive-through window.

“I’ve been practicing law 21 years, and I’ve done in excess of 200 DUI cases, and I can think of one that occurred at a fast-food restaurant,” St. Louis said.

But he did see one upside: “I can’t wait to challenge the first one in court.”

Bloom isn’t sure undercover deputies will have enough time to develop the “probable cause” needed to pull over drivers.

“The deputies will claim the program will deter drinking and driving, but once the word is out, all they are going to do is deter drunk drivers from going through the drive-through. … Project WULF is not going to reduce people’s blood alcohol levels, but it might reduce their cholesterol levels.”

Critics of the program have their own ideas for addressing the problem of drunken driving. Storts suggested more roadblocks. St. Louis advocates dashboard cameras that would provide evidence against impaired drivers while also protecting deputies from allegations of excessive force and other inappropriate behavior.

Local resident Debbie Ammons said she’d rather see grant money used to fund the school resource officer program, which has experienced cutbacks lately.

DUI unit supervisor Hanna said Operation WULF is just another tool for law enforcement agencies to use in battling drunken driving. The more deputies out in the community — whether they are at checkpoints, on the roads, in liquor-serving establishments or at drive-through windows — the more likely the message will get out.

“Hopefully, people will start getting the message, ‘Don’t drive impaired,’ ” he said.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were the first ones to come up with the drive-through concept, Hanna said. He learned about their program, Operation WULF, while attending a MADD conference in Dallas.

The sergeant pointed out that former University of Arizona quarterback Willie Tuitama was cited for extreme DUI after McDonald’s employees alerted a Tucson police officer that they suspected he was impaired, Hanna said. Tuitama was placed on 12 months of unsupervised probation last week after pleading guilty to misdemeanor DUI.

“Lots of time we get information from people working the drive-through,” Hanna said. “They’ll say, ‘I wish you’d been here five minutes ago because we had someone who was really smashed just come through.’ “

Slurred Speech

admin — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:41:11 +0000

As with the odor of alcohol on the breath, few police reports will fail to include an observation by the arresting officer that the arrestee exhibited â€œslurred speechâ€.Â The officer fully expects to hear slurred speech in a person he suspects is intoxicated, particularly after smelling alcohol on the breath, and it is a psychological fact that we tend to â€œhearâ€ what we expect to hear. And hearing it supplies the officer with corroboration of his suspicions.

Even assuming the honesty of the officer that the defendantâ€™s speech was slurred, there is little evidence that this is symptomatic of intoxication. Impairment of speech is, for example, a common â€” and sober â€” reaction to the stress, fear and nervousness that a police investigation would be expected to engender.Â Fatigue is another well-known cause.

Skeptical?Â Consider the following excerpt from Discover magazine (Saunders, â€œNews of Science, Medicine and Technology: Straight Talkâ€, 21(1) Discover (Oct. 2000).

Bartenders, police officers and hospital workers routinely identify drunks by their slurred speech. Several investigative groups judged the captain of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker to be intoxicated based solely on the sound of his voice in his radio transmissions. But a team led by Harry Holien, a phonetician at the University of Florida, has found that even self-proclaimed experts are pretty bad at estimating peopleâ€™s alcohol levels by the way they talk.

Hollien asked clinicians who treat chemical dependency, along with a group of everyday people, to listen to recordings made by volunteers when they were sober, then mildly intoxicated, legally impaired, and finally, completely smashed. Listeners consistently overestimated the drunkeness of mildly intoxicated subjects. Conversely, they underestimated the alcohol levels of those who were most inebriated. Professionals were little better at perceiving the truth than the ordinary Joesâ€¦.

Visit our website for more information about how we defend Miami DUI cases.Â www.duilawdefense.com

How Breath Machines Work

admin — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:21:58 +0000

Did you ever wonder how breathalyzers work? There is a website which will give you a pretty fair idea.

There are many different kinds of â€œbreathalyzersâ€ or breath testing devices. The first of the modern breath testers, manufactured by Smith and Wesson many years ago was called the Breathalyzer.

When I was a young prosecutor we used to call the Smith and Wesson 900A the “Dial-a-Drunk” because the machine’s dial was able to be manipulated by the operator.

Since then, various manufacturers have recognized the growing market and come out with their own models, bearing such names as Intoxilyzer, Intoximeter, DataMaster, AlcoSensor, Alcotest and so on; most of these products have been produced in different model versions, such as the Intoxilyer 4011, 5000 and 8000.

To deal with the confusion, the term â€œbreathalyzerâ€ came to be used as a generic term for any breath testing instrument.

Most of these are evidentiary machines â€” that is, larger machines generally kept at the police station whose test results are used in evidence. Others are smaller, handheld units carried by officers in the field; generally called PBTs (preliminary breath tests) or PAS (preliminary alcohol screedning). These are less accurate and are usually used as a field sobriety test to help determine whether to arrest a suspect.

The original Breathalyzer operated using a wet chemical method of analysis, employing a disposable glass ampoule of chemicals. Although still occasionally found in law enforcement, this relatively primitive technology was replaced in later machines by infrared spectroscopy, gas chromatography or, mainly in handheld units, fuel cell analysis; a couple of the more recent machines use a combination of infrared and fuel cell.

Here is a great website explaining how these different types of machines work:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm

For more information visit our website at www.duilawdefense.com