Distraction is anything that diverts the driver’s attention from the primary tasks of navigating the vehicle and responding to critical events.

To put it another way, a distraction is anything that takes your eyes off the road (visual distraction), your mind off the road (cognitive distraction), or your hands off the wheel (manual distraction). So when you think about tasks that can be a driving distraction, you can see that they often fit into more than one category: eating is visual and manual, whereas using a navigation system is all three.

There are two basic components of the distraction safety problem: The attentional demands of the distracting task and the frequency with which drivers choose to multitask. Task demands relate to the amount of resources (visual, cognitive, manual) required to perform the task. The other issue is exposure, which is how often drivers engage in the task. Putting those two concepts together, even an easy task can be a bigger safety problem if the person does the task 50% of their driving time.

Current and previous NHTSA research investigates how distraction impacts driver performance, and develops and evaluated vehicle-based countermeasures to minimize the negative effects.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2009/811231.pdf

DUI Laws

The Past: The original laws simply outlawed driving while impaired.

With the arrival of primitive breathalyzers, and the counsel of the American Medical Association, impairment was presumed with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15%. Over the years this was dropped to .10%, then .08%, and finally the laws were added making the BAC — not impairment — the offense. There are now bills before state legislatures to drop it to .05%. So-called “zero tolerance” made it a crime for drivers under 21 to have even .01% BAC.

The Trend: From focusing on actual impairment, to facilitating arrests and convictions by focusing on artificial BAC levels — and, finally, to the mere presence of alcohol. The emphasis has shifted from addressing the danger (impaired drivers) to facilitating arrests and convictions.

The Future: The “zero tolerance” laws will be applied to drivers of all ages. Criminal liability will be expanded to include attempted drunk driving (regardless of lack of specific intent), as well as vicarious liability: accomplices (“aiding and abetting”), conspiracy and so-called “Dram Shop Act” liability (providing a drink to someone who may drive).

Evidence

The Past: Originally, the arresting officer gave his opinion of impairment based upon his observations of driving and symptoms, as well as field sobriety tests. The emphasis shifted to increasingly sophisticated breathalyzers and to blood tests administered by nurses or technicians. However, portable and hand held breath testing devices have more recently been used at the scene to determine probable cause to arrest; the later test on a more sophisticated breathalyzer at the station continues to be used as evidence in court. Some courts are beginning to accept the portable units into evidence.

The Trend: An increasing emphasis on money and expediency rather than accuracy and reliability.

The Future: Evidentiary breathalyzers will be replaced with simpler, cheaper (and less accurate) hand held units at the scene of arrest. Blood samples will be obtained by the officer with his syringe at the scene. Saliva tests may gain acceptance.

Constitutional Rights

The Past: There has been a parade of adverse Supreme Court decisions and a steady erosion of constitutional rights in drunk driving cases — what I have called “The DUI Exception to the Constitution”. These have included approval of sobriety roadblocks (Sitz v. Michigan); double jeopardy (immediate license suspensions followed by criminal prosecutions); right to counsel; self-incrimination (Neville v. South Dakota); presumptions of innocence (if .08%, then presumed under the influence; if test taken within 3 hours of driving, BAC presumed to be same as when driving); confrontation; jury trial (Blanton v. North Las Vegas); etc.

The Trend: From the protection of the citizen from police violations, to the protection of the police from legal interference.

The Future: Increasing loss of constitutional protection — notably, the complete loss of the right to a jury trial. With the clear focus on cost and expediency, DUI cases will be handled in an administrative setting as license suspensions currently are: the two procedures will simply be consolidated, although criminal penalties will remain. There may be no judge, but only an administrative hearing officer.

Federal Presence

The Past: DUI laws have always been a state-prescribed crime. With the prompting of special interest groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and the desire of politicians to curry favor with voters, this has gradually changed. Using a “carrot and stick” approach with highway funds, the federal government has forced states to change their laws and penalties in such ways as: “per se” laws; .08% BAC; “zero tolerance” for drivers under 21; automatic license suspensions; standardized field sobriety tests; federally approved lists of breath testing machines.

The Trend: The federalizing of a traditionally state offense.

The Future: With the use of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, DUI laws and penalties will become “federalized”. However, without the ability (or inclination) to arrest and prosecute these crimes in the federal courts, the states will be left to continue processing them in their own courts or administrative hearings.

The New Prohibition

The Past: The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was primarily a woman’s movement that ended as a failed experiment. Since then….The BAC levels for DUI have steadily dropped from .15% to .08%, and there are efforts to reduce it further. Drivers under 21 already face .01% — alcohol prohibition as to driving.

The Trend: In 1999, MADD (primarily a woman’s movement) formally changed its mission statement from drunk driving to include “the problem of underage drinking” (not underage drinking and driving). The “problem” of drinking at all is on the horizon.

The Future: The movement will again fail, this time without obtaining a constitutional amendment. This country needs alcohol and drugs too much.

BY JEANNINE KORANDA
SOURCE: The Wichita (KS) Eagle, Topeka Bureau

The Legislature should not back away from requiring ignition interlock systems for first-time drunken drivers, Mothers Against Drunk Driving said Monday.

That requirement was stripped by a conference committee Friday from a bill approved earlier in the week by a unanimous House.

MADD urged the House to reject the change.

“Lawmakers should do everything possible to reduce drunk driving and save lives,” said Frank Harris, state legislative affairs manager for MADD on Monday.

But Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, who chairs the Kansas DUI Commission, urged patience.

The commission, established last year, has undertaken a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s DUI laws and is expected to propose a package of changes next year. Wait for that instead of tinkering with small changes now, Owens said.

“To do all these little piecemeal changes is exactly the problem we have had in getting our DUI law the way it is right now,” he said. “I’ve requested we not have all of those little changes made. Even though they might be good, they aren’t ready for the comprehensive bill.”

Currently, interlock devices are required for drivers who are convicted of a second drunken-driving offense, who refuse a Breathalyzer test or who are caught with a 0.15 blood alcohol level — almost twice the legal limit of 0.08.

The interlock devices won’t allow the car to start if the driver’s blood alcohol level is half the legal limit or greater. The driver’s levels also are randomly tested while the car is moving. The devices cost $50 to $70 for installation and $65 to $75 a month in fees after that.

The bill had proposed that first-time offenders use an ignition interlock device for one year and that subsequent offenses trigger an increase in the number of years the devices must be used.

Requiring ignition interlock systems for first-time drunken driving convictions could reduce drunken driving fatalities by 30 percent and decrease the number of people with multiple drunken driving convictions, Harris said.

Twelve states, including Nebraska and Colorado, require ignition interlock devices for those convicted of a first drunken driving offense.

Requirements for ignition interlocks are part of the commission’s discussion, Owens said, but the final details might not be the same as the House’s proposal.

Lawmakers created the commission in 2009 shortly after the Kansas Substance Abuse Policy Board concluded that the state’s DUI laws were so complex and dysfunctional that the system needed a complete overhaul.

The commission came six months after Claudia Mijares and her 4-year-old daughter, Gisele, were killed by a drunken driver while walking across the street to a Wichita school.

Gary Hammitt had four DUI convictions, but still had a valid driver’s license. He pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and was sentenced to nearly 40 years in prison.

Harris said there might not be much harm in waiting an additional six months for the commission to propose its changes, “but the longer they wait, the longer the people of Kansas are not afforded a basic protection.”

He noted that Kansas was one of the few states to see an increase in drunken driving fatalities in 2009, when the numbers decreased nationally.

A report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that Kansas’ overall fatality rate dropped from 1.38 to 1.30 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. But the number of alcohol-related deaths rose from 0.36 to 0.49 per 100 million miles traveled.

Kansas’ 36.1 percent year-to-year increase was second only to the 40.0 percent jump recorded in New Hampshire.

“We are stubborn on this for all the right reasons, and we just want to see whatever can be done now to save lives,” Harris said.
***************************************************
To see how the device operates…..
Watch the Video HERE

More than 400 defense DUI motions were denied by a panel of seven judges who ruled that sobriety testing devices used were in fact federally approved ones, according to the State Attorney’s Office on Monday.

This was the third unsuccessful challenge to the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath instrument since 2005. The cases of defendants, who were looking to suppress breath test results and have their DUI cases tossed, will now proceed through the court system.

“The court, in seven county judges’ orders, reaffirmed the long-standing law enforcement practice of using the Intoxilyzer 8000 as a tool to measure alcohol in a driver’s blood,” said State Attorney Michael McAuliffe in a statement. “This tool is used to ensure the safety of those on the roads in Palm Beach County.”

The judges unanimously ruled that evidence determined that the Intoxilyzer was properly tested by the Department of Transportation and has been a “conforming product” since 2002.

In Florida, the alcohol-screening device has been in use since 2006.

Defendants also said officers who inspected and maintained the machines intentionally destroyed evidence of failed inspections by unplugging the Intoxilyzers when it looked as if they wouldn’t pass. These tests ensure the machines’ accuracy.

But the judges ruled that evidence was not established to show Intoxilyzer inspectors “intentionally and maliciously destroyed” failed inspection results.

Lead defense attorney in the case, Ira Karmelin, said he respected the judges’ ruling, but found the burden placed on defendants to be challenging.

“It’s an extremely high and difficult burden … You’re trying to prove a negative,” he said.

Contact us for a free consultation.

SOURCE

SHERIDAN, Wyo. (AP) – Mayor Dave Kinskey passed a sobriety test after a phoned-in tip that said he may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. After he was pulled over Saturday night and passed the field sobriety test, Kinskey had his attorney drive him to a hospital, where he had a blood-alcohol test at his own expense. The test showed that his blood-alcohol level was 0.02 percent, according to Police Chief Mike Card…. City Councilwoman Kathy Kennedy said she was with Kinskey at a motorcycle rally Saturday and saw him drink two beers over two hours. ‘’To me this is just a smear campaign to try to get at him due to politics. I think it is pretty bad when an off-duty city employee calls in to smear the mayor by saying he was intoxicated when he wasn’t,’’ Kennedy said.

New York City, March 8, 2010-All of the 55 NYPD cops charged with drunk driving since 1999 pleaded down to non-felony charges and almost every single one of them remained on the force. Although the NYPD can fire any cop “who causes serious physical injury to another person while operating a motor vehicle and is determined to be unfit for duty due to the consumption of alcohol,” a Daily News investigation reveals that officers accused of drunk driving often keep their jobs after pleading guilty to lesser offenses like driving while impaired or disorderly conduct.

An NYPD spokesman said officers convicted of felonies are automatically fired, but those who plead down or are convicted of misdemeanors can be punished with suspension, loss of vacation days, alcohol counseling, and probation. Several cops have been accused of drunk driving in recent months, including Officer Andrew Kelly, who hit and killed a preacher’s daughter, Detective Kevin Spellman, who hit and killed a Bronx grandmother, and other cops who crashed into a Tiffany’s store and struck a parked car.

Some cops accused of drunk driving, like Officer Donald Haines, say they’re lucky they’re still on the force. Haines—who joined the NYPD although he had pleaded guilty to driving impaired in 1998—was charged with drunk driving for jumping a curb in Long Island in 2007. After refusing to take a sobriety test and a chemical test, he pleaded guilty to another count of driving while impaired and was ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay a $1,000 fine. “All I can say is, I still have my job and I’m very grateful,” he said.

Others, like retired detective Daniel Massanova, were unrepentant. Five years before retiring with a pension in January, Massanova pleaded guilty to driving impaired after swerving into oncoming traffic and colliding with another car, injuring two women. He refused a Breathalyzer at the scene and was later found to have a blood alcohol level of .11. “Two girls hit me. … They weren’t two old ladies coming home from BINGO, you know what I mean? They were out drinking and drugging,” he said. “If I was such a bad guy, why did I work the last 2-1/2 years in the chief of detectives office unsupervised and alone?” he asked. “I had a couple beers in me and I’m the bad guy because I’m a cop.

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES

Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

View Entire Chapter

316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.–

(1)(a)1.a. Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The chemical or physical breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The administration of a breath test does not preclude the administration of another type of test. The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties. The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.

b. Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to a urine test for the purpose of detecting the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or controlled substances if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. The urine test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. The urine test shall be administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such test in a reasonable manner that will ensure the accuracy of the specimen and maintain the privacy of the individual involved. The administration of a urine test does not preclude the administration of another type of test. The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her urine will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for the first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her urine and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties. The refusal to submit to a urine test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.

2. The Alcohol Testing Program within the Department of Law Enforcement is responsible for the regulation of the operation, inspection, and registration of breath test instruments utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The program is responsible for the regulation of the individuals who operate, inspect, and instruct on the breath test instruments utilized in the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The program is further responsible for the regulation of blood analysts who conduct blood testing to be utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The program shall:

a. Establish uniform criteria for the issuance of permits to breath test operators, agency inspectors, instructors, blood analysts, and instruments.

b. Have the authority to permit breath test operators, agency inspectors, instructors, blood analysts, and instruments.

c. Have the authority to discipline and suspend, revoke, or renew the permits of breath test operators, agency inspectors, instructors, blood analysts, and instruments.

d. Establish uniform requirements for instruction and curricula for the operation and inspection of approved instruments.

e. Have the authority to specify one approved curriculum for the operation and inspection of approved instruments.

f. Establish a procedure for the approval of breath test operator and agency inspector classes.

g. Have the authority to approve or disapprove breath test instruments and accompanying paraphernalia for use pursuant to the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327.

h. With the approval of the executive director of the Department of Law Enforcement, make and enter into contracts and agreements with other agencies, organizations, associations, corporations, individuals, or federal agencies as are necessary, expedient, or incidental to the performance of duties.

i. Issue final orders which include findings of fact and conclusions of law and which constitute final agency action for the purpose of chapter 120.

j. Enforce compliance with the provisions of this section through civil or administrative proceedings.

k. Make recommendations concerning any matter within the purview of this section, this chapter, chapter 322, or chapter 327.

l. Promulgate rules for the administration and implementation of this section, including definitions of terms.

m. Consult and cooperate with other entities for the purpose of implementing the mandates of this section.

n. Have the authority to approve the type of blood test utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327.

o. Have the authority to specify techniques and methods for breath alcohol testing and blood testing utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327.

p. Have the authority to approve repair facilities for the approved breath test instruments, including the authority to set criteria for approval.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede provisions in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The specifications in this section are derived from the power and authority previously and currently possessed by the Department of Law Enforcement and are enumerated to conform with the mandates of chapter 99-379, Laws of Florida.

(b)1. The blood-alcohol level must be based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. The breath-alcohol level must be based upon grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

2. An analysis of a person’s breath, in order to be considered valid under this section, must have been performed substantially according to methods approved by the Department of Law Enforcement. For this purpose, the department may approve satisfactory techniques or methods. Any insubstantial differences between approved techniques and actual testing procedures in any individual case do not render the test or test results invalid.

(c) Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided in this section if there is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. As used in this paragraph, the term “other medical facility” includes an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition is deemed not to have withdrawn his or her consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not the person is told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor. Any person who is capable of refusal shall be told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of the person has been suspended previously as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor. The refusal to submit to a blood test upon the request of a law enforcement officer is admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding.

(d) If the arresting officer does not request a chemical or physical breath test of the person arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances, such person may request the arresting officer to have a chemical or physical test made of the arrested person’s breath or a test of the urine or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the person’s blood or breath or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances; and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.

(e)1. By applying for a driver’s license and by accepting and using a driver’s license, the person holding the driver’s license is deemed to have expressed his or her consent to the provisions of this section.

2. A nonresident or any other person driving in a status exempt from the requirements of the driver’s license law, by his or her act of driving in such exempt status, is deemed to have expressed his or her consent to the provisions of this section.

3. A warning of the consent provision of this section shall be printed on each new or renewed driver’s license.

(f)1. The tests determining the weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood or breath shall be administered at the request of a law enforcement officer substantially in accordance with rules of the Department of Law Enforcement. Such rules must specify precisely the test or tests that are approved by the Department of Law Enforcement for reliability of result and ease of administration, and must provide an approved method of administration which must be followed in all such tests given under this section. However, the failure of a law enforcement officer to request the withdrawal of blood does not affect the admissibility of a test of blood withdrawn for medical purposes.

2.a. Only a physician, certified paramedic, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood, or duly licensed clinical laboratory director, supervisor, technologist, or technician, acting at the request of a law enforcement officer, may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining its alcoholic content or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances therein. However, the failure of a law enforcement officer to request the withdrawal of blood does not affect the admissibility of a test of blood withdrawn for medical purposes.

b. Notwithstanding any provision of law pertaining to the confidentiality of hospital records or other medical records, if a health care provider, who is providing medical care in a health care facility to a person injured in a motor vehicle crash, becomes aware, as a result of any blood test performed in the course of that medical treatment, that the person’s blood-alcohol level meets or exceeds the blood-alcohol level specified in s. 316.193(1)(b), the health care provider may notify any law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency. Any such notice must be given within a reasonable time after the health care provider receives the test result. Any such notice shall be used only for the purpose of providing the law enforcement officer with reasonable cause to request the withdrawal of a blood sample pursuant to this section.

c. The notice shall consist only of the name of the person being treated, the name of the person who drew the blood, the blood-alcohol level indicated by the test, and the date and time of the administration of the test.

d. Nothing contained in s. 395.3025(4), s. 456.057, or any applicable practice act affects the authority to provide notice under this section, and the health care provider is not considered to have breached any duty owed to the person under s. 395.3025(4), s. 456.057, or any applicable practice act by providing notice or failing to provide notice. It shall not be a breach of any ethical, moral, or legal duty for a health care provider to provide notice or fail to provide notice.

e. A civil, criminal, or administrative action may not be brought against any person or health care provider participating in good faith in the provision of notice or failure to provide notice as provided in this section. Any person or health care provider participating in the provision of notice or failure to provide notice as provided in this section shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability and from any professional disciplinary action with respect to the provision of notice or failure to provide notice under this section. Any such participant has the same immunity with respect to participating in any judicial proceedings resulting from the notice or failure to provide notice.

3. The person tested may, at his or her own expense, have a physician, registered nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood, or duly licensed clinical laboratory director, supervisor, technologist, or technician, or other person of his or her own choosing administer an independent test in addition to the test administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer for the purpose of determining the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood or breath or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances at the time alleged, as shown by chemical analysis of his or her blood or urine, or by chemical or physical test of his or her breath. The failure or inability to obtain an independent test by a person does not preclude the admissibility in evidence of the test taken at the direction of the law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer shall not interfere with the person’s opportunity to obtain the independent test and shall provide the person with timely telephone access to secure the test, but the burden is on the person to arrange and secure the test at the person’s own expense.

4. Upon the request of the person tested, full information concerning the results of the test taken at the direction of the law enforcement officer shall be made available to the person or his or her attorney. Full information is limited to the following:

a. The type of test administered and the procedures followed.

b. The time of the collection of the blood or breath sample analyzed.

c. The numerical results of the test indicating the alcohol content of the blood and breath.

d. The type and status of any permit issued by the Department of Law Enforcement which was held by the person who performed the test.

e. If the test was administered by means of a breath testing instrument, the date of performance of the most recent required inspection of such instrument.

Full information does not include manuals, schematics, or software of the instrument used to test the person or any other material that is not in the actual possession of the state. Additionally, full information does not include information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test instrument.

5. A hospital, clinical laboratory, medical clinic, or similar medical institution or physician, certified paramedic, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood, or duly licensed clinical laboratory director, supervisor, technologist, or technician, or other person assisting a law enforcement officer does not incur any civil or criminal liability as a result of the withdrawal or analysis of a blood or urine specimen, or the chemical or physical test of a person’s breath pursuant to accepted medical standards when requested by a law enforcement officer, regardless of whether or not the subject resisted administration of the test.

(2) The results of any test administered pursuant to this section for the purpose of detecting the presence of any controlled substance shall not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution for the possession of a controlled substance.

(3) Notwithstanding any provision of law pertaining to the confidentiality of hospital records or other medical records, information relating to the alcoholic content of the blood or breath or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances in the blood obtained pursuant to this section shall be released to a court, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, or law enforcement officer in connection with an alleged violation of s. 316.193 upon request for such information.

History.–s. 3, ch. 82-155; s. 3, ch. 82-403; s. 1, ch. 83-218; s. 4, ch. 83-228; s. 3, ch. 84-359; s. 2, ch. 86-296; s. 3, ch. 88-5; s. 1, ch. 88-82; s. 2, ch. 91-255; s. 20, ch. 92-58; s. 314, ch. 95-148; s. 4, ch. 96-330; s. 1, ch. 98-27; s. 6, ch. 2000-160; s. 1, ch. 2000-226; s. 2, ch. 2002-263; s. 1, ch. 2003-54; s. 33, ch. 2005-164; s. 1, ch. 2006-247.