789
Woman in ad who said a Democrat endangers kids pleaded guilty to endangering kids (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 86 points 4 days ago (17 children)

The responding officer said he spoke to her after spotting her parked in grass on the side of a highway, that her speech was very slurred and she “appeared to have difficulty comprehending” questions, according to an affidavit included in court filings. A preliminary breath test displayed a .254 blood alcohol content, three times the .08 legal limit for driving, and a test taken at the jail displayed a .192 level, the affidavit says.

Holy shit!

Just so we're clear about whether this is one of those things that was technically a violation but not actually "that" bad... no, this really was that bad. .254 and delirious on the side of the road!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 45 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    .254 isn't just getting a little carried away. That's three bottles of wine or a whole bottle of hard liquor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Some people have different genes to process alcohol, clearly she is not one to have these genes. And that's why there's limits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    But also, holy shit what a discrepancy in readings. They are off by .06, which is almost the legal limit. Wtf.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    It's not a discrepancy, alcohol is processed over time. It's her body working through the stuff in the ~30 mins or so that it presumably took to get to booking her. Yeah we can assume the levels aren't 100% accurate but this tech is decades old so probably pretty close. There are many problems with policing; imo this isn't one of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Once the cops have someone on a DUI pulled over, its probably a relief to see them blow something so high because they know they have enough time to get to the precinct for further tests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I mean sure but not that much, afaik the tests at the scene (for BAC, not the subjective tests) are pretty solid as far as evidence goes. In this case it probably mattered even less, blowing a .25 equates to looking pretty fucking smashed for most people so the test is basically just checking a box lmao

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    No the roadside tests are bad. They’re not very accurate, which is why you should always refuse to give one roadside. Wait until you’re at the police station.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    I would say you're mostly right. The margin of error is bigger than I thought it would be, after checking myself here. Also some states do equip their state patrol with vehicle-portable devices that are not the handheld. Depending on where someone is, they might not get a choice to take it at the station instead (that seems to vary quite a bit by jurisdiction just at a cursory glance). But ultimately I support the philosophy of giving cops as little ammunition as possible. Just make sure you can actually do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    On top of the body processing some of the alcohol in the time between the field test and the final test, the field test is usually not accurate enough to be accepted by the court for conviction. It's just one piece of the probable cause used to arrest a suspect and bring them to the police station or jail where the larger, more accurate machine can get a result that's usable at trial.

    It's important the the test field test be fairly accurate right around the legal limit. At much higher numbers, it's fine for it to be pretty far off because the suspect is definitely getting arrested at that point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    I could imagine they tune that field test to err high so they can have probable cause. If it isn't accepted as proof anyway, why make it highly accurate. I guess the people who say never agree to a breathalyzer test during a traffic stop are probably right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent