The Fries once eaten and in the stomach with the barley and yeast from the beer will go into the blood and out the lungs from the lungs not the mouth! So will the bread to a lessor amount as most is burned off this the holes in the bread from the alcohol..Fries and potatos..those are thee main ones and will keep reading high when other people are zero...you will still be .11BAC on only 4 beers!
The cops are waiting by fast food resturants to see you eat fries..after that ..they got you! They also put a peice of plastic on the temperature sensor and heat the sample to cause turbulance and convection..they alter the parameters of the radio EM anntenna to not pick up the EM from their radio but it still effects the sample..imagine a metal detector..you can turn the knob to not detect..it will report good..even when bad!
I just got a dui jan 29 2011. I ate fries, chicken tenders and bread at 6pm and drank 4 fosters over the next 6~ hours at 2am I got pulled over I should have had a .02BAC but blew a .11BAC..then at the station .11bac..then the next day at 2pm~ .11BAC!!
I think the Fries or potatoes when in the presents of yeast and barley from the beer start to ferment in the stomach thus the high readings that night..and thee next day! The Datamaster. Do this test..one beer..thentest..then one beer with frys..
Why is this so shocking? Bread is made with yeast. Yeast produce ethanol and CO2. Not all of the ethanol cooks out. The instrument is detecting the ethanol in the bread. Big surprise.
Following a proper procedure, it's well known that the instrument underestimates true BAC. I wonder if this software even has the slope detector turned on?
Mr. AverageJoe121 did you watch the video. The guy directing the old guy told him to stop blowing before it showed invalid. Complete the whole test. The pharmacological reasons this happens is way over your head, so I will not even try to explain.The fact is there are safety procedures to stop things like this from happening, ie:20 minte wait period. If this is so shocking,eat some bread, wait 20 minutes,then produce a full breath sample. Joe 121 20 minutes is counting all your fingers and toes
dave07144, watch the video? I made it. You are way in over your head on this one, stop before you show your ass and quit drinking the state KoolAid. Not only do you expose the defecientcies in your critical thinking skills and biased logic, but you show your inability to comprehend what you see. When I told Charles to stop, the breath volume was 1.214 and the BrAC was 0.025. The minimum breath sample required for a "scientifically reliable sample 1.1 liter. This was a valid test.
@AverageJoe121 If you were a breath technician you would no that a 1.1l is not a valid sample it is up to a qualified technician to determine if the sample is vaild. A 1.1L means nothing. Why dont we get together and compare certifications, experience, proper breath tests conducted and lets see how our theors work.
@kandress1985 you are either an idiot or you are extremely uneducated on the Intoxilyzer 8000. The manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 8000, CMI, Inc. states in their brochure that the (3) minimum requirements for a breath sample is: 1.) Blow for at least (1) second, 2.) provide at least 1.1 liter of breath and satisfy the alcohol slope... Now based on your lack of knowledge on this machine I would love to go head to head against you and your 'opinions' in any court on any day. I would crush U!
@AverageJoe121 Actually I am a qualified technician on the Intox 8000c (are you?) Didn't think so, but Im glad you read the brochure...... Maybe if you had the simulator hooked up to the "Instrument" (Thats the proper name, not machine) and you had run a proper breath test sequence, not a single breath test you would have had many error codes. You know nothing about this instrument and I think the overwhelming posts on this blog clearly show that you are wrong. Stop promoting DUI's
dave07144, Your attempt to use BIG words/phrases is a common mistake made by inferior intellect like yours. Where did you get that one? Out of the back of a state training manual for canned answers used to confuse the jurors or support an invalid argument? Your reply was another classic feeble attempt by a state employee to blur the truth and bolster your credibility. Keep it simple- stupid, otherwise you might as well be bent over when trying to make a point or talking to a jury.
Present the facts? FACT: You are either an idiot or you simply lack the necessary critical thinking skills needed to overcome the drunken stupor you are under from drinking the "State KoolAid" all LEO are required to drink. I will type this slow so it sinks in to the void in that brain of yours. This demonstration has nothing to do with the 20 min. wait period. It just demonstrates that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not ethyl-alcohol specific. Of course anyone with 1/2 a brain...
A waste of tasty bread. The instrument detects and accurately measures ethanol. Seemed to work well. But good advice "our stance would be that you really shouldn't drink and drive at all" Perfect. Keep Blowin.
PCAZCANUCK, you must have brain freeze, ehhh. Either that are you are blinded by your bias and lack of "hands on experience" with this piece of junk. The Intoxilyzer is NOT ethanol specific as this video demonstrates, of course a simple minded person such as yourself cannot comprehend that obvious "fact."
I now nominate you for the village idiot of Canada.
Part 3: Law enforcement agencies routinely "book and release" DWI offenders without requiring lock up and/or bond. It is not unusual for DWI offenders to be out of jail inside of 1-2 hours after arrest. Finally: if DWI trial lawyers have PROOF that breath alcohol testing devices don't work, why not hit NHTSA and every State that uses them with a class action lawsuit on behalf of the MILLIONS who have been tested on them? Put up or shut up. This is the best that law schools can produce? Sad.
Your comment, "This is the best that law school can produce" is another glimpse into your simple mindedness. The comment, "if lawyers have proof that alcohol testing devices don't work..." is another reason the scales of justice are tipped in the states favor. How does one expect the scales of lady justice to be even when CMI, Inc only sells the Intoxilyzer to "law enforcement agencies"? If the machines are so accurate why not sell to the defense so we can do independent test? see part 2
#2:If the Intoxilyzers are so accurate, why won't CMI,Inc turn over the source codes? Why does Toby Hall, president of CMI, Inc. disregard a subpoena in AZ and not show up? Every defense attorney in every state that uses this piece of junk is slowly chipping away at the legal concrete wall that has been afforded the state. The FBI thought its bullet fragment science that was used to convict hundreds was "state of the art" only to find out it was really junk science, just like the Intoxilyzer.
Part 2: IR spectrophotometers ARE specific for what they are designed to detect. For a substance to escape detection as an "interferent"; it has to satisfy several criteria that are rarely, if ever, coincident in nature: they have to be a gas at body temperature (98.6F), they have to absorb IR light at the specific frequencies used by the instrument AND at the proper ratio of absorption, they have to be volatile and present in measurable amounts in breath for long periods after exposure.
There many reasons this "experiment" is bogus. Any idiot knows there is alcohol in bread and the chewing simply releases it into the breath. Any idiot who knows anything about breath alcohol testing knows this is a bogus test simply because there is no pre-test deprivation period. Operational checklists never order (allow) the arresting officer to shove slices of bread into the suspect's mouth prior to the test. Slope detectors are not perfect. Lawyers are really stupid. So are their "experts".
Bacbob, your obtuse comment, any idiot knows there is alcohol in bread shows not only your ignorance to basic chemistry but your inability to remain neutral, which discredits your expert witness testimony because of extreme bias and prejudice for the prosecution. What happens to the alcohol in the bread dough? Bread = Yeast + milk or water, sugar and flour and warmth. Yeast plants require moisture, food, and warmth for growth. When growth requirements are satisfied; part I
Part 2. (milk or water, sugar and flour, and warmth) yeast plants grow, producing carbon dioxide gas and alcohol. The yeast coverts the sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide which is then broken down further into pyruvate, which is the carboxylate anion of Pyruvic acid (CH3COCO2H) which is the simplest alpha-keto acid. Pyruvate plays an important role in biochemical processes. The pyruvate then enters the mitochondrion and since the mitochondrion requires oxygen, the pyruvate, see part 3
Part 3. can't be broken down completely in the mitochondrion. Pyruvate builds up in the cell, but now there's a problem because large amounts of pyruvate inhibit the enzymes that break sugar down to pyruvate. If the yeast can't get rid of the pyruvate, the whole chain of reaction grinds to a halt and the cell deosnt get any more energy from food molecules. What happens to the pyruvate? An alternative pathway starts up, in which the three carbon pyruvate is broken down to a two; see part 4
Part 4. carbon alcohol (ethanol) and a one carbon CO2 molecule. The alcohol is secreted from the cell as a waste product. So, the carbon dioxide makes the dough rise and since alcohol has a very low boiling point and evaporation temperature threshold, or in moron lingo, the alcohol evaporates during the baking process. bacbob, I suggest you re-read this out loud 2 or 3 xs and when reading it, put your left hand over your left ear; See part 5.
Part 5. this might be helpful in modifying your behavioral conditioning that currently prohibits your from integrating information and apprehending the truth of facts through logical reasoning, or in other words allowing something intelligent to stay put in your overdrawn bank account of knowledge. And as far as the comment, lawyers are stupid and so are their experts, exposes your inability to have intelligent discourse on complex subjects. see part 6
Part 6: When a person resorts to name calling its always a sign of fatal shortcomings in scholarly discourse and extreme mental weaknesses in debate skills, something you will never see in a true GLADIATOR for justice. Another obtuse statement of yours, "slope detectors are not perfect".... so, tell me again, "Why is it that Intoxilyzer is used to collect evidentiary evidence and any results from that "machine" are supposed to be "scientifically reliable when the slope detector is...???" Enjoy
Oh, and in regards to the private blood draw: Yes, you are right, cops don't have to take them anywhere to get it done. But, the "Average Joe" should know where the nearest hospital is - Unless they are too drunk to remember!
DAGeier, more bias, and BS from a person most likely employed by state tax dollars. Your extreme bias is exposed by your comment, "Unless they are too drunk to remember". Which is preceded by a response that is reflects shortcomings in your critical thinking skills. The comment, "But, the AverageJoe should know where the nearest hospital is" is a beacon into your inept or deficiency in higher academia & Logical Thinking 101. Since you seem to lack basic logical thinking skills, see next post:
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service to one's own, or one's groups' vested
interest. Hence, your comments about knowing where the nearest hospital is located! Im sure younger people going to YBOR city actually know where all the hospitals are located, when in fact most people nowadays cant even remember someones phone without their cell phone. Enjoy
DAGeier, more BS, more incorrect info & once more someone who works for the state exposes not only their bias, but their prejudice for the prosecution. You are either extremely biased or unequivocally under educated in precedent case law. F.Y.I. the Florida courts have consistently ruled that, "The law enforcement officer shall not interfere with the persons opportunity to make a telephone call to arrange a blood test AND to secure that test, see next post;
So in keeping with your BS & apparent bias, I know your SOP would probably be to just put someone who requested an independent blood test in the drunk tank for 8 hrs. This does not show reasonable effort on your part, and if a trial litigator gets a hold of that. Hello suppression of breath test results. Being uneducated about SOP and precedent case law not only shows your a**, or to put it a lil' nicer, shows your persistent bias, but it also keeps drunk drivers on the road.MADD thanks you
I find it amusing that you are accusing others of being bias, full of BS, and lacking knowledge of SOP. We do not use a "drunk tank". They are bonded on the charge of DUI, and released to the care of family or friends in 99 percent of cases. So, again, tell me what prevents the arrested individual from getting his own blood test when the average time from arrest to release is 2.5 hours?
DAGeier, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what state releases a person "suspected" of DUI/DWI in 2.5 hours. I want to have my buddy in the insurance business sell that state a multi-million dollar insurance policy to limit that states liability exposure, and Ill be sure to let MADD know that your state might be releasing people that are still legally impaired.
The state is Illinois. You are going to run and tell MADD? What are you, 10 years old? Nothing in Illinois law prohibits us from releasing an individual who has posted bond to family or friend, as I have previously stated. The vehicle is impounded for no fewer than 12 hours, so they won't be driving, again. Now, I can't continue to beat my head against the wall with you, and as unreasonable as your arguments are, I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you.
DAGeier, I hope you do not try cases like you reply to post, you not only can't remember what you posted, but you lack the forethought to go back and read what you posted so as to not expose a weakness of your discourse preparation. Please tell me again where your previously stated that, "The vehicle is impounded no fewer than 12 hrs, so they would be driving again." What happens when someone blows a 0.140, you release them in 2.5 hrs @(0.095), what stops them from driving a different vehicle?
Nice reasoning, except for a couple of things... The "AverageJoe's" body eliminates alcohol at approximately .015 BAC / Hr. So, at .08, you're looking at over 7 hours to completely rid your body of the alcohol... More than enough time for the great majority of people to bond out. Reverse extrapolation can then prove your BAC at the time of the arrest from there, after a private blood draw.
Average Joe - Anyone who feels as though the Intoxilyzer, Intox EC/IR, or any other breath testing instrument "lied" has the opportunity to go straight to the hospital and get their own blood test after posting bond... Yet, strangely, none of them do... Let me guess... The hospital blood results LIE too! It's a conspiracy!
Wow, now there's an idea I never thought of. Unfortunately when a person is in custody, your "REAL LIFE" opportunity to go straight to the hospital is, well,about as worthless as the paper rule Chp.11D-8 is written on. Why? One VARIABLE thats never a constant. The LEO that is in control of that lil' "legal angle". In my BTO course the FDLE/ATP instructor mentioned that in all his 28 yrs as an LEO, he never, ever had to take anyone to the hospital for a blood test. Guess why? See next post
Why? He explained it like this; Its 3 oclock in the morning and the person you arrested for DUI has just requested a blood test, all you have to do is give them a phone and a phone book, who they going to know who to call at 3 in the morning? With that everyone in the class broke out in laughter, except me! Now I understand why no one is allowed to get a voluntary blood test for DUI. Yeah, maybe it is a conspiracy but not by the AverageJoes, but by some of the persons behind the shinny badge
This appears like the infamous tree clocked by RADAR at 35 mph. What is not told is the RADAR antenna was pointed at the defroster fan the whole time and recorded the speed of it. The camera just happened to be focused on the tree. Food (sorry) for thought.
There is no video showing the consultant the entire time on the screen. What's in the coffee cup. Is he secretly drinking something alcoholic between shots of the Intoxilyzer? No 20 minute period waiting period. Why is he unsteady on his feet at the end after only Wonder Bread. Sorry. 29 years as a cop tells me the video is a set up.
bunkin630: I, we, can do this every time with Wonder Bread, & the next video, I'll make sure YOU can see Mr. Smith the whole time. As to the 29 years as a cop, your opinion Why is he unsteady on his feet at the end after eating only Wonder bread? gives the public an insight to your bias. Where was he unsteady? Thats the same bias that you must use when you ask, no I take that back, you probably order, under the muse of your authority, that a person you pulled over submit to FSTs.
bunkin630: It biased opinions like yours that taint any opinion in regards to passing FSTs because whether the person passes the FSTs or not becomes subjective instead of objective. Your inexperience as to the workings of the Intoxilyzer 8000 is obvious. If as you say he secretly consumed some alcohol that was in the coffee cup why didn't the slope detector pick-up the mouth alcohol? Think before you show your a** or to put it nicer, your lack of knowledge. No set-up here, just the facts
Oh yeah, a couple more thoughts, why after 29years, why aren't you retired? What rank are you? And, why is it that when a LEO post something, they are afraid to mention what LEA they work for? Who do you work for?
Thank you for your service. 2 years from now I can just hear the words, attention everyone this is a public service announcement, "bunkin630 has retired from the FHP, exit Sally Port left...!!!
How about helping me on the next videos? I would sure like an officer with 29 yrs. experience to asist me in making the new videos. You could chew the next piece of Wonder Bread and blow into the Intoxilyzer 8000 and get a BrAC and then do the MA test to see how the slope detector doesn't work, and then tell all your buddies what we already know,the Intoxilyzer is a piece of junk, because coming from a LEO, the public knows they never, ever, lie.... right? Or should we just ask Sandra Veiga?
It's only as good as the operator like any other piece of equipment. Maintained, calibrated, tested. A video won't help you. Too much you don't see. Do the whole test in court. Waiting period, paper trail. Just do it the right way. If it works for you fine. If it doesn't fine. Who is Sandra Veiga anyway?
Bunkin630 your position lacks consideration of 2 controlling variables. 1st. The Intoxilyzer is non-specific for ethyl-alcohol so the 20 minutes observation period is moot because of its "inability" to differentiate between Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and ethyl-alcohol. 2nd The waiting period is BS. Why? The LEO can use any ol start time as the time that the Observation period actually started, the time clock on the Intoxilyzer can be changed, failing test deleted, I could go on & on
Oh yeah, and since you can easily find out my real name, why don't you reveal your real name? (you can e-mail me for privacy) Why did you first post under Drebra907 (who joined YT in 10/2007) and then post under a new name, FLtrooperDRE (who joined YT today on 12-3-2008)?
Funny thing, I just spoke to Charles Smith and he's willing to go head to head with you any day, on DUI, DRE, FSTs traffic citations, probable cause, .. anything. Maybe we can set up a contest or reality show on line to see who is more knowledgeable on Law Enforcement issues. Just e-mail me to set up a date and time... unless that thin blue line is turning yellow.
No thanks, I don't play with dirty people. I don't have to prove myself to anyone. My record speaks for itself. Everybody has an opinion, your Charles Smith is just another person in the mix, the more you pay, the better the answer.
If LEO all did their job correctly and the Intoxilyzer 8000 was an accurate machine all expert witnesses would be out of a job. Just to drive my point home on the difference between a scientific instrument and a machine if the scientific instruments used to determine a DNA sample in a murder case were as inaccurate and had as many operational problems as the Intoxilyzer 8000, no one would get a death sentence. Chew on that donut... DRE
I don't like donuts, they're high in calories. I prefer bagels. I didn't invent the intoxilizer, I just use it. Ever heard of Tharpes equation, one of many things used to determine a DUI or DRE. A breath test is icing on the cake.
TrprDRE, your comment I didn't invent the intoxilizer, I just use it" shows another deficiency in your argument and strengthens my argument. Im sure you remember this breaking news story: FBI's Bullet Lead Analysis Used Flawed Science To Convict Hundreds Of Defendants. Well, look for another 60 minutes special, but this time the headlines will be, THOUSHANDS OF PEOPLE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF DUI BY LEO DELETING FAILING TEST RESULTS AND LEAVING BROKEN INTOXILYZERS ON LINE
This is what FLtrooper DRE posted that I accidently removed by hitting the Remove button.... sensitive wireless mouse:
He is not a DRE, his certification expired 100years ago, when they were still using dial-a-drunk intoxilizers. It is an instrument and not a machine. So what's his history in law enforcement. Most so called experts who go to the dark side after they leave law enforcement usually have skeletons in their closet and did not leave on a good note.
FLTrooperDRE As far as Charles Smiths expertise as a DRE. I will put his testimony up against anyone in the SAO any day. Why? His testimony is always truthful unlike some state employees.FYI: Merriam Webster defines: machine (1): an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner (2): a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task.
The Intoxilyzer is not an instrument, thats what FDLE/ATP & CMI, Inc. want the public to believe and its obvious that you believe that BS. If the Intoxilyzer is really a scientific instrument, why wont CMI. Inc release the source codes or sell me a Florida software Intoxilyzer so I can do independent testing? The Intoxilyzer 8000 is not even warranted for what it does. Since you speak negatively of Mr. Smith I wonder if he destroyed a "probable cause" issue on one of your DUI arrest.
Sounds like you've experienced a DUI arrest and still very angry about it. I suggest getting help for your problem instead of trying to beat the system. Maybe you should speak infront of a M.A.D.D chapter and see what they might think of your so called expert.
Then they can show you a photo of there DEAD loved one that we have to clean up off the street because of a drunk driver. Just for the record, I've never heard of this so called expert until someone sent me this video.
But I would love to go up against him in court, what a joke, fortunately for me I'm good at what I do and my DUI/DRE cases take a plea or plea guilty.
Lastly, your so called expert didn't wait the 20 minute observation period before blowing into the INSTRUMENT, it's not in a secure clean area free of dust. You people are what give us job security, even in this economy. Good luck at what ever you're trying to accomplish.
It's biased uneducated, opinions like yours that clog the bowels of justice TrprDRE. The 20 min. observation period is moot. The point of the video is that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not ethyl-alcohol specific. How many innocent people have been convicted of DUI because this MACHINE reads other atomic footprints as ethyl-alcohol. It's biased opinions like yours that make a joke of the justice system. The SOA chief lab tech in AZ said that bread has alcohol from yeast, now that's a JOKE..!!!
1st. I'm all for arresting people "GUILTY" of DUI, but that's the main problem here, the people who have had 1-2 drinks, the ones that are innocent of "IMPAIRED DRIVING," are also caught in up in the aggressive policing of our roads. If you were to put a rock in a pile for every person harmed by a drunk driver (victim, family members) and I put a rock in a pile for every person (& their family) wrongfully arrested and charged with DUI my pile would be 3x's as big as yours.
TrprDRE your comment, Just for the record, Ive never heard of this so called expert until someone sent me this video would make any reasonably minded person question your integrity because in your first post you stated that,He is not a DRE, his certification expired 100years agodial-a-drunk intoxilizers & my next guess is that you will play spin the badge to come up with this reply, oh that person who sent me the video told me that. Just for the record TrprDRE or Drebra907 r whoever u r.
No I'm angry with the implied consent program, it's a joke and the firing of FDLE/ATP Dept Inspector Sandra Veiga over deleting test results from Intoxilyzers that failed a FDL/ATP Dept inspection is proof of the ineptness in Chp 11D-8 rules & regulations, and the worst part is that the deleting of failing test results also happens on the local level too. There is no check and balance in place account for when the Agency/Dept Inspection takes place, say like a sequential numbering system
to correlate or account for every Log-In captured. Also, why are LEA unwilling to videotape a DUI arrest from the beginning to the end when a person walks out of jail? At the minimum, every Subject Breath Test, every Agency Inspection, every FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspection should be videotaped so no LEO can do a Sandra Veiga and delete a failing test results, thereby sidestepping 11D-8 rules, and intentionally keeping a "machine" on line that does not complies with 11D-8 rules.
5th. Charles Smith did not have "stuff" in his mouth, he simply chewed up a piece of white Wonder Bread into a paste in his mouth, swallowed the paste and then blew into the Intoxilyzer.
6th. It's not an air sample, it's a Breath Sample.
7th. The Intoxilyzer should not have registered an Invalid Sample or the 0.025 BrAC.
8th. The video proves that the Intoxilyzer is nonspecific for ethyl alcohol.
1st off the bottle of vodka on the counter is moot and so is the "sterile environment" Why? F.Y.I. LEA now drive around with Intoxilyzer 8000's in the back seat or trunk of their patrol cars.
2nd. FL. Chp 11D-8 only states that the Intoxilyzer 8000 need to be kept in a secure, dust free environment.
3rd. LEA do not follow the rules. See # 1
4th. Charles Smith blew into the Intoxilyzer and got a 0.000 reading "proving" that he did not have any of that vodka on the counter.
well there are bottles of alc on the counter which is therefore a nonsteril environment and also you are not allowed to give a valid air sample if you have crap in your mouth
The Fries once eaten and in the stomach with the barley and yeast from the beer will go into the blood and out the lungs from the lungs not the mouth! So will the bread to a lessor amount as most is burned off this the holes in the bread from the alcohol..Fries and potatos..those are thee main ones and will keep reading high when other people are zero...you will still be .11BAC on only 4 beers!
c335358 1 year ago
The cops are waiting by fast food resturants to see you eat fries..after that ..they got you! They also put a peice of plastic on the temperature sensor and heat the sample to cause turbulance and convection..they alter the parameters of the radio EM anntenna to not pick up the EM from their radio but it still effects the sample..imagine a metal detector..you can turn the knob to not detect..it will report good..even when bad!
c335358 1 year ago
Also note that they never tested the device with food! or Smoking!
They never tested it with beer fries combinations. Potatoes turn to alcohol in the presents of yeast and barley from the beer! So does corn and bread!
ethenol..folks..potato fuel..corn..fuel..bread..fuel..it is also in women with a yeast infection..thus..one drink and they read high!!!
c335358 1 year ago
I just got a dui jan 29 2011. I ate fries, chicken tenders and bread at 6pm and drank 4 fosters over the next 6~ hours at 2am I got pulled over I should have had a .02BAC but blew a .11BAC..then at the station .11bac..then the next day at 2pm~ .11BAC!!
I think the Fries or potatoes when in the presents of yeast and barley from the beer start to ferment in the stomach thus the high readings that night..and thee next day! The Datamaster. Do this test..one beer..thentest..then one beer with frys..
c335358 1 year ago
Of course it will have a high reading... that is why police wait at a minimum of 20 minutes before the subject blows in the intox.
digitalduck1 1 year ago
Why is this so shocking? Bread is made with yeast. Yeast produce ethanol and CO2. Not all of the ethanol cooks out. The instrument is detecting the ethanol in the bread. Big surprise.
Following a proper procedure, it's well known that the instrument underestimates true BAC. I wonder if this software even has the slope detector turned on?
st8820 2 years ago
Mr. AverageJoe121 did you watch the video. The guy directing the old guy told him to stop blowing before it showed invalid. Complete the whole test. The pharmacological reasons this happens is way over your head, so I will not even try to explain.The fact is there are safety procedures to stop things like this from happening, ie:20 minte wait period. If this is so shocking,eat some bread, wait 20 minutes,then produce a full breath sample. Joe 121 20 minutes is counting all your fingers and toes
dave07144 2 years ago 2
dave07144, watch the video? I made it. You are way in over your head on this one, stop before you show your ass and quit drinking the state KoolAid. Not only do you expose the defecientcies in your critical thinking skills and biased logic, but you show your inability to comprehend what you see. When I told Charles to stop, the breath volume was 1.214 and the BrAC was 0.025. The minimum breath sample required for a "scientifically reliable sample 1.1 liter. This was a valid test.
AverageJoe121 2 years ago
@AverageJoe121 If you were a breath technician you would no that a 1.1l is not a valid sample it is up to a qualified technician to determine if the sample is vaild. A 1.1L means nothing. Why dont we get together and compare certifications, experience, proper breath tests conducted and lets see how our theors work.
kandress1985 9 months ago
@kandress1985 you are either an idiot or you are extremely uneducated on the Intoxilyzer 8000. The manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 8000, CMI, Inc. states in their brochure that the (3) minimum requirements for a breath sample is: 1.) Blow for at least (1) second, 2.) provide at least 1.1 liter of breath and satisfy the alcohol slope... Now based on your lack of knowledge on this machine I would love to go head to head against you and your 'opinions' in any court on any day. I would crush U!
AverageJoe121 8 months ago
@AverageJoe121 Actually I am a qualified technician on the Intox 8000c (are you?) Didn't think so, but Im glad you read the brochure...... Maybe if you had the simulator hooked up to the "Instrument" (Thats the proper name, not machine) and you had run a proper breath test sequence, not a single breath test you would have had many error codes. You know nothing about this instrument and I think the overwhelming posts on this blog clearly show that you are wrong. Stop promoting DUI's
kandress1985 8 months ago
dave07144, Your attempt to use BIG words/phrases is a common mistake made by inferior intellect like yours. Where did you get that one? Out of the back of a state training manual for canned answers used to confuse the jurors or support an invalid argument? Your reply was another classic feeble attempt by a state employee to blur the truth and bolster your credibility. Keep it simple- stupid, otherwise you might as well be bent over when trying to make a point or talking to a jury.
AverageJoe121 2 years ago
Thats why there is a 20 minute wait period, and nothing goes into the subjects mouth for 20. Present the facts
dave07144 2 years ago
dave07144,
Present the facts? FACT: You are either an idiot or you simply lack the necessary critical thinking skills needed to overcome the drunken stupor you are under from drinking the "State KoolAid" all LEO are required to drink. I will type this slow so it sinks in to the void in that brain of yours. This demonstration has nothing to do with the 20 min. wait period. It just demonstrates that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not ethyl-alcohol specific. Of course anyone with 1/2 a brain...
AverageJoe121 2 years ago
so Charles didn't imbibe any of the alcohol sitting next to the 8000? or anything else before the wonder bread??
Maybe if you could do this in a lab in front of a justice committee and not in your kitchen you could get better results in your arguement.
wangerstein 2 years ago
A waste of tasty bread. The instrument detects and accurately measures ethanol. Seemed to work well. But good advice "our stance would be that you really shouldn't drink and drive at all" Perfect. Keep Blowin.
PCAZCANUCK 2 years ago
PCAZCANUCK, you must have brain freeze, ehhh. Either that are you are blinded by your bias and lack of "hands on experience" with this piece of junk. The Intoxilyzer is NOT ethanol specific as this video demonstrates, of course a simple minded person such as yourself cannot comprehend that obvious "fact."
I now nominate you for the village idiot of Canada.
AverageJoe121 2 years ago
Shows this thing is a piece of JUNK and CMI is ripping off the Tax payers
fr33d0m999 3 years ago
Part 3: Law enforcement agencies routinely "book and release" DWI offenders without requiring lock up and/or bond. It is not unusual for DWI offenders to be out of jail inside of 1-2 hours after arrest. Finally: if DWI trial lawyers have PROOF that breath alcohol testing devices don't work, why not hit NHTSA and every State that uses them with a class action lawsuit on behalf of the MILLIONS who have been tested on them? Put up or shut up. This is the best that law schools can produce? Sad.
bacbob 3 years ago
Your comment, "This is the best that law school can produce" is another glimpse into your simple mindedness. The comment, "if lawyers have proof that alcohol testing devices don't work..." is another reason the scales of justice are tipped in the states favor. How does one expect the scales of lady justice to be even when CMI, Inc only sells the Intoxilyzer to "law enforcement agencies"? If the machines are so accurate why not sell to the defense so we can do independent test? see part 2
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
#2:If the Intoxilyzers are so accurate, why won't CMI,Inc turn over the source codes? Why does Toby Hall, president of CMI, Inc. disregard a subpoena in AZ and not show up? Every defense attorney in every state that uses this piece of junk is slowly chipping away at the legal concrete wall that has been afforded the state. The FBI thought its bullet fragment science that was used to convict hundreds was "state of the art" only to find out it was really junk science, just like the Intoxilyzer.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Part 2: IR spectrophotometers ARE specific for what they are designed to detect. For a substance to escape detection as an "interferent"; it has to satisfy several criteria that are rarely, if ever, coincident in nature: they have to be a gas at body temperature (98.6F), they have to absorb IR light at the specific frequencies used by the instrument AND at the proper ratio of absorption, they have to be volatile and present in measurable amounts in breath for long periods after exposure.
bacbob 3 years ago
There many reasons this "experiment" is bogus. Any idiot knows there is alcohol in bread and the chewing simply releases it into the breath. Any idiot who knows anything about breath alcohol testing knows this is a bogus test simply because there is no pre-test deprivation period. Operational checklists never order (allow) the arresting officer to shove slices of bread into the suspect's mouth prior to the test. Slope detectors are not perfect. Lawyers are really stupid. So are their "experts".
bacbob 3 years ago
Bacbob, your obtuse comment, any idiot knows there is alcohol in bread shows not only your ignorance to basic chemistry but your inability to remain neutral, which discredits your expert witness testimony because of extreme bias and prejudice for the prosecution. What happens to the alcohol in the bread dough? Bread = Yeast + milk or water, sugar and flour and warmth. Yeast plants require moisture, food, and warmth for growth. When growth requirements are satisfied; part I
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Part 2. (milk or water, sugar and flour, and warmth) yeast plants grow, producing carbon dioxide gas and alcohol. The yeast coverts the sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide which is then broken down further into pyruvate, which is the carboxylate anion of Pyruvic acid (CH3COCO2H) which is the simplest alpha-keto acid. Pyruvate plays an important role in biochemical processes. The pyruvate then enters the mitochondrion and since the mitochondrion requires oxygen, the pyruvate, see part 3
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Part 3. can't be broken down completely in the mitochondrion. Pyruvate builds up in the cell, but now there's a problem because large amounts of pyruvate inhibit the enzymes that break sugar down to pyruvate. If the yeast can't get rid of the pyruvate, the whole chain of reaction grinds to a halt and the cell deosnt get any more energy from food molecules. What happens to the pyruvate? An alternative pathway starts up, in which the three carbon pyruvate is broken down to a two; see part 4
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Part 4. carbon alcohol (ethanol) and a one carbon CO2 molecule. The alcohol is secreted from the cell as a waste product. So, the carbon dioxide makes the dough rise and since alcohol has a very low boiling point and evaporation temperature threshold, or in moron lingo, the alcohol evaporates during the baking process. bacbob, I suggest you re-read this out loud 2 or 3 xs and when reading it, put your left hand over your left ear; See part 5.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Part 5. this might be helpful in modifying your behavioral conditioning that currently prohibits your from integrating information and apprehending the truth of facts through logical reasoning, or in other words allowing something intelligent to stay put in your overdrawn bank account of knowledge. And as far as the comment, lawyers are stupid and so are their experts, exposes your inability to have intelligent discourse on complex subjects. see part 6
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Part 6: When a person resorts to name calling its always a sign of fatal shortcomings in scholarly discourse and extreme mental weaknesses in debate skills, something you will never see in a true GLADIATOR for justice. Another obtuse statement of yours, "slope detectors are not perfect".... so, tell me again, "Why is it that Intoxilyzer is used to collect evidentiary evidence and any results from that "machine" are supposed to be "scientifically reliable when the slope detector is...???" Enjoy
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Oh, and in regards to the private blood draw: Yes, you are right, cops don't have to take them anywhere to get it done. But, the "Average Joe" should know where the nearest hospital is - Unless they are too drunk to remember!
DAGeier 3 years ago
DAGeier, more bias, and BS from a person most likely employed by state tax dollars. Your extreme bias is exposed by your comment, "Unless they are too drunk to remember". Which is preceded by a response that is reflects shortcomings in your critical thinking skills. The comment, "But, the AverageJoe should know where the nearest hospital is" is a beacon into your inept or deficiency in higher academia & Logical Thinking 101. Since you seem to lack basic logical thinking skills, see next post:
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service to one's own, or one's groups' vested
interest. Hence, your comments about knowing where the nearest hospital is located! Im sure younger people going to YBOR city actually know where all the hospitals are located, when in fact most people nowadays cant even remember someones phone without their cell phone. Enjoy
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
DAGeier, more BS, more incorrect info & once more someone who works for the state exposes not only their bias, but their prejudice for the prosecution. You are either extremely biased or unequivocally under educated in precedent case law. F.Y.I. the Florida courts have consistently ruled that, "The law enforcement officer shall not interfere with the persons opportunity to make a telephone call to arrange a blood test AND to secure that test, see next post;
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
So in keeping with your BS & apparent bias, I know your SOP would probably be to just put someone who requested an independent blood test in the drunk tank for 8 hrs. This does not show reasonable effort on your part, and if a trial litigator gets a hold of that. Hello suppression of breath test results. Being uneducated about SOP and precedent case law not only shows your a**, or to put it a lil' nicer, shows your persistent bias, but it also keeps drunk drivers on the road.MADD thanks you
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
I find it amusing that you are accusing others of being bias, full of BS, and lacking knowledge of SOP. We do not use a "drunk tank". They are bonded on the charge of DUI, and released to the care of family or friends in 99 percent of cases. So, again, tell me what prevents the arrested individual from getting his own blood test when the average time from arrest to release is 2.5 hours?
DAGeier 3 years ago
DAGeier, before I reply to your post, you obviously work for the DA office in some state, which state?
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
DAGeier, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what state releases a person "suspected" of DUI/DWI in 2.5 hours. I want to have my buddy in the insurance business sell that state a multi-million dollar insurance policy to limit that states liability exposure, and Ill be sure to let MADD know that your state might be releasing people that are still legally impaired.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
The state is Illinois. You are going to run and tell MADD? What are you, 10 years old? Nothing in Illinois law prohibits us from releasing an individual who has posted bond to family or friend, as I have previously stated. The vehicle is impounded for no fewer than 12 hours, so they won't be driving, again. Now, I can't continue to beat my head against the wall with you, and as unreasonable as your arguments are, I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you.
DAGeier 3 years ago
DAGeier, I hope you do not try cases like you reply to post, you not only can't remember what you posted, but you lack the forethought to go back and read what you posted so as to not expose a weakness of your discourse preparation. Please tell me again where your previously stated that, "The vehicle is impounded no fewer than 12 hrs, so they would be driving again." What happens when someone blows a 0.140, you release them in 2.5 hrs @(0.095), what stops them from driving a different vehicle?
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
DAGeier, your statement, "The state of Illinois, what are you going to run and tell MADD?" Nooooo!!!!!!!!! I don't have to, you already did.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Nice reasoning, except for a couple of things... The "AverageJoe's" body eliminates alcohol at approximately .015 BAC / Hr. So, at .08, you're looking at over 7 hours to completely rid your body of the alcohol... More than enough time for the great majority of people to bond out. Reverse extrapolation can then prove your BAC at the time of the arrest from there, after a private blood draw.
DAGeier 3 years ago
Average Joe - Anyone who feels as though the Intoxilyzer, Intox EC/IR, or any other breath testing instrument "lied" has the opportunity to go straight to the hospital and get their own blood test after posting bond... Yet, strangely, none of them do... Let me guess... The hospital blood results LIE too! It's a conspiracy!
DAGeier 3 years ago
Wow, now there's an idea I never thought of. Unfortunately when a person is in custody, your "REAL LIFE" opportunity to go straight to the hospital is, well,about as worthless as the paper rule Chp.11D-8 is written on. Why? One VARIABLE thats never a constant. The LEO that is in control of that lil' "legal angle". In my BTO course the FDLE/ATP instructor mentioned that in all his 28 yrs as an LEO, he never, ever had to take anyone to the hospital for a blood test. Guess why? See next post
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Why? He explained it like this; Its 3 oclock in the morning and the person you arrested for DUI has just requested a blood test, all you have to do is give them a phone and a phone book, who they going to know who to call at 3 in the morning? With that everyone in the class broke out in laughter, except me! Now I understand why no one is allowed to get a voluntary blood test for DUI. Yeah, maybe it is a conspiracy but not by the AverageJoes, but by some of the persons behind the shinny badge
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
This appears like the infamous tree clocked by RADAR at 35 mph. What is not told is the RADAR antenna was pointed at the defroster fan the whole time and recorded the speed of it. The camera just happened to be focused on the tree. Food (sorry) for thought.
bunkin630 3 years ago
There is no video showing the consultant the entire time on the screen. What's in the coffee cup. Is he secretly drinking something alcoholic between shots of the Intoxilyzer? No 20 minute period waiting period. Why is he unsteady on his feet at the end after only Wonder Bread. Sorry. 29 years as a cop tells me the video is a set up.
bunkin630 3 years ago
bunkin630: I, we, can do this every time with Wonder Bread, & the next video, I'll make sure YOU can see Mr. Smith the whole time. As to the 29 years as a cop, your opinion Why is he unsteady on his feet at the end after eating only Wonder bread? gives the public an insight to your bias. Where was he unsteady? Thats the same bias that you must use when you ask, no I take that back, you probably order, under the muse of your authority, that a person you pulled over submit to FSTs.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
bunkin630: It biased opinions like yours that taint any opinion in regards to passing FSTs because whether the person passes the FSTs or not becomes subjective instead of objective. Your inexperience as to the workings of the Intoxilyzer 8000 is obvious. If as you say he secretly consumed some alcohol that was in the coffee cup why didn't the slope detector pick-up the mouth alcohol? Think before you show your a** or to put it nicer, your lack of knowledge. No set-up here, just the facts
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Oh yeah, a couple more thoughts, why after 29years, why aren't you retired? What rank are you? And, why is it that when a LEO post something, they are afraid to mention what LEA they work for? Who do you work for?
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
FHP. 2 years left in DROP.
bunkin630 3 years ago
Thank you for your service. 2 years from now I can just hear the words, attention everyone this is a public service announcement, "bunkin630 has retired from the FHP, exit Sally Port left...!!!
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
How about helping me on the next videos? I would sure like an officer with 29 yrs. experience to asist me in making the new videos. You could chew the next piece of Wonder Bread and blow into the Intoxilyzer 8000 and get a BrAC and then do the MA test to see how the slope detector doesn't work, and then tell all your buddies what we already know,the Intoxilyzer is a piece of junk, because coming from a LEO, the public knows they never, ever, lie.... right? Or should we just ask Sandra Veiga?
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
It's only as good as the operator like any other piece of equipment. Maintained, calibrated, tested. A video won't help you. Too much you don't see. Do the whole test in court. Waiting period, paper trail. Just do it the right way. If it works for you fine. If it doesn't fine. Who is Sandra Veiga anyway?
bunkin630 3 years ago
Bunkin630 your position lacks consideration of 2 controlling variables. 1st. The Intoxilyzer is non-specific for ethyl-alcohol so the 20 minutes observation period is moot because of its "inability" to differentiate between Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and ethyl-alcohol. 2nd The waiting period is BS. Why? The LEO can use any ol start time as the time that the Observation period actually started, the time clock on the Intoxilyzer can be changed, failing test deleted, I could go on & on
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Oh yeah, and since you can easily find out my real name, why don't you reveal your real name? (you can e-mail me for privacy) Why did you first post under Drebra907 (who joined YT in 10/2007) and then post under a new name, FLtrooperDRE (who joined YT today on 12-3-2008)?
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Sorry, I'm not Drebra907, like I said in my email, I just jointed tonight to respond to the video.
FlTrooperDRE 3 years ago
FLtrooperDRE,
Funny thing, I just spoke to Charles Smith and he's willing to go head to head with you any day, on DUI, DRE, FSTs traffic citations, probable cause, .. anything. Maybe we can set up a contest or reality show on line to see who is more knowledgeable on Law Enforcement issues. Just e-mail me to set up a date and time... unless that thin blue line is turning yellow.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
No thanks, I don't play with dirty people. I don't have to prove myself to anyone. My record speaks for itself. Everybody has an opinion, your Charles Smith is just another person in the mix, the more you pay, the better the answer.
FlTrooperDRE 3 years ago
If LEO all did their job correctly and the Intoxilyzer 8000 was an accurate machine all expert witnesses would be out of a job. Just to drive my point home on the difference between a scientific instrument and a machine if the scientific instruments used to determine a DNA sample in a murder case were as inaccurate and had as many operational problems as the Intoxilyzer 8000, no one would get a death sentence. Chew on that donut... DRE
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
I don't like donuts, they're high in calories. I prefer bagels. I didn't invent the intoxilizer, I just use it. Ever heard of Tharpes equation, one of many things used to determine a DUI or DRE. A breath test is icing on the cake.
FlTrooperDRE 3 years ago
TrprDRE, your comment I didn't invent the intoxilizer, I just use it" shows another deficiency in your argument and strengthens my argument. Im sure you remember this breaking news story: FBI's Bullet Lead Analysis Used Flawed Science To Convict Hundreds Of Defendants. Well, look for another 60 minutes special, but this time the headlines will be, THOUSHANDS OF PEOPLE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF DUI BY LEO DELETING FAILING TEST RESULTS AND LEAVING BROKEN INTOXILYZERS ON LINE
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
This is what FLtrooper DRE posted that I accidently removed by hitting the Remove button.... sensitive wireless mouse:
He is not a DRE, his certification expired 100years ago, when they were still using dial-a-drunk intoxilizers. It is an instrument and not a machine. So what's his history in law enforcement. Most so called experts who go to the dark side after they leave law enforcement usually have skeletons in their closet and did not leave on a good note.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
FLTrooperDRE As far as Charles Smiths expertise as a DRE. I will put his testimony up against anyone in the SAO any day. Why? His testimony is always truthful unlike some state employees.FYI: Merriam Webster defines: machine (1): an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner (2): a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
The Intoxilyzer is not an instrument, thats what FDLE/ATP & CMI, Inc. want the public to believe and its obvious that you believe that BS. If the Intoxilyzer is really a scientific instrument, why wont CMI. Inc release the source codes or sell me a Florida software Intoxilyzer so I can do independent testing? The Intoxilyzer 8000 is not even warranted for what it does. Since you speak negatively of Mr. Smith I wonder if he destroyed a "probable cause" issue on one of your DUI arrest.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
AverageJoe121,
Sounds like you've experienced a DUI arrest and still very angry about it. I suggest getting help for your problem instead of trying to beat the system. Maybe you should speak infront of a M.A.D.D chapter and see what they might think of your so called expert.
FlTrooperDRE 3 years ago
Then they can show you a photo of there DEAD loved one that we have to clean up off the street because of a drunk driver. Just for the record, I've never heard of this so called expert until someone sent me this video.
FlTrooperDRE 3 years ago
But I would love to go up against him in court, what a joke, fortunately for me I'm good at what I do and my DUI/DRE cases take a plea or plea guilty.
Lastly, your so called expert didn't wait the 20 minute observation period before blowing into the INSTRUMENT, it's not in a secure clean area free of dust. You people are what give us job security, even in this economy. Good luck at what ever you're trying to accomplish.
FlTrooperDRE 3 years ago
It's biased uneducated, opinions like yours that clog the bowels of justice TrprDRE. The 20 min. observation period is moot. The point of the video is that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not ethyl-alcohol specific. How many innocent people have been convicted of DUI because this MACHINE reads other atomic footprints as ethyl-alcohol. It's biased opinions like yours that make a joke of the justice system. The SOA chief lab tech in AZ said that bread has alcohol from yeast, now that's a JOKE..!!!
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
1st. I'm all for arresting people "GUILTY" of DUI, but that's the main problem here, the people who have had 1-2 drinks, the ones that are innocent of "IMPAIRED DRIVING," are also caught in up in the aggressive policing of our roads. If you were to put a rock in a pile for every person harmed by a drunk driver (victim, family members) and I put a rock in a pile for every person (& their family) wrongfully arrested and charged with DUI my pile would be 3x's as big as yours.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
TrprDRE your comment, Just for the record, Ive never heard of this so called expert until someone sent me this video would make any reasonably minded person question your integrity because in your first post you stated that,He is not a DRE, his certification expired 100years agodial-a-drunk intoxilizers & my next guess is that you will play spin the badge to come up with this reply, oh that person who sent me the video told me that. Just for the record TrprDRE or Drebra907 r whoever u r.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
No I'm angry with the implied consent program, it's a joke and the firing of FDLE/ATP Dept Inspector Sandra Veiga over deleting test results from Intoxilyzers that failed a FDL/ATP Dept inspection is proof of the ineptness in Chp 11D-8 rules & regulations, and the worst part is that the deleting of failing test results also happens on the local level too. There is no check and balance in place account for when the Agency/Dept Inspection takes place, say like a sequential numbering system
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
to correlate or account for every Log-In captured. Also, why are LEA unwilling to videotape a DUI arrest from the beginning to the end when a person walks out of jail? At the minimum, every Subject Breath Test, every Agency Inspection, every FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspection should be videotaped so no LEO can do a Sandra Veiga and delete a failing test results, thereby sidestepping 11D-8 rules, and intentionally keeping a "machine" on line that does not complies with 11D-8 rules.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
5th. Charles Smith did not have "stuff" in his mouth, he simply chewed up a piece of white Wonder Bread into a paste in his mouth, swallowed the paste and then blew into the Intoxilyzer.
6th. It's not an air sample, it's a Breath Sample.
7th. The Intoxilyzer should not have registered an Invalid Sample or the 0.025 BrAC.
8th. The video proves that the Intoxilyzer is nonspecific for ethyl alcohol.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
Dresbra907,
1st off the bottle of vodka on the counter is moot and so is the "sterile environment" Why? F.Y.I. LEA now drive around with Intoxilyzer 8000's in the back seat or trunk of their patrol cars.
2nd. FL. Chp 11D-8 only states that the Intoxilyzer 8000 need to be kept in a secure, dust free environment.
3rd. LEA do not follow the rules. See # 1
4th. Charles Smith blew into the Intoxilyzer and got a 0.000 reading "proving" that he did not have any of that vodka on the counter.
AverageJoe121 3 years ago
well there are bottles of alc on the counter which is therefore a nonsteril environment and also you are not allowed to give a valid air sample if you have crap in your mouth
Dresba907 3 years ago