Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdcravens | Hacker News Reader

You're describing a fancy field sobriety test. There's a reason why those who fail field sobriety tests for alcohol are then asked for a breath sample (or when they refuse, a blood test)

A criminal defense lawyer would tell their clients to say in court they intentionally failed the test. (Burden of proof still lies with the prosecution) You can't be convicted for failing a test. You can only be convicted of being under the influence.

View on HN

I believe there was a case in Colorado where a medical Marijuana user had enough THC in their blood to be considered impaired but they were able to pass a field sobriety test so they weren't convicted of a DUI. The problem is that the amount of THC you need in your blood to impair you is different for every person so it's hard to develop a test for it. A driving simulator makes sense to me, though once you have a bunch of adrenaline kicking in and are totally focused on not going to jail, you may perform better than when you are relaxed in the comfort of your own car.

I read something (a legit study IIRC) that breathalyzers are not that accurate and if you don't hold them right can increase the BAC.

And NO you CAN be convicted for failing the test. The evidence is just a paper reciept from the breathalyzer.

The reason you choose the blood test is so you have evidence for later.

Also you will sober up a little while you wait.

To be clear, I mean no one is being convicted of failing a field sobriety test with no breathalyzer or blood BAC results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com