Dang. Not a good look at all for Crean.

 

Doyel: IU basketball's problems are an 'epidemic'

Different thread but why is .02 considered impaired for someone underage while .08 is considered impaired for some 21 and over? Am I the only one who finds this incredibly stupid and irresponsible for someone over the age of 18 to be ruled impaired with a .02 BAC?

 

I think the thinking would be that since it is illegal for them to drink in the first place, any measurable amount is a violation.

No you couldn't. Breathalyzers do not measure the alcohol in your mouth. PBT'S might, but actual Breathalyzers measure deep lung air.

 

According to what I've read, it takes about 15 minutes for residual mouth alcohol to evaporate. Breathalyzer tests usually require a 15 or 20 minute wait period where the person can put nothing in their mouth, before the test is preformed.

 

Gotcha. Didn't realize there was the wait time, but that makes sense. I'm still thinking with some residual and a poor calibration, the .025 wouldn't be entirely out of the question. If it were entirely accurate all the time, there'd be no mandate for the wait time.

 

Also, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between a PBT and a Breathalyzer?

I think the thinking would be that since it is illegal for them to drink in the first place, any measurable amount is a violation.

 

I get that part. That just doesn't make logistical sense to me. If they are drinking underage then any measurable amount should be a violation. The law says anything above .02 is a violation for underage drinkers. Shouldn't it be anything above .00? It doesn't make logistical sense for .02 to be the cutoff. Have scientifical studies shown that 18-20 year olds are drunk at anything above .02 and then when they turn 21 their bodies adjust to their birthdate and it is now .08? :lol2:

 

See what I am saying?

 

Doyel: IU basketball's problems are an 'epidemic'

 

I don't agree with that article at all, Crean is doing a great job at Indiana. He just needs a few more years to get them where they belong.

Gotcha. Didn't realize there was the wait time, but that makes sense. I'm still thinking with some residual and a poor calibration, the .025 wouldn't be entirely out of the question. If it were entirely accurate all the time, there'd be no mandate for the wait time.

 

Also, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between a PBT and a Breathalyzer?

PBT is the handheld device used in the field and I don't think it is admissible in court. Breathalyzer is the much more accurate office based unit that is admissible in court.

 

Like he said the residual in your mouth shouldn't even register enough to show up on the test. It's all about the saturation level of alcohol in your blood measured by air from your lungs. That's why you have to blow for so long, it's to ensure the air is from your lungs and not mouth or throat area.

PBT is the handheld device used in the field and I don't think it is admissible in court. Breathalyzer is the much more accurate office based unit that is admissible in court.

 

Like he said the residual in your mouth shouldn't even register enough to show up on the test. It's all about the saturation level of alcohol in your blood measured by air from your lungs. That's why you have to blow for so long, it's to ensure the air is from your lungs and not mouth or throat area.

 

Gotcha. That makes sense. I had heard various things like physical exertion, having rinsed your mouth well, having spit back up in your mouth, etc. could make a difference on the test and account for more than the standard margin of error, but those are probably nullified with the 15 minute wait time.

 

I saw a police officer who was kind enough to come and be an expert witness for one of our classes, dude was a killer. Seriously, the best expert witness I've seen, and that includes any professors, doctors, industry experts, etc. that I've seen. I really think this dude could get a prosecution with his testimony alone. When he left, the Judge who was doing our thing told us he was one of the top rated guys in the SA area. Definitely an experience to see him rattling off the field tests, naming all the acronyms for everything, talking about the scientific reliability of the studies, etc., and all of this was with a fake case that they'd probably given him to read no more than 10 minutes before he came in.

Gotcha. Didn't realize there was the wait time, but that makes sense. I'm still thinking with some residual and a poor calibration, the .025 wouldn't be entirely out of the question. If it were entirely accurate all the time, there'd be no mandate for the wait time.

 

Also, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between a PBT and a Breathalyzer?

 

 

PBT is the handheld device used in the field and I don't think it is admissible in court. Breathalyzer is the much more accurate office based unit that is admissible in court.

 

Like he said the residual in your mouth shouldn't even register enough to show up on the test. It's all about the saturation level of alcohol in your blood measured by air from your lungs. That's why you have to blow for so long, it's to ensure the air is from your lungs and not mouth or throat area.

 

The PBT (Preliminary Breath Test) is typically done pre-arrest and is not admissible other than to show the presence of alcohol. The "breathalyzer" is normally done post-arrest and can be used in court to show their actual level of intoxication (.08, .15 etc).

 

I'm not an expert by any means though, so don't take my word as fact .

 

As far as the "breathalyzer" still showing residual mouth alcohol, it won't. If there is residual mouth alcohol present, some of the machines (I believe there are a bunch of different ones) will give a reading saying "invalid sample" instead of giving a number. This lets the Officer know there is residual mouth alcohol present and that they need to wait and re-do the test after another wait period.

 

You can find about anything you want to know about a breathalyzer through google.