Tennessee's DUI Ignition Interlock Law Moves Forward
Tennessee's version of the DUI Ignition Interlock Law has moved forward. Currently there are two of the being proposed. House Bill 2768 by Representative Shipley is less restrictive than House Bill 2917 which is being pushed by MADD.House Bill 2917 would require an ignition interlock device of everyone that is convicted of drunk driving in Tennessee with no exceptions.
Representative Shipley's bill sets some guidelines before an ignition interlock is required.
1.The defendant must have a blood or breath alcohol content of .15 % or higher.
2.Is accompanied by a person under 18
3.Violates the implied consent law.
Laura Dial,executive director of MADD Tennessee weighed in on this issue in an editorial in The Tennessean.One thing that everyone can agree with Ms. Dial is drunk driving is not a good thing even me.Currently , there are 12 states that have enacted an ignition interlock bill.Ms. Dial provides a lot of statistics supporting her position.She states the laws aren't punishing people but only those that are convicted of drunk driving.Ms Dial also blasts the American Beverage Institute for opposing these DUI laws that have increased in severity over the years.Are we going to outlaw a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the Titan's game.
The problem with the DUI ignition Interlock bill is twofold.
1.It punishes someone from asserting their constitutional right not to give evidence against oneself.
2.DUI breath and blood testing evidence is faulty and doesn't even comply with the basic scientific method that my son is learning in 7th grade science. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation does not require duplicate breath or blood alcohol testing.Most states require duplicate testing on breath and blood samples.Most of the forensic scientists at the TBI are members of the Society of Forensic Toxicologist which recommend duplicate testing.The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation couldn't pass my son's science class with their testing.That's my issue.
Evil comes to he who thinks it.....
Rob is absolutely correct. Additionally, the presumptions made by the breathtesting machine are absolutely contrary of what we know in science. The basic premise of the breath testing machine is that it is based on Henry's Law, or the notion that the air within a "closed" system (your breath) has a particular ratio of a particular chemical (ethyl alcohol) to the amount of chemical in a liquid (in this case, your blood). The problems with this premise include that fact that the human body has many openings which is completely contrary to Henry's law, additionally the device assumes that everyone has the same proportion of ethyl alcohol in your deep lung air relative to the content of ethyl alcohol in your blood. This is untrue. As a result, the device can both overestimate or underestimate by as much as 100% or more. This is hardly the kind of loose "science" that we want convicting and potentially ruining people's lives... I.e. This machine could easily take someone who has 1 - 2 drinks, and is therefore is legal to drive (depending of course on the drinks) and either misidentify mouth alcohol as deep lung air thereby over exaggerating the alcohol content of one's breath and blood and 2) overquantify the amount of someone's blood alcohol content by faulty assumptions of someone's biological makeup.