i was arrested for drink driving. i gave a breath sample of 42 so i was offered a blood test. I am worried and wondered what are the chances of me getting under the limit?
2007-03-14 08:46:08 · 18 answers · asked by NAOMI W 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Whatever happens you deserve it, you shouldn't be drinking and driving you selfish cow.
2007-03-14 08:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have been told by officers in the past that if you were just drinking a short time before you got stopped, then it is better to have the blood test done. Recent drinking will blow a higher number on the breath test but you may not have enough yet in your blood to register as high on a blood test. But if you had not had a drink in a while then it is better to have the breath test done. Even when you feel you are fine to drive but you have been pulled over for something, there is still going to be alcohol in your blood stream.
Why did you take the chance of drinking and driving? Anyway, the dead is done and now all you can do is wait and pray.
2007-03-14 08:53:21 · answer #2 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Somebody I know was slightly over the limit and pulled over by the police, he knew that he was only just over and demanded a blood test instead of a specimen of breath, by the time he had got to the station he was under the limit. Even if you accept the breath test you can demand a blood test sometmes it can be an hour after you were stopped before they get you to the station, the police also have to use the lowest reading as well, so if the test is positive at the roadside and then negative at the station they are required to use the station test as to determine whether you are over the limit.
2007-03-18 02:26:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Blood Sample is the definitive answer to the question posed. You say the Breath Test was 42. You would have had 2 Breath Tests, was the other greater or lesser?
THIS IS A UK ANSWER. USA MIGHT BE DIFFERENT(No Court Order is required here.)
2007-03-14 08:50:23 · answer #4 · answered by MANCHESTER UK 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the delay from you giving of the sample of breath to the time the Dr took the blood.
Both are reasonably accurate the breath limit is 35 microgrammes per 100ml, some constabularies prosecute at 35 and some at 40
So you were reasonably close to the limit , if the Dr took his / her time comming you may be lucky, if they were already at the nick your probably in the poo. There is no additional discretion with the blood results
2007-03-14 08:55:58 · answer #5 · answered by Fram464 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The legal limit is 35. Metropolitan Police work from 40, they allow 5 for errors. You were borderline so a blood sample will be exact, you have a fair to middling chance in the Met, elsewhere an error of 7 is doubtful. You have no doubt learnt your lesson.
2007-03-14 08:56:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the US there is what's known as the Implied Consent law. You may research YOUR state law by going to the website "
The short story of it is this....when you sign for your drivers license you agree for the privilege of driving that when stopped for suspected DUI or DWI you consent to either breath, blood, or urine testing.
IF you refuse such testing...which is your right...the state will suspend your privilege to drive for a specific period of time.
Additionally, you must still appear in court where the officer will give his observations to the judge at which time the judge could still find you guilty of the DUI/DWI or a lesser included offense such as public intoxication.
The breath test is accurate in one one-hundredths of a percent whereas the blood test is accurate in one one-thousandths of a percent.
Because the standard is normally .02 to .04 versus .020 to .049...there's not much chance you're going to make a big difference.
Knowing I'm not the bearer of good news...I hope things work out for you....and quit drinking and driving...the life you save on the road might be my own!
Best wishes!
2007-03-14 09:03:58 · answer #7 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blood test are far more accurate than breath tests, however you need to remember that the longer you take to give a blood sample the longer the alcohol has to get in your blood.
2007-03-14 08:58:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Blood is real accurate. Breath is too but this is the real way you can get a good, proper reading. I'm not quite sure of this "42" you mention. Are you in the US? Usually my experience has been percentage levels.
2007-03-14 08:51:31 · answer #9 · answered by Quasimodo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The blood test is more exact. But normally the breath test at the station is very good, they normally do about three tests to be sure they are within a percentage guildline.
The blood test woud be exact on the one test
But the breath test stands up fine in court.
2007-03-14 08:59:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Blood tests are more accurate but a .042 is well below the limit as it is .08! I wouldn't take a blood test as it seems you passed the breathalyser and they want a second shot, plus different results as more time will have passed and if drinking, more alcohol will be in your system, albeit after your arrest! The police are playing you, like they do almost everyone!
2007-03-14 08:56:46 · answer #11 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋