A mate of mine is appearing in court for the 3rd time (South Africa...!!) for an alleged drink driving charge - however, he was not asked to supply a blood or urine sample - so basically, just a breathalyser - Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe that "breath" can be entered as "evidence"....??? And, it;s the 3rd time he has to go because the first time he went on the stated date, his name was never called (even after 5 hours) and then the 2nd time was just chaos. So, Can A Breathalyzer Sample Alone Be given as Evidence???? OH, NB - this incident took place about 6 months ago......What "Shelf-Life" does human breath have I wonder.....?? Cheers all !!
2007-11-20 15:38:48 · 5 answers · asked by Gj H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The results of the breathalyzer test are what is entered into evidence, not the actual breath of the defendant.
2007-11-20 15:48:56 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
A breath test is good enough. You dont need blood or urine to prove intoxication. Police are trained the observation of drunk behavior and that combined with the breath test is good enough....and with your friends record, he's screwed.
2007-11-20 23:57:21 · answer #2 · answered by zebj25 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A BREATHALIZER TEST IS GIVEN AND THE RESULTS POSTED AS %. IT IS LIKE TAKING A TEST FOR A DNA TEST ONCE RECORDED IT IS DOCUMENTED.
SO YES A TEST GIVEN FOR A BREATHALIZER IS STILL VALID TODAY AS WHEN GIVEN EVEN 5-6 YEARS LATER?
2007-11-20 23:44:35 · answer #3 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Breathylizers are very reliable and accurrate. Yes, they are admissable in court and are more than enough to convict him.
2007-11-21 01:36:50 · answer #4 · answered by Josh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here in the U.S. breathalser tests are not admisable in court as evidense as they have been proven to be inaccurate. That is why the cops here now take people suspected of D.W.I. in for a blood test.
2007-11-20 23:57:19 · answer #5 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋