Username:   Remember Me

Uber Articles {Über (ger) adj. above, beyond }

- Above and Beyond a Mere Article Directory


A Discussion Of The Disagreement Pertaining To The Intoxilyzer’s Reliability And Accuracy

By Bob Samuels

Advocates of the Intoxilyzer state that the device will only absorb alcohol and not anything else. Then again, opponents of the machine say that the it sometimes misreads various commonly found elements in human breath and mistakenly delivers high readings saying that they are from alcohol.

Of particular importance here are the following points. First, the Drunk driving alcohol concentration law says an individual is drunk when he has a.08 in his breath, although it does not say.08 by breathalyzer. This point means that no judge or jury is either expected or obligated to believe that an Intoxilyzer test result of.08 or more is exact or dependable.

Secondly, the manufacturer will not permit anybody outside law enforcement to test the breathalyzer’s precision or dependability. It is commonly recognized that for a process to be recognized as legitimate and trusted in science, it should be offered to the scientific community for assessment. This is not the case with theIntoxilyzer.

Third, the manufacturer states it won’t warrant the Intoxilyzer to be fit for any distinct purpose, an implied admission by the manufacturer that its machine is not actually guaranteed as accurate and trustworthy for breath testing.

Fourth and final, the Intoxilyzer’s working design is built upon the presumption that every person tested is exactly the average individual. All individuals are not exactly average! Human beings come in various different sizes, weights, ages, and fluctuate in muscle size, lung capacity, alcohol threshold, temperature, hematocrit level (volume of solids in the blood) and blood/breath ratio (the number of occasions an item appears in the blood vs. the amount of times the identical item is found in the breath). Automatic and unknown mistakes can be illustrated by merely having the individual tested not be exactly average. In this regard, it ought to be mentioned that Intoxilyzer assumes a blood/breath proportion of 2100/1 (2100 parts alcohol in the bloodstream for every 1 part of alcohol in the breath) for each person tested. Here, it should be mentioned that a majority of people have a blood/breath ratio of 2100/1 or higher. People with a blood/breath proportion larger than 2100/1 will not be prejudiced by Intoxilyzer’s assumption. Having said that, persons with a decreased blood/breath ratio will be prejudiced because the Intoxilyzer will incorrectly read too high an alcohol concentration result and can cause somebody who ought to test a.04,.05,.06, and so on. to actually test out at.08,.11,.12, etc. Of distinct importance here is the fact that researchers have noted persons with blood/breath proportions as minimal as 1100/1.

Additionally, given that the machine is designed, serviced, and controlled by human beings, it is subject to human mistakes just like any other machines.

The previously mentioned information conclusively illustrate that the Intoxilyzer, even if it is properly working and is being carefully operated, because the person being tested is not exactly average, can label an innocent man or women as guilty.

Knowing your rights after a DUI charge is important. Speaking with a San Jose Criminal Defense Lawyer is a great first step at knowing what your options are. A qualified South Florida Criminal Attorney can help clarify your legal issues and choices.

Article kindly provided by

Topics: Legal | Comments Off

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Article Citation
MLA Style Citation:
Samuels, Bob "A Discussion Of The Disagreement Pertaining To The Intoxilyzer’s Reliability And Accuracy." A Discussion Of The Disagreement Pertaining To The Intoxilyzer’s Reliability And Accuracy. 4 Jul. 2010. 11 Nov 2014 <>.

APA Style Citation:
Samuels, B (2010, July 4). A Discussion Of The Disagreement Pertaining To The Intoxilyzer’s Reliability And Accuracy. Retrieved November 11, 2014, from

Chicago Style Citation:
Samuels, Bob "A Discussion Of The Disagreement Pertaining To The Intoxilyzer’s Reliability And Accuracy"

Reprint Rights

Creative Commons License
This article is subject to a revocable license under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License, which means you may freely reprint it, in its entirety, provided you include the author's resource box along with LIVE VISIBLE links (without "nofollow" tags). We may revoke the license at any time with or without cause. You must also include the credit to

Comments are closed.

Uber Articles and its partner sites cannot be held responsible for either the content nor the originality of any articles. If you believe the article has been stolen from you without your permission, please contact us and we will remove it immediately. If you have a problem with the accuracy or otherwise of the content of an article, please contact the author, not us! Also, please remember that any opinions and ideas presented in any of the articles are those of the author and cannot be taken to represent the opinions of Uber Articles. All articles are provided for informational purposes only. None of them should be relied upon for medical, psychological, financial, legal, or other professional advice. If you need professional advice, see a professional. We cannot be held responsible for any use or misuse you make of the articles, nor can we be held responsible for any claims for earnings, cures, or other results that the article might make.
  • RSS Feed

    RSS for Legal