Some thoughts on the State v. Chun decision…
Mar 25th, 2008 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, DUI-DWI-DAI (Drunk Driving)First of all, I am not a scientist, nor claim to be one. Therefore, I am not in a position to argue most of the scientific points of the Opinion. Neither was I present during the arguments to learn about the science.
I am not sure whether the 2100 to 1 blood-to-breath sample ratio is reliable or not.
The allowance for women over sixty years old to give a smaller breath sample seems fair as long as the courts also exempt people who have heart, lung or other chest related and documented medical problems that would prevent them from giving a breath sample.
Also I am not sure whether a temperature sensor should be put on the machine.
I do believe the fuel cell drift issue is a real problem that someone needs to fix. Why can’t they plug the machine into an outlet? It’s not like they are giving the breath tests on the streets. They are usually done at the police station. I don’t think a math formula to estimate a B.A.C. result is accurate, especially when people’s liberties are at risk.
The weighted averaging algorithm certainly seems suspect as it is a made up formula which is not a true measure of the breath exhaled.
Furthermore, now each prosecutor, defense attorney, and Municipal Court Judge must now re-do calculations to determine whether the results fit into the prescribed tolerance levels. I just did my first in-court calculation today. It wasn’t very difficult.
The Supreme Court also ruled that this machine must be fixed and reprogrammed for the future. This leaves all of the defendants’ cases that were previously “on-hold” without all of the same safeguards.
There had to be a better way of getting this new Alcotest approved without holding up the courts and tens of thousands of defendants. What will we learn from this inquiry? Will there be an appeal to the US Supreme Court? Do you think these rulings are fair?
well, i am perfectly fine with using the 2100-1 ratio as long as they can prove that is what is actually in the program loaded onto the machjine i was tested on.
i mean real safeguards and checks- of which there are absolutley none.
the easiest way to do it is to have a printout out the raw data and do the calcultion by hand, with the 2100-1 factor included.
thats the only way it can ever be proven to anyone!!!!!
without the raw data for a breath test sample and standard there is absoluitley no way anyone ikn the world, not even the most brillant phd scientist could claim the calculation is being performed correctly each time
as far as the tolerance calculation goes, well, it took me lee than 5 minutes to red the instructions and do the math, shesh, its easy.
but there is a problem with it, cause the bac on the alcohol influence report is rounded to 3 decimal places, but the calcultion is havig you add 0.0005 to the top and minus 0,0005 to the bottom.
so, if a persons bac results were 0.102, 0.099. 0.096, 0,094….( just in the tolerance range at the upper level)
they may have really been 0.1024, 0.0985, 0.0955, 0.0935.
in which case with rounding the results are slightly different. and if each result was reduced by 6.58% bfore the tolerance calc, the results of the tolerance calc would again change.
the cell drift issue was meaningless, as they were qwuibblng over an insignificant number at the last hearing.
the defense was inadequet and it is a shame all, of us are tied to it.
reisig told the justices in thew first hearing that they stopped the trial that could of went on for a few more months, delving deep into it, in order to have adendum a aggred upon, and addendum a was not adoptred by the court. they should now have the rest of the trial!
they may really have bee
in other words, the defense failed to bring up the most basic points there can be.
there are zero rules in the governing of the installation of the software into each unit, nor is there any way to check it is not only perform ing properly, but that is it what they say it is.
this is what needed to be discussed and argued over long before they looked at the source code line by line, jesus christ!
below is a letter i wrote to a reporter at a local newspaper in nj here. shje wrote an aticle on a town in nj concerning funding for dui enforcement.
i am sending you this because i know you wont post it, but will read it, and maybe get an understanding of what i am about to embark on
Diane Walsh
Hello,
I read your article on Old Bridge DUI published on Sunday March 23, 2008.
There is more to the story than what was reported.
I believe there is a conspiracy in Old Bridge Township to deny defendants the right to a trial.
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued an Order on Jan 10, 2006 ordering the State, the prosecution, to proceed to trial in all DUI Alcotest cases.
I have attached the Order to this email for your review.
I have been waiting for almost 3 years for a trial in this Court. I have been ordered into Court 13 times over this time to answer the charges. Each time I have attended court and answered roll call stating “not guilty”.
The Old Bridge Court and the prosecutor have intentionally disregarded the NJ Supreme Court Order to “proceed to trial”. This has caused me to experience so much emotional distress and psychological abuse at the hands of the State and the Court.
I have not been given the opportunity to defend the first offense low level DUI charge , with regards to the motor vehicle stop. I have been denied my rights under the “Chun Order” of January 10, 2006.
I believe I am not the only defendant in Old Bridge that has had their rights violated by the Old Bridge Court and the prosecutor.
In your article the Old Bridge Court is claiming that 92 cases can now be called in for hearings.
Take note that what the Old Bridge Court told you is not the entire truth. I would venture to guess that maybe all 92 cases are pending trial as well as a hearing.
The fact that Old Bridge Court and the prosecutor have disregarded the NJ Supreme Court Order in maybe 92 cases is a clear indication of conspiracy to obstruct justice
I strongly feel that further investigation is needed into this.
I have been called into Court 13 times to date over 2 1/2 years. This is abuse!
Thank you for your consideration.
this 92 dui cases of alcotest dui untrialed in oldbridge proves that old bridge court never had any intention of trying my case while chun was pending, despit an nj supreme court order ordering them to proceed to trial.
i can understand maybe a few cases, but 92, no way!!!
this is serious obstruction of justice and misconduct by the court and the state!