Lawyer: Breathalyzers discriminate against Black people.

#1
SavageOrangeJug

SavageOrangeJug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,569
Likes
6
#1
Is there any angle someone won't try to play the race card from? :jpshakehead:

I suppose the "small lung capacity" wouldn't affect Blacks in sports?

By DANIEL TEPFER
Staff writer
Updated: 11/20/2008 12:17:25 AM EST

A lawyer representing a man arrested in Fairfield for drunken driving says the state's breathalyzers discriminate against black people.

"They are KKK in a box," said lawyer James O. Ruane of Shelton. "We really have some racist machines here."

Ruane represents Tyrone Brown, 40, of Burritt Avenue, Norwalk, who was arrested April 9 by the state police on Interstate 95 in Fairfield and charged with drunken driving.

A breath analysis administered at state police Troop G in Bridgeport found Brown had a blood-alcohol content of 0.188. The legal limit is 0.08.

In a motion filed Tuesday in Superior Court, Ruane asked a judge to suppress his client's breathalyzer test results, contending the device used by the state police, and most other local police departments, the Intoxilyzer 5000, discriminates against blacks. Brown is an African-American.

Assistant State's Attorney Mark Durso declined comment on the motion.

Ruane claims the lung capacity of a black man is 3 percent smaller than a white man and, therefore, black men's test results vary from the sobriety standard set by the device.

He said Dr. Michael Hlastala, a lung physiologist at the University of Washington, examined research of other lung physiologists and, based on his studies, has determined the Intoxilyzer 5000 does not effectively test the blood-alcohol content of black men.

"He looked at all the research and came up with the bigger picture and found the common thread," he said.

Ruane said he intends to have Hlastala testify on Brown's behalf.

"The data is very clear," he said.
Click to expand...

SOURCE: http://www.connpost.com/ci_11021578?source=most_viewed
 
#2
#2
"KKK in a box"...little over the top there dude.

Black and white people do have different lung capacities though. I had it backwards from the article though, I thought blacks had a larger capacity.
 
#3
#3
Wouldn't breathalyzers discriminate against women as well? I'm not a medical professional, but I would think women would have a smaller lung capacity than men.
 
#4
#4
I'm a little confused by this. I didn't think that cumulative measurements were taken, just the concentration. Lung capacity shouldn't affect that, just how well one's lungs transfer alcohol between the blood and gases in the lungs (or the rate of gases passing from the blood into the lungs). I've always thought that heavy smokers would probably have an easier time passing one of these things for that reason....also I would think that if you had a high fever, it would boost your BAC as measured by a breathalyzer...I don't have anything to back this up, just thinking...

Edit: After some additional thinking, I will add this. It depends on how "lung capacity is measured." If lung capacity is measured by the ratio of volume of air sacs to surface area of those sacs, then maybe this would make sense (if you have the same amount of contact area but more gas in your lungs, then you could measure a smaller BAC it would seem). On the other hand, if "lung capacity" is just a measure of the volume of air sacs (and everyone's ratio of volume to surface area is basically constant), then it doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
TennTradition said:
I'm a little confused by this. I didn't think that cumulative measurements were taken, just the concentration. Lung capacity shouldn't affect that, just how well one's lungs transfer alcohol between the blood and gases in the lungs (or the rate of gases passing from the blood into the lungs). I've always thought that heavy smokers would probably have an easier time passing one of these things for that reason....
Click to expand...

Seems like a great point to me.
 
#6
#6
Of course, this has to be in Connecticut, though down on the gold coast, not in my part of the state. Let me make the target i wear around you all a little bigger:eek:
 
#7
#7
TennTradition said:
I'm a little confused by this. I didn't think that cumulative measurements were taken, just the concentration. Lung capacity shouldn't affect that, just how well one's lungs transfer alcohol between the blood and gases in the lungs (or the rate of gases passing from the blood into the lungs). I've always thought that heavy smokers would probably have an easier time passing one of these things for that reason....also I would think that if you had a high fever, it would boost your BAC as measured by a breathalyzer...I don't have anything to back this up, just thinking...

Edit: After some additional thinking, I will add this. It depends on how "lung capacity is measured." If lung capacity is measured by the ratio of volume of air sacs to surface area of those sacs, then maybe this would make sense (if you have the same amount of contact area but more gas in your lungs, then you could measure a smaller BAC it would seem). On the other hand, if "lung capacity" is just a measure of the volume of air sacs (and everyone's ratio of volume to surface area is basically constant), then it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
this is on the right track. Seems to me that he would have to argue about the lungs more efficiently pulling gases from the blood to generate a higher concentration of lung gases than that actually present in the blood.

Second, would the 3% difference in lung capacity really matter when dude blew nearly .2.

This attorney is going to get blistered in court.
 
#8
#8
I could have sworn this thread would have had something to do with malt liquor and Hennessy...
 
#9
#9
Lawyers like this guy need to be hanged and their dead bodies dragged through the streets...
 
#10
#10
BigPapaVol said:
this is on the right track. Seems to me that he would have to argue about the lungs more efficiently pulling gases from the blood to generate a higher concentration of lung gases than that actually present in the blood.

Second, would the 3% difference in lung capacity really matter when dude blew nearly .2.

This attorney is going to get blistered in court.
Click to expand...

Short answer...no. Someone may have to prove that...but no.
 
#11
#11
"They are KKK in a box,"
:post-4-1090547912::post-4-1090547912:
 
#12
#12
SWIL said:
"They are KKK in a box,"
:post-4-1090547912::post-4-1090547912:
Click to expand...
Especially as it concerns State Troopers patrolling this highway...
kkk_adopt_a_highway_2.jpg
 
#14
#14
Yep..... "Castration Jesse" Jackson will be there looking for another Budweiser Distributor and he will be followed immediately by "Honest Al" Sharpton.... The Minister of Truth and Justice and the American Way "Limber-Lipped Lewis" Farrakhan, may have organized a 6 Trillion man march on that court house.

The cheery and chipper threesome will be spending all of their time there looking for TV Cameras to pose in front of while begging for interviews.

Blood Alcohol Analyzers measure the concentration of alcohol in the exhaled gasses. The analysis has nothing to do with lung capacity but some "loop-hole louie" attornies will do anything to drag fees out of their clients.
 
#17
#17
truefan said:
:no:

Duty to his client. Just trying to break new ground. It is his job and more attorneys should represent in this manner.
Click to expand...

right as long as it's not illegal lawyers should do anything to get their client off. this type of reasoning is why lawyers have such a horrible reputation.
 
#18
#18
Its has been point out to me in the past that you should
always,always take a doctor to court with you when it
involves breathalyzers.They can only a test to their inaccuracy!Some flaw with the assumptions that the science involved makes.
 
#19
#19
droski said:
right as long as it's not illegal lawyers should do anything to get their client off. this type of reasoning is why lawyers have such a horrible reputation.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong and aren't understanding the context. The lawyer should ZEALOUSLY defend his client. The reason SOME lawyers have bad reputations is because of unnessary litigation and suits. This is a totally different thing
 
#20
#20
truefan said:
No, you're wrong and aren't understanding the context. The lawyer should ZEALOUSLY defend his client. The reason SOME lawyers have bad reputations is because of unnessary litigation and suits. This is a totally different thing
Click to expand...
no it isn't different. People think morality of using particular defense strategies should be considered by attorneys. Attorneys should do everything legally possible to get their clients off. Much of the public has a problem with letting a known offender walk scot free.

That's droski's point, which, I believe, is the same one you're making.
 
#22
#22
truefan said:
The reason SOME lawyers have bad reputations is because of unnessary litigation and suits.
Click to expand...

by your logit isn't it the lawyer's duty to ZEALOUSLY do what is in his clients best interest? and obviously the client's best interest in our society is filing a frivalous lawsuit. if morality mattered they wouldn't file frivalous lawsuits nor would they work hard to get child molestors off on technicalities.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top