SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
20,667 Drunken-Driving Convictions Tainted by Bad Breathalyzer Test in New Jersey
More than 20,000 drunken-driving convictions in New Jersey could be in jeopardy after the state's highest court ruled on Tuesday that breathalyzer tests used to win those judgments were inadmissible.
The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court stems from criminal charges brought more than two years ago against a State Police sergeant who was accused of falsifying calibration records on breath test devices that were used in five of New Jersey's 21 counties.
It is unclear how state courts and law enforcement officials will now proceed. The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically expunge all the drunken-driving convictions, but the justices did note that defendants tested by the affected breath machines could now seek to challenge their convictions. The decision also raises questions about cases that are still moving through the judicial system.
[...] The ruling is the latest development in an odd case that began more than two years ago, when Sgt. Marc W. Dennis, whose duties included calibrating breath test devices, was charged with falsely certifying that he had followed proper calibration procedures. As a result, the accuracy of all the breath tests that he calibrated, known in New Jersey as Alcotests, could not be trusted, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled.
Also at NBC.
(Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:38AM (13 children)
Why would a police man ever falsify calibration results is beyond me. Such a hubris and lives destroyed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:49AM (3 children)
Why would Police Officer (and a single one at that) be in charge of calibrating this is also beyond me. Seems like opening yourself up for exactly this type of lawsuit.
As a sidenote drunk drivers should get 10 year prison sentence. Unfrotunately in New Jersey, murderers hardly ever get 10 years, lot of them are out on parole after 7.
(Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:01PM (2 children)
Only 10 ? Why so lenient ? They should get 30 to life !
We need to raise the penalties to dissuade people. On the basis of 30 for drunk driving, we can give at least 10 for jaywalking, 15 for speeding, 7 for littering (30-to-life if it's a cigarette butt in CA), and at least 5 for farting upwind of a protected class!
Punish Everyone! Fill the empty US prisons! Use the prisoners to build more for-profit ones, then fill them with our misbehaving compatriots!
Peace Through Strength !
Just don't raise my taxes, cut someone else's entitlements. Prison sex is free.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 14 2018, @07:09PM (1 child)
What's the sentence for committing fraud that leads to a miscarriage of justice and denying the people their constitutional rights?
That's one we probably do need to do a better job at punishing....
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:02PM
Another term in office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @11:27AM
Lazy? Stupid? Malicious? All of above?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @01:47PM (1 child)
Simply put, money, just like any other moving violation. Unless there is an accident of some kind, jurisdictions will trade convictions for hefty fines. This is how you get those people who have been pulled over for DUI multiple times go free until they actually cause damage. So if you calibrate the sensor to lower than it should be, the more people you can catch "over the limit", and thus more money for the jurisdiction.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:17PM
This.
Whenever the funding for an operation gets tied to people breaking the rules, there is pressure to ensure that people keep breaking the rules, and if they don't then moving the goalposts till they do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @04:07PM
I'd guess that he thought he could tell if someone was too drunk intuitively. Far too many people trust their gut feelings.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RS3 on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:14PM (1 child)
Some people are passionate about doing their jobs well. Certainly some take it too far. Some cops choose their professions nobly, truly wanting to help. As much as I support "innocent until proven guilty" (very much so, and more on that another time), cops do risk their lives trying to apprehend drunk drivers. To see them freed and back driving because of a technicality, lenient judges, deal-making, etc., just frustrates them, and I can't blame them for caring. Obviously we have to blame them for breaking the rules, instituting their own systems Dodge City style, but that's my take on it.
The system is broken. Congress make laws in ivory towers and it takes too long and too much effort to revise and refine the laws based on empirical data. Needs to be more like agile development.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:28PM
I want a political party which will do nothing not urgently required except go through existing law, condense it down into a single set of books, curry all significant precedent into those books, examine each law's effectiveness and necessity, and recalibrate sentencing.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:40PM
It's pretty easy to imagine why...
Police officer is busy (with paperwork, "catching criminals," socializing with fellow officers, or any other innocent or damning reason you like). They have too much to do, too little time, and end up skipping things like device calibration. Later, they realize the mistake and then falsify records to protect their reputation and possibly their job.
It doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it. Anybody who thinks this doesn't happen (hopefully with other less, impactful results) has never had any position of authority in any real job. Corners are always cut. The question is which corners are cut, and when.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:34PM
Because convicting people is more important that convicting guilty people. Sometimes it's just a power trip. And sometimes law enforcement budgets are based on their convictions (more means more crime, which translates to more money).
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:29AM
Because police is paid by the number and severity of convictions.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.