Jo Smith
Member
After typing a long detailed post and then timing out, very simply, what are the police trying to establish when requesting BAC calculations when using a hipflask defense?
My understanding now having researched it, is the law assume the amount of alcohol in my system at the time of blowing on evidence machine at station, is what was in my system when driving. The burden is on me to prove otherwise.
My version of events;
8pm drove
830pm minor rtc
840pm home and consumed alcohol
855pm police came to home, waited 30 mins, breath tested, failed, arrested.
10pm booked in and on evidence machine blew 94/98
Next morning interviewed, gave account, released under investigation...
If for me to prove otherwise, why not just charge, rather than release under investigation pending BACs calcs?
The solicitor said usually only use BACs in very server circumstance, so why request in this case?
Are they helping to collaborate my events and simply looking to confirm amount of alcohol I say I had at 840pm is consistent with the sample provided, so if amount I say I drank at home wasn't enough to put me over, they'd take that amount off the 94 reading; so say if alcohol at home contained 45 then 94-45 = 49 so still over limit, or if amount said I had drank at home, doesn't fit, say a bottle of whiskey reading should of been 200 and I should be dead so not probable.
Or are they trying to use BACs to disprove my version and looking at the timeframe and taking into account absorption and dispersion rates, if presumed, what I blew at station, is what was in system at time of driving? Are they looking to take off the time elapsed from evidence machine and last drink or is from last or first time drove ? Or are they looking at absorption rates to say, last drink at 830pm evidence machine at 10pm so on average, could of only of absorbed x amount which be taken off the 94 reading? Would they then also look to add on any dispersion rates?
Finally do they take off 35 legal limit before charging eg blew 94 lowest on evidence machine, legal limit is 35 so 94 - 35 = 59 so sentencing be based on 59 guidelines rather than 94?
My understanding now having researched it, is the law assume the amount of alcohol in my system at the time of blowing on evidence machine at station, is what was in my system when driving. The burden is on me to prove otherwise.
My version of events;
8pm drove
830pm minor rtc
840pm home and consumed alcohol
855pm police came to home, waited 30 mins, breath tested, failed, arrested.
10pm booked in and on evidence machine blew 94/98
Next morning interviewed, gave account, released under investigation...
If for me to prove otherwise, why not just charge, rather than release under investigation pending BACs calcs?
The solicitor said usually only use BACs in very server circumstance, so why request in this case?
Are they helping to collaborate my events and simply looking to confirm amount of alcohol I say I had at 840pm is consistent with the sample provided, so if amount I say I drank at home wasn't enough to put me over, they'd take that amount off the 94 reading; so say if alcohol at home contained 45 then 94-45 = 49 so still over limit, or if amount said I had drank at home, doesn't fit, say a bottle of whiskey reading should of been 200 and I should be dead so not probable.
Or are they trying to use BACs to disprove my version and looking at the timeframe and taking into account absorption and dispersion rates, if presumed, what I blew at station, is what was in system at time of driving? Are they looking to take off the time elapsed from evidence machine and last drink or is from last or first time drove ? Or are they looking at absorption rates to say, last drink at 830pm evidence machine at 10pm so on average, could of only of absorbed x amount which be taken off the 94 reading? Would they then also look to add on any dispersion rates?
Finally do they take off 35 legal limit before charging eg blew 94 lowest on evidence machine, legal limit is 35 so 94 - 35 = 59 so sentencing be based on 59 guidelines rather than 94?