Comments on: Find Michigan DUI Lawyer | Violation of Breath Testing Adminstrative Rules Might Lead to Suppression of Results https://winbackyourlife.org/breath-testing-adminstrative-rules/ Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:33:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: bad credit loans https://winbackyourlife.org/breath-testing-adminstrative-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1007 bad credit loans Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:29:15 +0000 https://winbackyourlife.org/?p=1039#comment-1007 Good Afternoon!!! winbackyourlife.org is one of the best innovative websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. I will be back. Good Afternoon!!! winbackyourlife.org is one of the best innovative websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. I will be back.

]]> By: Mass. DUI Lawyer https://winbackyourlife.org/breath-testing-adminstrative-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-980 Mass. DUI Lawyer Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:18:32 +0000 https://winbackyourlife.org/?p=1039#comment-980 Like Michigan, Massachusetts also has a 15 minute observation period, the purpose of which is to insure that the subject does not take anything orally or smoke and is not burping or hiccoughing. In Commonwealth v. Pierre, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 231-232 (2008), the court ruled affirmed that “[t]he purpose of the fifteen-minute waiting period is to ensure that the defendant has not brought any substance into his mouth, such as food, drink, or regurgitation…that would have had a contaminating impact on the accuracy of the results, and to permit a sufficient lapse in time to allow such possible contaminants to clear.” In order for a test to be valid, there should be no breaks in the observation period. In my opinion, anything less would invalidate the results. Attorney Brian E. Simoneau Like Michigan, Massachusetts also has a 15 minute observation period, the purpose of which is to insure that the subject does not take anything orally or smoke and is not burping or hiccoughing. In Commonwealth v. Pierre, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 231-232 (2008), the court ruled affirmed that “[t]he purpose of the fifteen-minute waiting period is to ensure that the defendant has not brought any substance into his mouth, such as food, drink, or regurgitation…that would have had a contaminating impact on the accuracy of the results, and to permit a sufficient lapse in time to allow such possible contaminants to clear.”

In order for a test to be valid, there should be no breaks in the observation period. In my opinion, anything less would invalidate the results.

Attorney Brian E. Simoneau

]]> By: Michigan Breath Testing Rules | DUI Help from Michigans Leading … Cable Body https://winbackyourlife.org/breath-testing-adminstrative-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-976 Michigan Breath Testing Rules | DUI Help from Michigans Leading … Cable Body Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:52:07 +0000 https://winbackyourlife.org/?p=1039#comment-976 [...] the original post here: Michigan Breath Testing Rules | DUI Help from Michigans Leading … By admin | category: criminal attorney michigan | tags: breathalyzer, case-observe, [...] [...] the original post here: Michigan Breath Testing Rules | DUI Help from Michigans Leading … By admin | category: criminal attorney michigan | tags: breathalyzer, case-observe, [...]

]]> By: pbarone https://winbackyourlife.org/breath-testing-adminstrative-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-946 pbarone Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:06:07 +0000 https://winbackyourlife.org/?p=1039#comment-946 Re: Michigan DUI Help - New comment requires moderation on: Violation of Breath Testing Adminstrative Rules Might Lead to Suppression of Results <p>Approve<br /> <br /></p> Re: Michigan DUI Help – New comment requires moderation on: Violation of Breath Testing Adminstrative Rules Might Lead to Suppression of Results

Approve

]]> By: William Maze https://winbackyourlife.org/breath-testing-adminstrative-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-944 William Maze Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:34:30 +0000 https://winbackyourlife.org/?p=1039#comment-944 Mr. Barone, I believe you have a typo. It is actually People v Mix (not Nix). And that is a very strange opinion. Mix pertains to a motion to suppress a PBT but the Court of Appeals opted to use the evidential rules regarding the Datamaster instead of the preliminary breath testing rules. In footnote 3, they make this clear where they opine, "In his brief on appeal, defendant incorrectly cites 1994 AACS, R 325.2655(2)(b), which also has a 15-minute requirement but does not require the officer to actually observe defendant." The panel used the wrong rule, and yet they explicitly "corrected" the defendant. Amazing! It is downright scary how some judges do not understand how breath testing works or the rudimentary rules regarding administration of these breath tests. William Maze Mr. Barone,

I believe you have a typo. It is actually People v Mix (not Nix). And that is a very strange opinion. Mix pertains to a motion to suppress a PBT but the Court of Appeals opted to use the evidential rules regarding the Datamaster instead of the preliminary breath testing rules. In footnote 3, they make this clear where they opine, "In his brief on appeal, defendant incorrectly cites 1994 AACS, R 325.2655(2)(b), which also has a 15-minute requirement but does not require the officer to actually observe defendant." The panel used the wrong rule, and yet they explicitly "corrected" the defendant. Amazing!

It is downright scary how some judges do not understand how breath testing works or the rudimentary rules regarding administration of these breath tests.

William Maze

]]>