Lawyer: Alcohol testing device is racist

Scum, you just lost mu business Ruane

Inssales wrote:

Scum, you just lost mu business Ruane

Please translate. "mu"?

^^^^^Clueless!!!!

Say all that, but if you got a DUI from some overaggressive state cop, BAC right at or above the legal limit (2 beers in one hour will do it), and the states attorney wants you to pay hundreds in fines, costs and classes.

Would you want someone to fight for you to the fullest?

All of a sudden a bunch of perfect, self-righteous SOB's come crawling out of the wood-work!

Just another Lawyer looking to establish a name for himself.

How do you tell if a lawyer is lying?

Their lips are moving!

YEAH RIGHT wrote:

I heard Mr. Brilliant Lawyer is going after the airlines next. He says the the black box cockpit recording device is rasict and should be renamed.

Or maybe the highway dept. for using "Black Tar" on highways...
or maybe Guinness beer for pushing the "Black and Tan" Stout in pubs...give me a break!

Let's not forget that we have no open container law in this state because it would unfairly target minorities!!!!!

I guess they're not responsible for their actions...

Breathalyzer Tests...racist? Oh wow what is next?????? A drunk driver is a drunk driver no matter what ethnic background and to use race as an out is pathetic!!!!

pwilson wrote:

So now they have to throw out ALL DWI convictions to all the "little" people who have diminished lung capacity.
And people who smoke.
And people over the age of 60.
And disabled people.
Short people.
Tall people.
People who just breath through their nose.
NUTS! JUST NUTS!

Exactly!! Plus, I've seen drunks (white and black) who can barely blow into the thing and it registers fine. Then 15 minutes later, they do it again, and can exhale better, and it reads the same. Seems pretty good to me.

How about this -if it is really, truly inaccurate, then every black person will have to get an immediate blood draw for analyzing - oh wait, some shyster will say that is racist too.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS!!!!

How can you tell when its really really cold outside?....The lawyers have their hands in their OWN pockets......

Are you kidding me??? Another lawyer looking for prey

Folks: I welcome your comments. This motion was one of a series of motions we filed in regards to the potential evidence in the case. The medical research is clear, the Intoxilyzer will overstate the breath alcohol level in certain persons (African Americans and women). I did not conduct the research, I only learned of it last year in another case. When you combine the biases of the machine for the racial factor, the lung capacity, the conversion from a breath sample to a blood reading, and take into account a person's natural partition ratio, you can see a possible breath test reading of a person at 0.08 that may actually be as low as .03. That is a significant overstatement in the results. As you get further away from the standard, the overstatement grows larger in number. The machine treats every person the same, and that may cause it to discriminate against certain segments of the population. In this case, the purported results as mentioned in the article do not match the physical evidence. This was why we started looking for other explanations.
While this is one motion filed in the case, it certainly is not the only issue in the case.

I would welcome all of you to come to the trial and make your own decision as to the facts before you blindly assume all people arrested are guilty of a crime. In this case, Mr. Brown is not guilty of any crime, and I intend on defending him with the zeal that is my duty to use.

I do not condone DUI, nor do I advocate for the lessening of the legal penalties for DUI. In fact, I have testified in the legislature that the current system does not fix the problem.

If you had a loved one who was facing the charges of DUI, you would expect his or her attorney to look at every piece of evidence to defend that loved one vigorously. My review of the evidence (all of the evidence which you have not had a chance to see) yields one conclusion. Mr. Brown is innocent, and I will defend him against these charges.

Feel free to email me at jamesruane@yahoo.com if you have further questions.

Well finally the white man can claim a larger body part than the black man.

what a fool it's 0.08 so he was more than double the limit they need to use the obamalizer on blacks now i quess

Bpt Brick wrote:

^^^^^Clueless!!!!
Say all that, but if you got a DUI from some overaggressive state cop, BAC right at or above the legal limit (2 beers in one hour will do it), and the states attorney wants you to pay hundreds in fines, costs and classes.
Would you want someone to fight for you to the fullest?
All of a sudden a bunch of perfect, self-righteous SOB's come crawling out of the wood-work!

His Blood Alcohol was way over the limit!!!! He is drunk. period. Maybe people should learn to not drink and drive. Duh! How hard is this people?

You know how many people I've seen killed or severely injured by drunk drivers who all only had "2 beers". It's BS! DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!

This is just another excuse for someone to break the law and be an idiot!!!

Attorey James Ruane wrote:

Folks: I welcome your comments. This motion was one of a series of motions we filed in regards to the potential evidence in the case. The medical research is clear, the Intoxilyzer will overstate the breath alcohol level in certain persons (African Americans and women). I did not conduct the research, I only learned of it last year in another case. When you combine the biases of the machine for the racial factor, the lung capacity, the conversion from a breath sample to a blood reading, and take into account a person's natural partition ratio, you can see a possible breath test reading of a person at 0.08 that may actually be as low as .03. That is a significant overstatement in the results. As you get further away from the standard, the overstatement grows larger in number. The machine treats every person the same, and that may cause it to discriminate against certain segments of the population. In this case, the purported results as mentioned in the article do not match the physical evidence. This was why we started looking for other explanations.
While this is one motion filed in the case, it certainly is not the only issue in the case.
I would welcome all of you to come to the trial and make your own decision as to the facts before you blindly assume all people arrested are guilty of a crime. In this case, Mr. Brown is not guilty of any crime, and I intend on defending him with the zeal that is my duty to use.
I do not condone DUI, nor do I advocate for the lessening of the legal penalties for DUI. In fact, I have testified in the legislature that the current system does not fix the problem.
If you had a loved one who was facing the charges of DUI, you would expect his or her attorney to look at every piece of evidence to defend that loved one vigorously. My review of the evidence (all of the evidence which you have not had a chance to see) yields one conclusion. Mr. Brown is innocent, and I will defend him against these charges.
Feel free to email me at jamesruane@yahoo.com if you have further questions.

Please, your research does not show it is off enough to show .188 when he was less than the legal limit. BS. You weren't there you so are going by you client, who has every reason to lie and say he was innocent. The cop did his job. He had a reason for stopping the guy in the first place too. Its just another excuse for people to use race or sex as a reason to get away with a crime. You weren't there, so you can't tell me he wasn't intoxicated. Your client will, of course, lie about it to get out of trouble. The cop has no reason to lie and the machine showed his reading to be over 2x the limit. It doubt very much it was that off.

Good luck with this wacky defense though. If it works, every black person can claim the machine was wrong and get away with DUI. That's a great way to improve race relations. NOT!

Attorey James Ruane wrote:

Folks: I welcome your comments. This motion was one of a series of motions we filed in regards to the potential evidence in the case. The medical research is clear, the Intoxilyzer will overstate the breath alcohol level in certain persons (African Americans and women). I did not conduct the research, I only learned of it last year in another case. When you combine the biases of the machine for the racial factor, the lung capacity, the conversion from a breath sample to a blood reading, and take into account a person's natural partition ratio, you can see a possible breath test reading of a person at 0.08 that may actually be as low as .03. That is a significant overstatement in the results. As you get further away from the standard, the overstatement grows larger in number. The machine treats every person the same, and that may cause it to discriminate against certain segments of the population. In this case, the purported results as mentioned in the article do not match the physical evidence. This was why we started looking for other explanations.
While this is one motion filed in the case, it certainly is not the only issue in the case.
I would welcome all of you to come to the trial and make your own decision as to the facts before you blindly assume all people arrested are guilty of a crime. In this case, Mr. Brown is not guilty of any crime, and I intend on defending him with the zeal that is my duty to use.
I do not condone DUI, nor do I advocate for the lessening of the legal penalties for DUI. In fact, I have testified in the legislature that the current system does not fix the problem.
If you had a loved one who was facing the charges of DUI, you would expect his or her attorney to look at every piece of evidence to defend that loved one vigorously. My review of the evidence (all of the evidence which you have not had a chance to see) yields one conclusion. Mr. Brown is innocent, and I will defend him against these charges.
Feel free to email me at jamesruane@yahoo.com if you have further questions.

What the heck is wrong with questioning how the machine works?
KKK in a box might be a bit much, but it's no worse than the langugae state prosecutors (or our AG)use when they're trying to make a point.
Why is everybody jumping on the lawyer cracks without hearing what the guy has to say?
Tell you what, if I were accused of a DUI I'd darn sure want to know why no listens to me, but treats that silly little box as if it's the Holy Grail.

You mean to tell me that a fat 5 ft. white male has better lung capacity than a 6 ft 7 in. athlete who conditions himself daily? Talk about opening up a can of worms.

Guy Gadbois wrote:

<quoted text>
You write very level-headedly here. Is it true that you referred to the breathalyzer device in question as "KKK in a box"? If so, you're making a mockery of our courts with this ridiculous and controversial behavior.
Oh, and you spelled "attorney" wrong.

Oh, and you used the word level-headedly which is not a word.

Stratford wrote:

What's next? How about throwing out ALL cases against blacks because they have a diminished brain capacity to whites. I'm sure some scumbag lawyer will plead this one somewhere along the line.

That's gonna be hard to prove!
Liberals will supress it.