Lawyer seeks to have DUI breath tests halted in Pennsylvania
Bob Saxman blows into a breathalyzer held by course instructor Ron Harvey as part of a sobriety test training program for police officers at the Springdale Township Fire Department. Tribune-Review file photo
A Dauphin County lawyer filed a request on Monday to throw out breath testing for alcohol in Pennsylvania, a week after a judge ruled breath testers aren't accurate for analyzing alcohol in the blood.
Attorney Justin McShane said he filed his request in Dauphin County Common Pleas Court but expects the judge to allow the case to move to state Superior Court, where it could have statewide implications.
“I'm not interested in getting drunk people off. I'm interested in people who are falsely accused,” McShane said. “Blood testing is the way to go if it's done correctly. Let's get out of the 1950s.”
Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico could not be reached for comment.
Dauphin County Judge Lawrence F. Clark Jr. ruled last week that machines such as Breathalyzers and Intoxilyzers, used to measure a driver‘s intoxication, can't be considered accurate for blood-alcohol readings between zero and .05 percent or beyond .15 percent. The legal limit is .08 percent. Because of Clark‘s decision, police in Dauphin County can‘t use the devices to determine whether someone is intoxicated enough for prosecution under the state's highest level of DUI impairment of .16 percent and above.
McShane based his challenge on how police calibrate the machines.
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7886 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.