Is it standard across Texas to not use PBT's (Portable breath test units) for suspected DWI drivers? My department does not use PBT's and I havent heard of any other department nearby that uses one for potential suspects. I was just wondering if this was standard, is it a constitutional "search" issue, just common practice or reliability.

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

Thanks

The officers in my county all seem to use PBTs. Its just one more thing to list as PC for the arrest. It doesn't make a difference in trial but it can help in a suppression hearing.

The downside to the PBT, in my opinion, is that subjects sometimes refuse the intoxilyzer because they realize they "failed" the PBT.

quote:

---

There is a new tester out now that is hidden inside a flashlight, it detects alcohol on the breath just by waving it inside the car. the only thing it wont detect is vodka.

---

Why don't you find something more constructive to say, Yellow? In addition, proofread your posts. Your grammar, capitalization and punctuation are abominable.

(This post was written before the admins got a hold of Yellow. The only reason I'm not deleting it is because I liked RJ's response below, and it just wouldn't make sense without mine.)

[This message was edited by Gretchen on 06-23-08 at .]

[This message was edited by Gretchen on 06-23-08 at .]

Hey, he can't help himself. He just found out there's this new thing called the Internet where, through the magic of his own bitterness, conspiracies can become real . . .

. . . but only if he loves them enough to rub the fur off of them.

Unfortunately, WestTexasOfficer, not all police are as wise as the police in your area. Police regularly use them around here, with the result that most DWI suspects refuse to give an Intoxilyzer test.

The PBT result is inadmissible at trial, while the Intoxilyzer Test is not only admissible, it's extremely potent evidence at trial. All the PB Tester does is give a heads up to the suspect that if he takes the Real Thing, he will fail.

The best thing to do with P.B. Testers, if DWI enforcement is important to an agency, is to take a 20 lbs. sledge hammer to them.

All of our local DPS Troops carry PBT's; It depends on the individual Trooper if they use it. My office purchased several for the County and local PD. The County keeps one in the Jail for checking work-release and weekend inmates on return to custody. The PD has one assigned to the school resource officer. The rest are carried by officers who like to use them. To the argument that if they fail the PBT, a suspect will refuse the intoxilyzer following their arrest, I have a two word response "Search Warrant!"

The one thing that does bother me about PBT's is that Juries want to know the results and seem to think the State is hiding something if they are not told the numerical result. For this reason, if the defense limines the PBT results, I ask to limine the PBT entirely. I did have one attorney kick the door open to the PBT result by asking the arresting officer if he had any evidence the defendant was over 0.08 at time of driving given that he was only at a 0.07 two hours after the accident.

Since we started using search warrants I have not tried a DWI, but I would be interested in thoughts about PBT results being used by an expert to form an opinion extrapolating BAC at time of driving.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellow-house:
There is a new tester out now that is hidden inside a flashlight, it detects alcohol on the breath just by waving it inside the car. the only thing it wont detect is vodka.

---

This statement cannot possibly be true because "vodka" is our word for pure ethanol in pure water. A device that does not detect vodka does not detect ethanol. Sounds like an urban legend.

That said, passive alcohol sensors have been on the market for at least 15 years. They don't measure intoxication; they alert to the presence of any alcohol in the air. It could be in the breath, in an open container, spilled on the carpet, or whatever so they might be a factor influencing an officer to continue an investigation but he would probably want to see some other clues before making an arrest.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation studied the reliability of these devices a few years back and the overall results were not promising: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/library/publications/topic/safety/paschapter3.pdf

In addition to the previously mentioned issue regarding BTRs on the "real" Intoxilyzer, ("Cop asked me to blow into one thing, I did; he arrested me. Now he thinks I'm going to blow into something else..?!?") an issue I have seen in trial (and heard from several juries I've spoken with after trial) is that prosecutors spend a lot of time during direct examination talking about the SFSTs, NHTSA, the reliability of the SFSTs, the studies that support them, etc. etc.

Use of a PBT on the street (seen by the jury on the video and discussed to some extent during direct) sometimes gives juries the thought (prompted by the defense attorney in closing..) "The arresting officer did all of these fancy tests, yet STILL wasn't sure if he could make an arrest until he had the defendant blow into a PBT."

While the officer may be able to testify that the PBT indicated "the presence of alcohol", there was surely plenty of testimony about that already.

I know that DPS Troopers love their PBTs, but for use on anything but "DUI Minor", I just don't see anything positive.

The only exception I've seen was a Trooper who administered the PBT right in front of his patrol car (on video). After looking at the read-out, the Trooper tossed the PBT back into it's case in disgust, rolled his eyes, shook his head, then pulled out his handcuffs. While we had to redact the audio from that portion of the tape, it was painfully obvious to the jury what had just transpired. 10 minute guilty.

WTO,
I don't know what jurisdiction you're in, but if you want to PM me, I can share why we don't use them in Lubbock.

Look, a PBT gives you no more useful information than can simply be observed from the suspect's behavior: the suspect has been drinking alcohol to the point that he may be intoxicated. Given that the PBT is not admissible at trial, it can serve no useful purpose. Has anyone really had problems developing probable cause at the scene? No.

The real problem is at the station in collecting a useful blood or breath sample under conditions that make it admissible in court. Changing the law to require submission of a sample would provide a simple fix. Meanwhile, DPS is wasting time and money with PBT's that simply give them reason to skimp on collecting physical (admissible) evidence of intoxication.