Breath alcohol testing is fraught with inherent analytical and physiological variables which are often caught in the legal debate concerning the `quantification of certainty'. In many jurisdictions, per se evidence of breath alcohol content (BrAC) alone is sufficient to convict a person accused of DUI. A reliable scientific process and an evenly applied judicial standard can fairly resolve unnecessary litigation and expense. In the United States, the case of Daubert versus Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals has interjected scientific concepts of demonstrable error rates and validity to drunk driving litigation. Together with existing research concerning the analytical variables inherent and correlation and correlation of error rates with reasonable to breath testing, a review of the literature supports the ongoing development of valid testing techniques together with a jurisprudential method of dealing with this scientific evidence. Reflections concerning the valid testing technique doubt suggest a resolution of the scientific-judicial dilemma in the favour of acceptable reporting of breath testing results when used in the judicial context. (A)
Samenvatting