[nickle12]

I've been charged with a dui. At the stop the policeman gave me a fst(one foot in front of the other)i'm diagnoised with arthritis in the left hip. I explained to the officer I walk with a limp and that it would be difficult to perform that test. He gave it to me anyway. Then a lady officer performed the eyetest. Then out came the portable breath test. It was .16 extreme. They took me to the station tried to do the blood draw, my blood would not come out into the needle, so they got no blood. They gave me a urine test, wrote the tickets then let me go. I've been told that the portable breath test can't be used in court, so the urine test is what they will use to prove I was drunk. I was told that the police should have either got the blood, or put me on another type of breathalizer that will tell just what my content was. What does the urine test show? Does it show my bac of .16 or does it just show I had alcohol in my system at the time they took the test? Can it be used to convict me of this crime? Please help!

[JudyKayTee]

Here's is the info on urine alcohol testing: "Urine Alcohol Testing Pros

They have a high assurance of reliable results.

They are relatively inexpensive.

They provide the most flexibility in testing different drugs, including alcohol and nicotine.

They are the most likely of all drug-testing methods to withstand legal challenge.

Urine Alcohol Testing Cons

The specimen can be adulterated, substituted, or diluted.

They have a limited window of detection (typically 1 to 5 days).

They are considered as invasive or embarrassing form of alcohol testing.

They present a biological hazard when the specimens are handled and shipped to the lab.

They indicate the presence of alcohol in a person's system, but it takes up to 2 hours for the alcohol to show up in urine. A positive urine test does not necessarily mean the person was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the test. Rather, it detects and measures the use of alcohol within the previous day or so and with some special testing methods, such as EtG urine alcohol tests, up to 80 hours." Alcohol Testing | Alcohol Tests | Testing for Alcohol | Alcohol Test

Yes, it can be used by the Prosecutor.

Who told you that the Police needed to use a second breathalyzer OR a blood draw? An Attorney? Legal research? That is not correct to my knowledge. I'm in NY and a portable breath test is admissible.

[Fr_Chuck]

Well first if the officers are POST certified in field sobority, then they can go to court and sometimes get a conviction just on what they see and hear at the scene even without the field breath test.

It will depend on your specific state acceptance, but yes, along with officer testomony while not exact the courts can accept as evidence what the field breath test also said.

Not sure why they could not find blood, were you not holding still for them, if so, the statement of the person trying to take blood will also be part of the case.

The urine test is not as good as the blood test, since of course it is the BAC that is how the laws are wrtten.

Nomally our department and more in GA and TN would give a breath test at the station on the better equipment if there was a certified tester at the station, and if not we sent them to the hospital for the blood test.

On the urnine test while they "read" it there, it would be sent off to a certified lab, and it may be several weeks before they get the final results of this.

But the field test is all the need for the actual arrest