[perl4ever]

In court, from what I've seen, police officers (as witnesses) put on quite a show laying out their experience, the calibration of the machine, the outcome of the field tests, etc. because of the skepticism that people have. You get a very different picture than what you get from journalism like that. Not saying it is always accurate, or nothing is ever fabricated or lied about, just that it seems normal to cover every possible objection twice over and only prosecute the most aggravated cases (at least in my locale).

[cf498]

For what would the breath analyzer results be necessary in court? Arent there judge ordered mandatory blood alcohol tests after failing a breath analyzer test?

[perl4ever]

That's kind of my point, I don't think anyone goes and presents the breath test on its own. They're like "I was trained for X months to identify drunk drivers and use this equipment, and I've stopped X hundred drunk drivers, and I've been at parties where people are drinking, so I know what levels of drunkenness are like, and the machine was calibrated and they failed the walking and eye tracking tests and their pants fell down and they pissed themselves and they had a blood test of double the limit..."

The breath test is, I think (I am not a lawyer) insurance that there was reasonable suspicion of the person being drunk, not final proof of anything.