<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>a public defender - Latest Comments in Breathalyzers under fire | a public defender</title><link>http://apublicdefender.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://apublicdefender.disqus.com/breathalyzers_under_fire_a_public_defender/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:19:04 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Breathalyzers under fire | a public defender</title><link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/27/breathalyzers-under-fire/#comment-3731571</link><description>&lt;p&gt;In the UK, breath alcohol testing has been used for over 30 years.  Traditionally, breath testing was conducted at the roadside and was backed up by a secondary urine or blood test, but more recently police stations are equipped with a more accurate breath testing machine which has been standing up in court without issue for several years.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Breath is perfectly valid as a matrix for testing, so their complaint can only be in relation specifically to the equipment itself... but what a can of worms to open - in my opinion, drinking and driving costs lives, so I hope their attempts to undermine the testing process doesn't broadcast the wrong message.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Breath Alcohol Breathalyzers</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:19:04 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>