🚀 go-pugleaf

Hackman wrote:

> yet you think someone in insulin reaction would pass the HGN ?

Someone in "insulin reaction" shouldn't be driving a car.
They SHOULD be seeking medical attention.

> >   HGN is a diagnostic tool in medicine for several ailments,
> > intoxication being one of them, but not everyone uses it or sees it's
> > value.
> 
> well, at least not the medical industry.....

That's absolute hogwash. I've heard "medical professionals"
arguing both ways on HGN. The only thing close to a
consensus that seems to exists is that it's a qualitative as
opposed to a quantitative diagnostic (i.e. it'll indicate
ETOH or drug impairment, but not accurately reflect a
specific BAC). It's supposed to be part of a battery of
tests and when used properly in that fashion it works real
well.

> >   And the fact that it is not admissible in some states is
> > offset by the fact that it *is* admissible in others.
> 
> thats conforting....

Admissibility of certain types of evidence or testimony
often varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Here in
Maine HGN was accepted in some counties and not in others.
PBTs can't be used anywhere in the state.

> yet I would reverse that statement...after all if the medical industry
> says it;s not valid, why would I then beleive a politician over a
> research doctor ?

I would turn your demand for proof of an assertion back at
you. It's really not all that different from the challenges
we see to blood or breath tests in some high profile DWI
cases. You can find "experts" that will argue either side of
an issue for a fee. To the best of my knowledge there is no
official (negative) consensus in the medical profession
regarding the use of HGN for the limited purpose of being
part of a field sobriety test battery? 

> > The evidence is, for those of us who have used it and had sufficient
> > training and experience to properly evaluate it, that HGN is very
> > accurate as  *screening procedure* for intoxication.  This evidence is
> > backed up by hundreds or thousands of DUI arrests where HGN estimates
> > have been confirmed as accurate by subsequent chemical tests.
> >
> 
> if it's so well regraded then it should be no problem having it approved
> by the medical industry huh ?

Why? It's not designed to provide a medical diagnosis. It's
used for very limited purposes. The state of many "legal"
issues of proof lie open to occasional medical challenges
including BAC limits themselves. 

> > No, just wanting to be cops and get deadly DUI's off the highways by
> > using one of a number of tools to evaluate intoxication.
> >
> 
> then use the tools that have been approved and proven to work and not
> the polically modavated ones...or if that method is so great have it
> approved.  simple.

What the hell are you babbling about here? Which tools have
been approved and proven? Or better yet, which tools aren't
subject to legal challenges whenever some defendant has the
drive and the funding to go that route? You seem to be under
the mistaken impression that it takes a medical doctor to
recognize an intoxicated person, eh?

Steve