Do bodily functions have a place in the courtroom?
Most would probably say no, but the Kentucky Supreme Court will soon hear a case where a judge acquitted a man on a DUI charge because he BURPED right before his DUI test.
I knew burps could be offensive, but would you ever believe that a burp could reach a supreme court???
It all started in November 2006 when a Kentucky man, Bertrand Howlett, was pulled over for speeding and swerving. After taking a breath test, it was clear that Howlett was intoxicated… or was he just high on carbonation? He later admitted to burping right before the test.
Howlett was later acquitted because Judge Donald Armstrong remembered from previously in his career, when he was a lawyer, that a burp could alter the results of a DUI test. Was he just reflecting on the glory days, or was he actually being serious?
Apparently the manual of the "intoxilyzer" addresses the issue by stating that if regurgitation occurs that the test should be delayed 20 minutes to ensure that it's measuring alcohol from the lungs, not lingering in the mouth. If you're a cop and you pull someone over and he seems drunk, and then he pukes, can't you just issue him a DUI based on the "it-looks-like-a-duck-and-smells-like-a-duck" mentality?
The attorney who prosecuted Howlett, Ben Wyman, stated that the district court “misunderstood ‘burp’ vs. ‘regurgitate’”. This guy calls himself a lawyer? Any lawman or woman would know the difference!
So the question is... Should Judges be allowed to make rulings based on personal experience? If so, does that make them biased? If Lindsay Lohan’s judge were a junkie, would she have avoided jail time?
Additionally, burping seems like a real genius way to get out of a serious ticket. Are there any other interesting ways of escaping a ticket that may involve any other form of bodily function? I'm curious... in the name of science Smosh readers need to know!
Comments
Post a Comment