788
Woman in ad who said a Democrat endangers kids pleaded guilty to endangering kids
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2026
788 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
22807 readers
887 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On top of the body processing some of the alcohol in the time between the field test and the final test, the field test is usually not accurate enough to be accepted by the court for conviction. It's just one piece of the probable cause used to arrest a suspect and bring them to the police station or jail where the larger, more accurate machine can get a result that's usable at trial.
It's important the the test field test be fairly accurate right around the legal limit. At much higher numbers, it's fine for it to be pretty far off because the suspect is definitely getting arrested at that point.
I could imagine they tune that field test to err high so they can have probable cause. If it isn't accepted as proof anyway, why make it highly accurate. I guess the people who say never agree to a breathalyzer test during a traffic stop are probably right.