It appears that I was 'DUI' at a rating of 160 ml, based on the RCMP's machine. I will say this up front that I am not contesting this issue, or if the 'machine' was working properly. However, I do have an issue with the 'overall process' and the validity of, if in fact, I was under the influence.
It appears that I have been drinking for quite some time, and, in fact, I drink on a regular basis, mostly at home, but sometimes in a local bar.
I had several drinks between the hours of 0400 and 0900, rum and coke, and then had nothing till I went 'to town'. At which time I had two (yes the preverbial two - and in this case this is a fact, it was only two) drinks. One at about 2:30 in the afternoon and a sencond one at about 4:00. Both drinks were in short glasses and were pretty stiff, but not overly so.
I left around 6:00 pm and on the way home other circumstances came up, which are irrelivent here, and I was pulled over and questioned for driving under the influence. I blew a .160.
Based on what I know for a fact as to how much and 'ruffly' when I had them I question the validity of the testing phase. I do not disagree that I had the aforementioned amount in my system, but I do disagree with my being under the influence.
Unless the Constable was making a joke of me, to me, he was surprised that I 'blew' so strongly.
My question, in this case, is questioning what can I say or do in this case?
It appears that my body does not elimate alchol as readely as the 'stats' says it should. By the 'machine' I "was under the influence", but in fact, was I really "under the influence"?
Is there a presidence to this situation?