Features:
(1) A breathalyser analysis on a driver after an accident or event is positive.
(2) The driver claims that he or she was sober when an accident or other event occurred.
(3) The person was so shocked by the event that she or he had to have a drink from a hip flask to settle the nerves.
There are methods to refute this defense but require prompt and thorough procedures that must be started as soon as possible after the police arrive. For example, analysis of urine may require the collection of urine at the scene.
Methods to refute or support the defense:
(1) monitoring urine alcohol over time. If a urine specimen is collected soon after the accident, then it should be negative for alcohol if the person was sober, with subsequent urine samples becoming positive.
(2) measuring cogeners in the blood and compare to those in the alcohol in the hip flask. If different cogeners are present then a different alcohol has been consumed and the defense is refuted. If the cogeners are the same then it may or may not mean anything.
(3) measuring blood alcohol at the scene. If the blood level exceeds the level expected for 1 or 2 drinks then this would refute the defense.
