I read the article regarding the attorney general’s decision not to continue or support police charges against Mayor Guay. I am concerned about that.

As a health care professional, I know that there are false positives and false negatives to almost every “on-the-spot” lab test. When you believe the test doesn’t support the symptoms, a blood sample or culture is done to verify or disqualify the initial test result. If lawyers can defend operating under the influence cases on the basis that there are margins of error, why not a faulty test in this case, too? If the police felt his field sobriety test did not match the breath test, they should have had a blood level drawn. That would have given an open-and-shut case, one way or the other.

As far as the attorney general’s position, I understand, based on the breath test results, why he might make the decision he made.

What’s really bothering me is the message the attorney general is sending to my two teenage kids: It’s OK to have three beers and get behind the wheel of the car. If they don’t get caught and/or the breath test doesn’t support the field sobriety test, it’s OK. If they had been in the same circumstances as the mayor, would the attorney general support them?

I would hope the same set of rules and laws apply to all who drink and drive.

Remember, Maine has a tough drunk driver law. Or does it?

Genise Knowlton, Bridgton

Copy the Story Link