Name these false BAC level conditions.......where ZERO alcohol was ingested.....
The issue is the testing: there are things that can cause a false positive:
This page cites medical articles, and also offers other possible causes, including diet. A person can have a false positive due to hypoglycemia, even if they don't have high blood pressure.
Add in a serious traumatic injury that leads to a loss of a leg, and loss of fluids would elevate it further, especially if there was liver or kidney damage.
You could have learned this with a Google or Bing search, rather than acting like an ass.
Justlurking is right about this. There are many circumstances in which a defendant should not be convicted of DUI though showing a blood alcohol level ABOVE the legal limit. Blood alcohol tests, urine alcohol tests and breathalyzer tests all have their problems.
First, you must recognize that the defendant has NO burden of proof. The prosecution has the entire burden of proving each and every element of the alleged crime and every judge will so rule or so instruct the jury.
Scenario #1: A driver who weighs 150 pounds (driver's weight is relevant because the heavier the driver the more alcohol he can consume without violating DUI laws which are based upon a ratio of alcohol consumed to body weight) goes out with friends to eat, drink and be merry. He consumes a large meatball "submarine" sandwich. While driving around, he consumes five cans of beer AFTER the meal but before an accident. Each can of beer (for him) represents .02% for a total of .1%. If the arbitrary legal standard is set at .08%, he MAY be in violation BUT there are other factors which may prevent him from being proven guilty.
Scenario #1A: Same facts. Test is taken 2 1/2 hours after the last moment when defendant finished eating the sandwich. The meatball sandwich blocked the entry of any alcohol from the beer for at least 90 minutes but when the alcohol that has been blocked starts to enter the bloodstream, it all comes rushing in. This means that the defendant may have been stone cold sober when driving and .1% when tested minutes thereafter.
Scenario #1B: Same facts. Prosecutors will sometimes try to get around Scenario#1A by having an expert witness make a "seat of the pants" estimate of what the blood alcohol level might (not beyond a reasonable doubt) have been. Such evidence is utterly unscientific. To extrapolate from known blood alcohol levels, you need several tests over a period of time and to plot a graph and it is still not foolproof. This tactic of the prosecutors can be cured by timely objection or by withering cross-examination of the expert.
Scenario #2: The defendant is a diabetic as are a very large number of drivers. All diabetics have acetone in their bloodstreams. Acetone has NO EFFECT on a person's capacity to drive. Nonetheless, chemically (in blood, urine or breath tests) acetone is indistinguishable from alcohol and therefore no test of a diabetic should be admissible.
The problem with DUI prosecutions based on "scientific" tests is the same as with radar prosecutions. Each is the endless search of the prosecution for the magic "scientific" whizbang to convince gullible jurors that they have to convict because the "evidence" is "scientific." Breathalyzer machines come with manuals from the manufacturer requiring that they be used only under carefully controlled conditions. Machines have to be periodically calibrated. For breathalyzers, there is an ambient temperature range within which they may be accurate. If the heating system has failed and room temperature is 45 degrees, the results are inadmissible. If a radar unit has not been timely calibrated, its results are inadmissible.
Scenario #2 is the only direct answer to your question but the others consider problems which you must also be prepared to deal with. The foregoing is not meant to be exhaustive. There are many ways to legitimately beat DUI prosecutions. The magic whizbang is no answer.
An honest expert can be induced on cross-examinatio, to admit the truth that, under Scenario #1 above, the blood alcohol level when the defendant was driving COULD have been 0% to .1% or any point in between and that there is no one point that is any more or less likely along that spectrum and that he/she has therefore a "reasonable doubt" as to guilt.
Hey, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution's impressive expert witness knows a lot more about this stuff than I do or, with due respect, than you do in all likelihood. Who are we to disagree with his/her conclusion that there is "reasonable doubt" as to guilt? As the judge will instruct you, if there is "reasonable doubt," you MUST find the defendant NOT GUILTY.