Brickbat: What Is This Breathalyzer You Speak of?

In Louisville, Kentucky, Cuqita Boyd was charged with DUI after a minor crash in January 2022, despite repeatedly asking for a portable breathalyzer, which the arresting officer did not provide. In a deposition, the officer explained that using breathalyzers "wasn't my thing." Boyd later got a breathalyzer test at the jail, which read 0.0, and a blood draw found no detectable alcohol in her system. Body camera footage shows the officer admitting she did not smell alcohol and that Boyd was not slurring her words, but claiming she was too slow to follow commands. Boyd spent 14 months fighting the charges before they were dismissed. Her family has sued, claiming the prolonged legal ordeal contributed to Boyd's death in May 2025 from high blood pressure complications.

Comments

[diver64]

The bigger problem is actually taking the roadside breathalyzer, blowing zero's and still being arrested for DUI on the suspicion of illegal drugs and being forced to get a blood test.

[Fist of Etiquette]

In a deposition, the officer explained that using breathalyzers "wasn't my thing."

It's a woman's prerogative.

[Will Nonya]

Your body her choice.

[mad.casual]

With the name like Cuqita she was practically begging for it, at least a little bit.

[AT]

The charges were dismissed.

What's the issue here?

despite repeatedly asking for a portable breathalyzer, which the arresting officer did not provide

And are not obligated to. (And, frankly, you don't want them doing it anyway. PBT's are garbage.)

but claiming she was too slow to follow commands.

So, like, she was retarded or something? I mean, if that's the case then the cop was obviously in the wrong. But you'd also think that's the first thing the suspect (and her counsel) would point out. "Whoa, whoa... my client is obviously retarded. Why did you not take that into consideration?"

Unless she was insisting that she's not retarded. In which case the lack of acquiescence, coupled with the clear sobriety, becomes more difficult to explain.

the prolonged legal ordeal contributed to Boyd's death in May 2025 from high blood pressure complications.

*facepalm*

You know what though? I'm going to forward that to a bunch of family law attorneys I know. Adverse health effects caused by the plaintiff's filing of the divorce and/or child custody actions and dragging out the legal ordeal.

Yea, let's weaponize that.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Once again taking the cop at her word and disparaging the civilian.

What's the issue here?

Boyd spent 14 months fighting the charges before they were dismissed.

Illiterate too, you are.

[Davy C]

Whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial? No case should take more than a year, let alone a simple drunk driving case.

[yet another dave]

One could say, they were too slow to follow the constitution.

[AT]

Gosh, if only there weren't millions of illegals who need their "due process," revolving door criminals we keep letting out to do more crime, and a tort system desperately in need of reform.

Well, get in line lady. We'll get to you as speedily as your leftist politicians will let us.

[Davy C]

Kentucky being famous for having millions of illegals?

[AT]

Biden imported them everywhere.

[Davy C]

In which case the lack of acquiescence, coupled with the clear sobriety, becomes more difficult to explain.

She doesn't have to explain squat. If they ever had probable cause for DUI, it was lost when the blood test came back negative. Why were charges pending for a year?

[AT]

I didn't say SHE had to explain it. If we're trying to MMQ why she was too slow to follow commands, the most generous answer after being intoxicated is: she's retarded.

If she's not intoxicated AND not retarded, it becomes more difficult to explain her actions.

[KiwiDude]

After a car crash there is NO reason to be slightly discombobulated?
And taking a minute or three to find something on a phone, is that something normal, sober people never have a problem with?

[AT]

A "minor car wreck" in which she was clearly unaffected enough to continue being super retarded.

Unless she wasn't actually retarded. In which case, what was she?

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

LOL "My argument fell apart, so I'll resort to name calling."

[Davy C]

Hey, if you want to say she was argumentative and uncooperative, fine. But what she wasn't, was under the influence, and that was known fairly early on.

[AT]

Was she retarded?

[Memry]

“Slow to follow commands” There’s also the possibility, I’d say probability, that the cop was shading the truth (lying) to bolster the case for arrest. Seeing as she was then proven to be 100% sober, the cop lying is the most obvious answer.

[Rossami]

re: "What's the issue here?"

That it took 14 months instead of 14 seconds.

Portable breathalyzers may be garbage but they are patently better than this cop's subjective judgement that "she was too slow to follow commands" - if indeed she was "too slow" at all. It's more likely that this was a retroactive excuse made up by the cop after the blood test came back negative (and he'd already admitted that she had no objective symptoms of intoxication).

Good lord, is there any police misconduct that you're unwilling to twist and defend?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Sometimes, like this case, he gets so knee-jerk reflexive in defending abusive cops that I wonder if he's trying to see how far he can push it before people wake up. But that hunch lasts about half a second.

[AT]

That it took 14 months instead of 14 seconds.

So what if it took 14 months? The end result is the end result, and it was the correct one. And it cost her nothing. *

Good lord, is there any police misconduct that you're unwilling to twist and defend?

What exactly do you think was "misconduct?"

She had a legitimate basis for the stop. She had no obligation to provide a PBT. She arrested someone on suspicion and then released her when the suspicion couldn't be backed up with evidence. Where exactly do you find "misconduct?"

I think maybe you - like Chaz - are so blinded by ACAB that you (intentionally?) fail to realize where the problem in this little story actually occurred.

And I'll even tell you why they ran with it too, if you want. (Or, at least, why I think they did. I'll give you a hint: I don't think she was actually retarded!)

* (and it was probably preventable.)

[Get To Da Chippah]

So what if it took 14 years? The end result is the end result, and it was the correct one. And it cost her nothing. *

How do you know it cost her nothing? And 'nothing' is what the cops had for evidence of a crime, yet they persisted in prosecuting her with no evidence, costing taxpayers money.

[AT]

OK ding dong, what did it cost her.

[Get To Da Chippah]

That's not an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked was "How do you know it cost her nothing?"

[AT]

I'm giving your question the benefit of the doubt. Now go ahead and answer it.

How much did it cost her, ding dong?

[Get To Da Chippah]

No, you're avoiding answering the question, you intellectual coward. You made the assertion that 14 months of being prosecuted for a crime without any evidence cost her nothing, not me. How do you know it cost her nothing?

[AT]

I said that it cost her nothing. You disputed that claim, effectively arguing that it cost her something. I am now running with your argument.

How much did it cost her?

You seem to genuinely believe it cost her something - but yet, you cannot or will not articulate what that something is. The burden's not on me, ding dong. My argument's already proven - "The end result is the end result, and it was the correct one."

You're the one asserting otherwise. So you tell me what it cost her.

I know why you won't. I know why you can't. You whiny ACAB gimp.

[Get To Da Chippah]

I made no claim one way or the other. I read the brickbat and the article to which it linked, and nothing in either supported YOUR claim that it cost her nothing. So I want to know how YOU came to the conclusion that it cost her nothing.

Your continued refusal to back up YOUR claim with evidence is telling.

[AT]

So did it cost her something, or did it cost her nothing?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Again, I am making no claim either way. However, you already answered that question. I still want to know how you came to your conclusion. You still haven't answered that question.

How do you know it cost her nothing?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Ultimately the answer to the question I asked is simple: You don't know that it cost her nothing. You were just being the ignorant copsucking pissant you normally are, speaking out of your ass again because your mouth is too busy fellating the police, as usual.

I'm just wondering if it's within your (albeit limited) mental capacity to admit it. Apparently, it isn't.

[AT]

The charges were dropped. It cost her nothing. She suffered no legal repercussion whatsoever. If you dispute that, then present evidence.

Also, I know what you're doing. You're playing fast and loose with the term "cost" but refusing to define it. Because if you DO define it, then I'm going to come right back at you with how your definition is nonsense. To which you know you have zero defense. Because your definitions are nonsense, and your entire stance is based in ACAB bigotry.

You're not fooling anyone Chip.

https://tinyurl.com/wud2em38

She spent zero time in wrongful conviction. So, it cost her nothing. That is evident from even the source article. Now, pony up to your definition of "cost" or shut your pig mouth.

[Get To Da Chippah]

The charges were dropped. It cost her nothing.

How do you know that?

She suffered no legal repercussion whatsoever.

LOL, because you've now claimed to be operating under such a narrow definition of 'cost' as to mean just one thing; a lack of a conviction.

A characteristically pathetic retreat on your part.

I would suggest (because, unlike you, I'm not jumping to conclusions) that there are other costs that she may have faced. Time wasted, for instance. Unless she didn't show up to any hearings in 14 months, she may have had to take days off from work (she was 44 years old, not some retired senior citizen already near death's door) to attend them, or to spend time with a lawyer going over her case and the cops' ridiculous lack of evidence. We don't know if she had a public defender or if she chose to retain counsel on her own, so there may or may not have been a fiduciary cost there.

And, while I'm not on board with the "Mama died because of the stress of the ongoing case" lawsuit, it's not unreasonable to think that her health may have been adversely affected due to added stress. Not everyone is a hardkore tuffgai like you pretend to be, who would effortlessly shrug off a persistent campaign by a group of people with unlimited time and money on a mission to ruin your reputation, and possibly take money or freedom from you by convicting you of a crime you didn't commit.

So, yes, I'm rather skeptical at the claim that 'it cost her nothing,' because unlike you I'm aware that there's more to cost that just what you claim to mean, and because the information we've been given does not lead to the conclusion that 14 months of being falsely accused and prosecuted cost her nothing when using a reasonable definition of 'cost,' you imbecilic copsucking dimwit.

[sarcasmic]

He claims to be a Christian, but his god is really government. So no, there is no use of force by government that he will not celebrate.

[AT]

What "use of force by government" occurred here?

Do you even know what you're saying, you drunken retard?

[jimc5499]

Breathalyzers are inaccurate as hell. The Cops know this and use it to their advantage. When the blood test came back negative that should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. Prosecutors are elected. Anybody want to bet that during that 14 months the Prosecutor was up for reelection? Most Prosecutors won't drop DUIs. They wait for a Judge to throw them out. That way it can't be used against them in an election.

[AT]

Hey, somebody besides me who is getting close to the actual issue that Chaz (and all the ACABs here) don't want to talk about.

Good job Jim! Props.

[Vernon Depner]

The process is the punishment.

[sarcasmic]

Yup. Cops jokingly call it "POP" as in pissing off the police. They arrest someone on false charges, lie on the report, lie in court, and nothing happens to them. Meanwhile their victim often loses everything. Their job, home, marriage, children, life savings, and everything else gone, all because they bruised a cop's fragile ego.