Perhaps I didn't express myself very well, because what I'm saying is this. If we go back to when Dr. Borkenstein introduced the breathalyzer, his view was that the test should be confirmatory of physical observations and that it should take both to convict someone.
What I'm saying is that if you have someone who is displaying symptoms of impairment that are marked at all, they will probably be convicted of impaired driving. The judge can use those symptoms of impaired driving, if the judge so chooses, as a basis for disbelieving the accused's testimony that they only had a small amount to drink.
If you deal with—