First, with regard to inviting more witnesses, I do not agree that there is no such precedent. I have been here since 1993 and I can tell you that we have often invited witnesses to reappear. However, I would exclude the people from the Bar Association, since their testimony was extremely clear. With regard to the other witnesses, it is not the fact that their testimony was not clear. The fact of the matter is that you advise the department and you have the expertise to administer this technology. I think it is our responsibility to obtain more information.
We took advantage of the only opportunity we had to see how the tests were administered. To me, the difference between standard sobriety tests and roadside tests, which are available in police stations, is much clearer. I could not have obtained this information if I hadn't had the opportunity to see the demonstration at the back of the room.
In any case, there is no urgent need to put this bill to a vote. There are some problematic issues. The more witnesses we hear from, the more questions we have. So, I wholeheartedly support Mr. Bagnell's motion to call witnesses back, at least the scientists.