Iffland R, Jones A W
Department of Legal Medicine, University of Köln, Köln, Germany.
Med Sci Law. 2002 Jul;42(3):207-24. doi: 10.1177/002580240204200305.
This two-part article examines the strengths and weaknesses of various ways of investigating claims of drinking alcohol after driving, commonly known as the hip-flask or glove-compartment defence. In many countries the onus of proof in hip-flask cases rests on the prosecution. With good co-operation from the police and timely sampling of body fluids, such as blood and urine for forensic analysis of ethanol, useful evidence can be mustered to support or challenge the truthfulness of alleged drinking after driving. The person's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) can be compared with values expected on the basis of the amount of alcohol consumed after driving, according to theoretical Widmark calculations. The actual BAC measured is then adjusted for the additional amount of alcohol consumed in the after-drink. Double blood samples, that is, taking two specimens of venous blood about 30-60 minutes apart and looking at the magnitude and direction of change in BAC provides little or no more information than a single blood specimen. However, the relationship between alcohol in blood and urine is very useful in hip-flask cases whereby the concentration expected in the primary urine is compared with the concentration in the bladder urine voided. The concentration of alcohol determined in a second urine sample collected 30-60 min later gives supporting evidence in hip-flask cases. A graphical method, which entails plotting ethanol concentrations in blood and urine as a function of time provides a robust and practical way to investigate hip-flask defences. In the second part of the review, congener analysis is presented, which entails comparing the concentrations of n-propanol, isobutanol and occasionally other congeners in the alcoholic beverage allegedly consumed after driving with the volatiles present in the suspect's blood and urine determined by headspace gas chromatography.
这篇分两部分的文章探讨了调查酒后驾车说法（通常称为“扁酒瓶”或“手套箱”抗辩）的各种方式的优缺点。在许多国家，“扁酒瓶”案件的举证责任在于检方。在警方的良好配合以及及时采集血液和尿液等体液用于乙醇法医分析的情况下，可以收集到有用的证据来支持或质疑酒后驾车指控的真实性。根据维德马克理论计算，可以将此人的血液酒精浓度（BAC）与酒后摄入酒精量预期对应的数值进行比较。然后，对测得的实际BAC进行调整，以计入酒后额外摄入的酒精量。采集两份血液样本，即相隔约30 - 60分钟采集两份静脉血样本，并观察BAC的变化幅度和方向，所提供的信息比单一血液样本多不了多少。然而，血液与尿液中酒精的关系在“扁酒瓶”案件中非常有用，即比较初段尿液中预期的酒精浓度与排出的膀胱尿液中的浓度。在30 - 60分钟后采集的第二份尿液样本中测定的酒精浓度，可为“扁酒瓶”案件提供佐证。一种图解方法，即将血液和尿液中的乙醇浓度随时间绘制出来，为调查“扁酒瓶”抗辩提供了一种可靠且实用的方式。在综述的第二部分，介绍了同系物分析，即比较涉嫌酒后饮用的酒精饮料中正丙醇、异丁醇以及偶尔其他同系物的浓度与通过顶空气相色谱法测定的嫌疑人血液和尿液中挥发性物质的浓度。
