Geppert K
Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft.
Blutalkohol. 1992 Sep;29(5):289-301.
When breathalyser tests are used to detect whether a person in charge of a vehicle is incapable of activing due to the influence of alcohol. The difficulties which arise are not limited to the extent to which these modern methods are forensically sound but extend to the question whether it is legally permissible to implement random breathanalysing. It is doubtful whether a duty to take a breath test, as yet unrecognized by the law (cf. section 36 Abs. 5 StVO), would be in conformity with the constitution. According to the established case-law of the Constitutional Court nobody can be compelled to put himself in danger of incriminating himself under the criminal law by their own act (under the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare"), which in this case would be a hard and prolonged breath into a breathalyser. The author sets the strict legal limits within which random breathalysing may be enforced.
当使用呼气酒精测试仪检测车辆负责人是否因酒精影响而无法正常驾驶时，出现的困难不仅限于这些现代方法在法医上的可靠性，还延伸到随机呼气测试是否合法的问题。目前法律尚未承认的接受呼气测试的义务（参见《道路交通法》第36条第5款）是否符合宪法，这值得怀疑。根据宪法法院既定的判例法，没有人能被强迫通过自己的行为使自己面临在刑法下自证有罪的风险（根据“任何人都没有义务指控自己”的原则），在这种情况下，就是对着呼气酒精测试仪用力长时间呼气。作者设定了可实施随机呼气测试的严格法律界限。
