D.U.I. undo Consultants, LLC
Helping Innocent People "PROVE" Their Innocence!
Breath Testing Instruments
Breath Testing Using Non-Evasive Testing for Blood Alcohol
This section is dedicated to my latest investigations.
Latest Investigation:
Battle brews over sheriff's DUI videos
Click For Video
Misuse of DUI machines at Hillsborough Jail?
Click For Video
Sheriff David Gee speaks about jail abuse allegations
Click For Video
Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C New Jersey Firmware
Version
Testing the Alcotest 7110 Source Code
uncovered 24 Major Defects
Source Code for Drager Alcotest7110 MKIII-C
The Breath Testing Program at Hillsborough County Sheriff's
Office
Central Breath Testing Unit is seriously........
FLAWED. HCSO CBT assaults people suspected of DUI, makes up
fake excuses for Inoxilyzers that 'FAIL' a sequence during
Agency Inspections and then leaves that 'failing machine
on-line. If you were b reath tested on any of HCSO Intoxlyzers
call me and I put you in contact will attorneys that will
assist you in your defense.
Why is the Intoxilyzer 8000 a magical machine? It reads Wonder
Bread as BrAC. Watch this demonstration that I did for Mike
Deeson of CBS Channel 10 Tampa Bay, where I blow 0.000 and
then eat one slice of Wonder Bread, wait 8 minutes and the I
blow a 0.033 BrAC on.......... WONDER BREAD. Don't eat Wonder
Bread and drive.
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
Pinellas County Sheriff Office Intoxilyzer 80-000888* was
flooded and left on line.
Who: Client of DUI undo Consultants, LLC
What: Exposing that gray area of DUI that DUI undo
Consultants, LLC specializes in.
When: MAY 21, 22, 2009
Gladiator: Michael Mastrogiovanni, Esq. Carlson & Meissner
Verdict: NOT GUILTY
* Please contact us if you submitted to a breath test on PCSO
Intoxilyzer 80-000888 and we can refer to an attorney in your
area that will help you detremine if you have legal recourse
regarding your DUI arrest/conviction.
Were you arrested for DUI and did you submit to a breath test
at the Pinellas County Sheriff Office (PCSO) between June 2007
and February 28, 2008? If you were, and if you tested on PCSO
Intoxilyzer 8000 serial # 80-000888* and the state convicted
you using just your breath test results from this machine, you
may have legal recourse* if... and I say "if" you preformed
well on your FST's (field sobriety test). Why are your FST's
important, well if you failed these test miserable and your
FST's were videotaped by law enforcement, the state really
doesn't need your breath test results because the video would
show that you were impaired beyond your normal capabilities.
Now back to PCSO's
FLOODED Intoxilyzer
80-000888. Why would
you have recourse if you tested on this machine? PCSO left
this machine on-line after it was flooded. PCSO doesn't know
when Intoxilyzer 80-000888 was flooded. I found that needle in
the haystack by doing a Chp. 119 request for the emails
between PCSO Agency Inspector Cheryl Peacock and the FDLE/ATP
Dept. Inspector Don Suereth. (And in my opinion, Ms. Peacock
has trouble testifying "accurately" or to be a little more
blunt, Ms. Peacock has trouble telling the "truth," about
anything that happens during the Monthly Agency Inspections,
and I know she will testify that she has never deleted any
failing Monthly Inspections either, but don't pay any
attention to the numerous Log-Ins that she can't account for.)
Click here to see the proof that puts serious "doubt" into
anything that Ms. Peacock testifies to. Go about 1/4 of the
way down and read where is states, "On December 12, 2007 I was
informed by the FDLE Tampa Bay Regional Instructor..."
Did you notice the part where it said, "As a result of this of
this coming to light, Peacock will recieve aditional in-house
training in testimony delivery" or in other words, the State
is going to "train" Ms. Peacock on how to LIE or using the SOP
of the SAO .... manipulate that gray area...!!!
So basically, PCSO, FDLE/ATP and the State ** deliberately
tried to hide this information from everyone that tested on
this Intoxilyzer and their attorneys. Click here for the proof
that some of PCSO Sheriff Jim Coats finest (the PCSO Agency
Inspectors and their immediate supervisors) and the area FDLE/ATP
Department Inspector, Mr. Don Suereth conspired as officers of
the State of Florida in "hiding" exculpatory evidence that
would have been beneficial for defendants who tested on
Intoxilyzer 80-000888.... ooohhh wait could this be a Brady
violation since technically the State had constructive
knowledge of this beneficial evidence,,,, hhhhhmmmmm....?????
Now how would I determine that the State had constructive
knowledge of Intoxilyzer 80-000888 being flooded and that they
were trying to hide this "beneficial exculpatory evidence?"
Click here for the proof that Sheriff Jim Coats finest will do
anything to stay one step ahead of the defense. As of yet I am
not aware if "anyone" in the SAO is going to go back through
the court records to see if "anyone" was wrongfully convicted
or mislead by tainted evidence, and they just plead out
because they were not informed that the "evidence" that the
State proffered during its discovery to defense was not
"scientifically reliable."
**Why is the State included in this deception? Well the State
not only gave FDLE/ATP the authority to make the implied
consnet rules (Chp. 11D-8) but, the state also gave FDLE/ATP
the authority to keep their own reocrds. (If this isn't the
fox watching the chicken coop I don't know what is...!!!). So
One only needs to taek a look at:
FDLE Alcohol Testing Program Mission Statement
To enhance public safety by
ensuring the accuracy and
scientific reliability of evidentiary blood and breath
alcohol tests,
facilitating enforcement of Implied Consent
Laws and Administrative Rules,
and promoting thequalifications and professionalism of persons responsible for
blood and breath alcohol analyses in the
State of Florida.
As authorized in Chapters 316, 322 and 327, FS, and chapter
11D-8, FAC.
Do You Think I'm Biased?
The SAO has the opinion that some of the content on this
website is biased. Biased...???? What do you call hiding
evidence that could be beneficial to a defendant,
JUSTICE...??? Intentionally hiding evidence that would be
beneficial for a defendant is not done in order to seek the
truth and justice; it is done for two reasons; pure
self-promotion and to get a conviction at all cost. Why?
Convictions bolster your win loss / record. Why is a win/loss
record important for a prosecutor? Convictions help get that
almighty promotion..... How does this happen? Well, I've heard
rumor that the SAO is able to hide evidence that would be
beneficial for the defendant because it requires the ASA 's
who work for their office to drink the prosecutor Kool-Aid.
This "prosecutorial drink of blind injustice" makes the ASA's
all believe that any deception is okay because its done in
order to climb the promotional ladder under the muse of
Justice, but because I post the "truth" and my work exposes
that gray area of breath testing which the State conspires to
hide, I'm the one that's baised...!!! Go figure. I am
committed to helping my clients prove their innocence by
disclosing the TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH, period.
In my opinion, any state that uses the Intoxilyzer 8000 as an
evidentiary breath test device is more interested in using the
Intoxilyzer as a tool in producing revenue than helping to
remove impaired drivers from the roadways. Why would I make
this statement?
Justice cannot be merchandised and that's one of the problems
with Florida's implied consent program. Florida has been sold
merchandise that is used to produce revenue rather than as a
tool to help administer justice in regards to impaired
driving. How did this happen? Well, the problem is created
when a state allows a company to sell "merchandise" only to
law enforcement and not to the defense, that advantage tips
the scales of Lady Justice in the states favor. Think about
this, if the Intoxilyzer 8000 is so accurate why does CMI,
Inc. limit the sales of this "magical" machine strictly to law
enforcement? There is only one answer to this question, it's
because CMI, Inc. knows that if defense attorneys had the
ability to purchase the same Intoxilyzer 8000 with the same
state specific source code/software, the inherent design flaws
would be immediately disclosed instead of taking years and
years of legal maneuvering winding through the halls of
justice, and then the main source of revenue for CMI, Inc.
(employee owned) becomes obsolete. (Let's not forget about the
possible class action lawsuit from a portion of innocent
people wrongfully convicted by results from a flawed
Intoxilyzer) In my opinion, any state that uses the
Intoxilyzer 8000 as an evidentiary breath test device is more
interested in using the Intoxilyzer as a tool in producing
revenue than helping to remove impaired drivers from the
roadways. Why would I make this statement? Think about this,
if the Intoxilyzer 8000 is so accurate why does CMI, Inc.
limit the sales of this "magical" machine strictly to law
enforcement? There is only one answer to this question, it's
because CMI, Inc. knows that if defense attorneys had the
ability to purchase the same Intoxilyzer 8000 with the same
state specific source code/software, the inherent design flaws
would be immediately disclosed instead of taking years and
years of legal maneuvering winding through the halls of
justice, and then the main source of revenue for CMI,
In my opinion, any state that uses the Intoxilyzer 8000 as an
evidentiary breath test device is more interested in using the
Intoxilyzer as a tool in producing revenue than helping to
remove impaired drivers from the roadways. Why would I make
this statement? Think about this, if the Intoxilyzer 8000 is
so accurate why does CMI, Inc. limit the sales of this
"magical" machine strictly to law enforcement? There is only
one answer to this question, it's because CMI, Inc. knows that
if defense attorneys had the ability to purchase the same
Intoxilyzer 8000 with the same state specific source
code/software, the inherent design flaws would be immediately
disclosed instead of taking years and years of legal
maneuvering winding through the halls of justice, and then the
main source of revenue for CMI, Inc.
In my opinion, any state that uses the Intoxilyzer 8000 as an
evidentiary breath test device is more interested in using the
Intoxilyzer as a tool in producing revenue than helping to
remove impaired drivers from the roadways. Why would I make
this statement? Think about this, if the Intoxilyzer 8000 is
so accurate why does CMI, Inc. limit the sales of this
"magical" machine strictly to law enforcement? There is only
one answer to this question, it's because CMI, Inc. knows that
if defense attorneys had the ability to purchase the same
Intoxilyzer 8000 with the same state specific source
code/software, the inherent design flaws would be immediately
disclosed instead of taking years and years of legal
maneuvering winding through the halls of justice, and then the
main source of revenue for CMI, Inc.
Back to the legal maneuvering, after all that time only a few
great Gladiators ’ have successfully argued for source code
disclosure, to which a few courts agreed and ordered CMI, Inc.
to turn over the “source codes”. Why would this help? Well,
the intent of the argument was founded in the belief that the
defense might be able to determine the functional problems
with the Intoxilyzer which would then substantiate a defense
counsel’s grounds for the courts to rule in favor of a Motions
To Suppress all breath test results. Has this worked? No, even
though the Gladiators were successful in their argument and
the courts ordered CMI, Inc. to turn over the source codes,
CMI, Inc. has repeatedly refused to abide by the courts order.
In short, CMI, Inc. has basically thumped their nose at the
Florida courts (and other state courts as well). And yet,
Florida's legislative body still allows CMI, Inc. the ability
to do business with the state. (When state government allows a
company that does not abide by the rulings and orders of that
state's courts, to do business with that state, there's
something is wrong with that governing body.)
Oh, let’s not forget the CMI, Inc. currently owes the state of
Florida
over $1,800,000.00 in contempt fines for not turning
over the source codes. Now, with today’s economy why would the
state still allow any company the ability to do business with
the state when that company disregards a state court order and
owes that state money? Think about it, would the state
"really" benefit from forcing CMI, Inc. to pay the
$1,800,000.000 fine, (we must take into consideration that
with the disclosure of the source codes, there is a huge
probability that the Intoxilyzers which the state has already
purchased from CMI, Inc. would become worthless if the source
codes are detremined to have design flaws that would create
serious doubt on the scientific reliabilty of the Intoxilyzer)
OR would the state have more to gain in DUI revenue if it just
looks the other way?
In 2007 there were
53,210 DUI’s in Florida (x’s) roughly
$1200.00 in fines per
DUI = $63,852,000.00 cash register
justice revenue, and this does not included any of the
additional business revenues created by a “wrongful” DUI
conviction, i.e. increased insurance, interlocking devices,
impound fees, driving school fees, tow truck fees, and (if the
defendant is financially able, they have the ability to pay
their way out of working the required 50 hours of community
service @ $10.00 hr.)]
I would think that any reasonable minded person would believe
that CMI, Inc.’s behavior is a definite tell-tale sign that
something is amiss with not only the Intoxilyzer 8000 but the
source codes that determine operational functions. Otherwise
why not just turn it over, or sell an Intoxilyzer to the
defense with the state specific source codes and software.
QUESTION: Why a state specific source code model and Cobra
software?
ANSWER: (sales 101) FRATURE & BENEFIT:
FEATURE: The Florida Intoxilyzer 8000 goes into the disable
mode after 150 tests, unless it is uploaded to the
mother computer.
BENEFIT: The state gets to monitor all testing because once a
month after an Agency Inspection or after 150 tests, all
results have to be uploaded to FDLE/ATP mother computer within
5 days or the Intoxilyzer goes into the
disable mode.
BONUS:
If the defense attorneys were able to get a hold of a state
specific source code Intoxilyzer 8000, certain steps would be
implemented to ensure the grey areas in which FDLE/ATP
exploits would be closed and all test results would be beyond
reproach. These steps would include:
1. Assign a sequential number to each and every Log-In thereby
tying each Log-In to each test
result.
2. Every test will be videotaped.
3. Documentation of every upload with time and dates.
These BONUS steps will help ensure that the same areas that
have been manipulated by FDLE/ATP will not put into question
any flaws that independent testing helps to disclose. So with
state specific source code would any and all testing preformed
have to be uploaded by the defense to the states “mother”
computer (Cobra Software)? YES. Why? So the state can see what
type of testing is being conducted and the results. Remember,
the Florida Intoxilyzer 8000 goes into the disable mode after
150 tests, so all tests must be uploaded to the mother
computer within 5 days or the Intoxilyzer goes into disable
mode. In addition, state specific source code and the BONUS
steps would afford the defense an opportunity to prove that NO
TEST RESULTS HAVE BEEN DELETED, unlike what FDLE/ATP offers
the public or the defense in a discovery request. Currently
neither the public nor the defense have any way of knowing
what test results have been deleted (We now call deleting test
results, “doing a Sandra Veiga”). How does this happen? Well,
FDLE/ATP is responsible for not only allowing this but for
intentionally having this feature left out of the source code.
First, FDLE/ATP is responsible for monitoring Florida's
Alcohol Testing Program. Second, FDLE/ATP was responsible for
informing CMI, Inc what features they wanted and how they
wanted them to work in regards to how the Intoxilyzer 8000
functions. Third, FDLE/ATP employees preformed various test
during the "evaluation process" that was used to determine
what breath test instrument to approve and purchase. After the
"approval" process, the FDLE/ATP employees who were involved
with the testing and evaluation process knew of these
loopholes and advised others of this unknown feature.
Ms.
Sandra Veiga didn't figure this out on her own, someone from
higher up in FDLE/ATP informed her that turning off an
Intoxilyzer that was failing a testing sequence deletes all
test results. FDLE/ATP issued a statement that this is an
isolated incident and Ms. Veiga was a rouge employee. Yeah
right, and the river water is safe to drink.
Here's another unknown dirty little secret of FDLE/ATP doesn't
want anyone to know. FDLE/ATP implemented another "catchall"
into the record trying to stay “one step ahead” of the defense
in this so called policing of impaired drivers. That
“catchall” was designed to eliminate unwanted test results
that would create “problems” for the state’s case. What now?
Well, you really don’t think that FDLE/ATP really coverts
every test result uploaded to the mother computer (Cobra
Software) into the Pdf file that they
post on-line
now do you?
Here's something to think about, why doesn't FDLE/ATP post the
times and dates of those uploads? And why are some months
"updated" four to five months after posting? Again, way too
many areas ripe for manipulation and way too much control by
one agency.
I have said time and time again that it is ethically wrong for
FDLE/ATP to not only make their own rules, but to keep their
own records. Allowing one Agency this much control is like
asking the fox to watch over the chicken coop and this
provides the opportunity for any individual to manipulate the
system. How? A person’s actions vary according to the
motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it
is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in
service to one's own, or one's groups' vested interest...
i.e.: DUI arrest and convictions = overtime pay, faster
promotions and really neat awards to hang in your office from
MADD. The majority of law enforcement are hard working, good
honest individuals, but it's those select few that tarnish the
shinny badge of law enforcement in DUI, and
Ms. Sandra Veiga
isn't the only one and she won't be the last. Ms. Veiga's
actions are a ray of light into the shadow of impropriety that
has plagued the Alcohol Testing Program run by FDLE.
This rest of this section is dedicated to those magical
machines that every state uses for collection of breath test
samples as evidentiary evidence against you, to prosecute you
and punish you under the full weight of the law. I wonder "if"
the states had to rely on DNA machines that were allowed a
full “1” point margin of error and "if" those machines had the
same problems with operation and accuracy as the Intoxilyzer
8000 has, would the State still use those DNA machines to
proffer evidcne that would take away a man’s freedom or his
life? Wait a minute we are not talking about DNA/death, just
life/breath and your freedom to drive, right?
State of the Art Breath Alcohol Testing or JUNK SCIENCE?
In my professional opinion the Intoxilyzer 8000 is JUNK
SCIENCE
Why would I say that? Well, in my opinion CMI, Inc has
intentionally designed operational flaws into the Cobra
Software of the Intoxilyzer 8000 to ensure more DUI
convictions, which means they sell and service more
Intoxilyzers. What are the flaws? The Intoxilyzer 8000 is
nonspecific for ethyl alcohol and because of the serious
analytical flaws intentionally designed into the Cobra
Software, the Intoxilyzer 8000's alcohol slope detector is
unable to differentiate between mouth alcohol and breath
alcohol (BrAC). The inability of the Intoxilyzer 8000’s
alcohol slope detector differentiate the difference between
mouth alcohol and breath alcohol creates serious doubt as to
the "scientific reliability” of any evidentiary breath sample
test results from the Intoxilyzer 8000 being proffered by the
state as evidence against you. And last but not least, all
failing Department or Agency Inspection test results can be
deleted. Need more proof of the Intoxilyzer's inability to
differentciate bewtween true BraAC and mouth alcohol, or that
the Intoxilyzer 8000 is non-specific for ethly-alcohol? Check
these videos out.
The Intoxilyzer 8000 giving a BrAC reading of .0547 from pure
“mouth alcohol” (
my personal best )
Bible says Jesus turned water into wine, well the Intoxilyzer
8000 can turn white bread into breath alcohol. Get ready to
witness another miracle. Click on the link below to see how
the Intoxilyzer 8000 gives BrAC reading after Charles E. Smith
of C.E.S. Consulting, Inc.
eats a slice of Wonder Bread and
then blows into the Intoxilyzer 8000.
BrAC reading of 0.25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5LykjdXKdc
BrAC reading of .013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYn95X1yJzQ&feature=related
WOW, I know what you are thinking after watching those
video's, we can put a man on the moon but the public sector
cannot build a better Breath Test for Alcohol Impairment. I
wonder, if you take into consideration this
machines
operational problems (see pages 10 ,11 , 16 of the Pdf file),
maintenance problems,
operator error (see pages 24-35) and
manipulation problems, flawed monthly testing procedures, law
enforcements lackadaisical approach to videotaping subject
test or monthly maintenance test or FDLE Dept. Test, and
software problems (See page 133), if you knew what I know, you
would have to wonder "HOW MANY THOUSANDS of INNOCENT PEOPLE"
have been convicted or worse, just plead guilty to DUI because
they thought their breath test results were "scientifically
reliable and the machine was accurate?"
Here is part of a letter from CMI, Inc. to FDLE concerning the
quality built that goes into building this machine that is
alleged to be "scientifically accurate":
Dimensional tolerances between the detector and the window
in the sample chamber are maintained by making a clearance
adjustment. This adjustment is made during manufacturing and
when necessary, a shim is added between the two parts. Some
instruments will have the shim and some will not, as required
to maintain proper dimensional tolerance. (see page 18, letter
from CMI).
Some Intoxilyzers are built with a shim....????
This is very alarming. What happens if the shim is dislodged
when the Intoxilyzer 8000 is moved? If less infrared light
passes through the window in the sample chamber to the two
filter wheels attached to the two pyroelectric detectors,
which determine the amount of infrared light NOT absorbed by
the alcohol in the sample chamber, then converts that light
into electronic response to be analyzed the microprocessor,
could this result in a higher breath alcohol concentration
reading? Boy, not only is this machine accurate but it is
built with quality. I wonder if any medical instruments like
CAT Scans or MRI machines are built using shims.
Florida's Intoxilyzer 8000 has been through several "software"
changes and a couple of software "patches" trying to fix the
operational problems with that this machine has had from day
one. (see pages 78-88) Do you think the State contacted all
those innocent people who were already convicted or just plead
guilty, to let them know the State is going to overturn their
conviction and offer them a new trial?
If this machine is so accurate, why did it take over 4 years
from the initial testing phase- to certification - to coming
on line in March of 2006? The information below is from the
April 30, 2002 FDLE/ATP evaluation testing (see page 4,
original software 8100.10) of this NEW IMPROVED machine.
From FDLE's website, page 7.
2. During the 0.02 simulator tests, the instrument reported
interfering at simulator sample # 42. During simulator sample
#44, the instrument reported interferent and alcohol reading
during subsequent air blank. Testing was suspended and the
room was checked for sources of interferents. The instrument
was purged for 15 minutes. The instrument reported interferent
when NONE was known to be present for two more 0.20 samples
and for three 0.05 simulator samples. Mr. Toby Hall,
CMI Inc.,
was contacted for guidance. He attributed the exceptions to
software failure. Testing was terminated.
Remember now this testing was preformed @ the Tampa Regional
Operations Center, Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
4211-A Lois Avenue, Tampa Florida 33614. Funny, NO ONE thought
of checking the room for possible sources of interferents
BEOFRE testing started. When a machine malfunctions, all the
tester has to do by RULE 11D-8 is re-test the sequence (one
time) and document the REASON for the failure in the REMARK
section of FDLE/ATP form 40.
The SFE (standard failure excuse) remark in the REMARK
sections states: 00: Ambient Fail. ROOM FANNED.
Click here to see carbon copy explanation by FDLE/ATP
Department Inspector Don Suereth. (see pages 156-157)
Oh yeah, and the software problem is ongoing. FDLE’s website
shows the original software used for the testing in April 2002
was 8100.10. After several software problems and patches form
CMI, Inc., in attempts to fix those operational problems, I
have found that Florida STILL HAS PROBLEMS with the 8100.27
software currently being used.
Every time a Gladiator Defense Attorney like
Stuart I. Hyman,
P.A. brings a legal challenge
(discovery challenge - CMI, Inc.
operators manuals, maintenance manuals or schematics) or
expert witness such as myself find a software glitch and it is
addressed in court, and that Motion is granted the State and
its DUI cash register justice lose revenue. If this was the
result of a software problem FDLE runs back to
CMI, Inc for a
quick fix or another software patch or if this was the result
of a Gladiator's legal challenge, FDLE and the State
promulgate new rules. The following Fla. Stat 316.1932 was
changed because of fearless Gladiators like
Stuart I. Hyman,
P.A..
2007->Ch0316->Section%201932#0316.1932" shape="rect">Fla.
Stat. 316.1932 (4)(e)
4. Upon the request of the person tested, full information
concerning the results of the test taken at the direction of
the law enforcement officer shall be made available to the
person or his or her attorney. Full information is limited to
the following:
a. The type of test administered and the procedures followed.
b. The time of the collection of the blood or breath sample
analyzed.
c. The numerical results of the test indicating the alcohol
content of the blood and breath.
d. The type and status of any permit issued by the Department
of Law Enforcement which was held by the person who performed
the test.
e. If the test was administered by means of a breath testing
instrument, the date of performance of the most recent
required inspection of such instrument.
Full information does not include manuals, schematics, or
software of the instrument used to test the person or any
other material that is not in the actual possession of the
state. Additionally, full information does not include
information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test
instrument.
The rule change to 316.1932 (4)(e) was due to Stuart I.
Hyman's Gladiator skills. Ref. case:
MULDOWNY v. STATE
Click here to see document where CMI, Inc. agrees to release
the source codes. (see page 46-48).
FDLE/ATP and CMI, Inc. both have refused to turn over the
source codes for the Intoxilyzer 8000. FDLE/ATP has taken the
position that they cannot turn over the source codes because
FDLE/ATP does not have possession of those source codes. CMI,
Inc. has taken the stance that they do not have to turn over
the source codes because they are protected under intellectual
property rights. But Robert Harrison, Esq. of Sarasota has
discovered the "Holy Grail" for filing additional the source
code challenges. To be able to do business with the State of
Florida a business has to sign the "Vendor" agreement on
MyFloridaMarketPlace.com. After discovering this "Vendor
Agreement" Robert Harrison disclosed his findings at the
recent Blood, Breath & Tears Seminar in Orlando Florida on
September 25-26, 2008. You should have heard the gasp in the
crowd when Robert Harrison, Esq. and Stuart Hyman, Esq. told
the crowd of 300 lawyers that the citizens of Florida actually
owned the Source Codes for the Intoxilyzer 8000 and CMI, Inc.
could no longer hide behind the cloak of lady justice for
intellectual property right protection.
On October 8, 2008, I sat in on a deposition of FDLE/ATP
Program Manager in which the manager stated that FDLE/ATP had
actual possession of the source codes. The Program Manager
stated that FDLE/ATP was given a CD by CMI, Inc. which
included the .26 Cobra Software in electronic format along
with the Cobra Software user agreement that the manager stated
had downloaded onto an FDLE/ATP computer, printed and signed,
and then sent everything back to CMI, Inc. So if the manager
and FDLE/ATP had the source codes and under the
MyFloridamarketPlace "Vendor Agreement" the citizens of
Florida own the source codes, one would think that those FDLE/ATP
employees responsible in the evaluation and approval of the
Intoxilyzer 8000 conspired with CMI, Inc. to deceive the
courts and guilty of obstruction of justice.
Click here and read subsection CY in the "Vendor Agreement"
that CMI, Inc. signed to do business with the State of
Florida. See “CY Copyrights and right to data” on page 3 of
the Pdf doc.
The following is a little information on this magical machine
and how breath testing works.
In most states, police enforcement agencies utilize the
Intoxilyzer 8000 or a similar machine to estimate blood
alcohol content based on the amount of ethyl alcohol molecules
expired in a single breath. Evidence from these machines is
presented during trials as being reliable and accurate. If one
suspect blows .079, he will likely be acquitted or charges
won't even be filed; but if the same subject blows .080,
prosecution will ensue. We are talking about a difference one
one-thousandths of a percentage point that separate that
guilty from the innocent when these machines are used. With so
much on the line, let’s discuss some of the science behind the
machine:
1) The affect of body temperature: The machine assumes that
all DUI suspects have a body temperature of 37 degrees Celsius
and exhale their breath at 34 degrees Celsius. This assumption
is based on research from 1950 involving 6 test subjects.
These assumption have been studied by pulmonoligists and
biologists since 1950. Several treatises in peer-reviewed
articles conclusively show that the average person actually
exhales at 35 degrees. This conclusion was reached in 1996
after observing 700 test subjects. So why does it matter?
Research that compares BAC (measured by blood draws) and BrAC
(breath alcohol content measured by a similar device) shows
that for every degree of body temperature above the assumed 37
degrees results in an overestimation of BAC by 8.6%, with a
maximum of a 23% overestimation (Fox & Hayward, both PhD's;
Schoknect). By example: let's assume that I have a .079% BAC
in my system at the time that I blow into the machine. Because
I am very nervous, my heart rate increases as well as my body
temperature, though only slightly by 1 degree. When I blow
into the machine, the BrAC will register at .085%. Even though
my BAC is in fact below the limit, it is likely that I will be
convicted at trial merely because my body temperature is
slightly elevated when I blew into the machine.
Now consider the role this plays when somebody during an
Florida summer leaves a barbecue at the Beach after being in
the hot sun all day.
2). Partition Ratio: Partition ratio derives from Henry's Law,
which, in a nutshell, stands for the proposition that, in a
closed container, a portion of the gas dissolved in a liquid
will leave that liquid into the air above and reach
equilibrium at a particular proportion. Let's think about it
this way: ethyl alcohol is a gas when present in the blood
stream. When the blood reaches the lungs, which operate enough
like a closed container, the EtOH gas transfers into the air
above the liquid blood until a certain proportion is reached.
The Intoxilyzer. 8000 assumes that all people have a 2100:1
ratio, which means that for every 2100 EtOH particles in the
blood, 1 such particle will be in the air above the blood in
the lungs. It measures, by means of an electromagnetic wave,
how many particles of EtOH are in a measured amount of air
breathed into the machine, multiply it by a factor of 2100, to
reach an estimation of BAC.
Here's the problem: depending on individual physiological
differences from suspect to suspect (i.e. male/female,
genetics, dehydration, health of the lungs, etc.) a person's
partition ratio can vary 1600:1 to 2900:1. So why is this a
problem? A DUI suspect with a 1600:1 partition ratio will have
a breath test result 20% higher than his actual BAC--so if he
is at a .07 actual BAC, his breath result will be well above
the limit, and he will be unjustly convicted. A DUI suspect
that has a 2600:1 ratio will have a result that is 20% lower
than his actual BAC, resulting in a strong likelihood of
sliding past prosecution with an actual BAC of .09%. Most
people have a partition ratio between 1800:1 and 2400:1, but
even the smaller variation has serious ramification on who is
unjustly convicted and who get away with one.
3). The Rest: Breathing patterns, lung capacity, whether the
suspect is in the absorption/elimination phase of alcohol
consumption, dispersion rate, hematocrit, and other factors
play into the accuracy/reliability of the machine. These
effects are usually not as significant, but play a role. I
won't bore you with any more science.
Many people are of the opinion that a person should be
convicted of DUI after even one drink. It's not against the
law to drink and drive, it's against the law to drink and
drive "IMPAIRED." But that's not the point--the law says the
threshold for impaired driving is .08%, and that law needs to
be applied uniformly to all people in such a way that the
guilty are convicted and the innocent are exonerated. Yet, the
states rely on a non-evasive breath testing device that is
clearly susceptible to variation, up to + or - 40%. This
creates a strong public policy concern: How can law be applied
uniformly where the primary investigative technique is
inherently flawed?
The solution is simple: draw blood, then these concerns fall.
If the private sector can develop a prick the finger test for
diabetics, why can't someone develop a finger prick test for
blood alcohol. I will be the first one to sign the Implied
Consent Waiver for a finger prick alcohol test. I know, I know
some of you will say that there are already checks in place if
someone wants to challenge their breath test results, they can
demand a blood test. Right? Wrong? First off, the suspect has
to pay for a blood test, so when the are advised of the cost,
most just say forget about it. Second, in my Breath Test
Operator Course and
Agency Inspector Course held @ St.
Petersburg Community College Southeastern Public Safety
Institute in August 2007, the Instructor Danny West, a retired
Clearwater Police Department Officer said, "You know, in all
my years with the CPD (20 yrs +), I never once had to take
someone to get a blood test. Think about it, all you are
required to do by law is if someone ask you for a blood test,
all you are required to do is to give them a phone book and a
phone, who are they gonna know who to call @ 2:30 a.m.?"
With that the whole class, all LEO's (except me) busted out
laughing. Yeah, I took the course with some of our state's
finest, so be careful because these are some of the same LEO's
that just might be pulling you over some time in the very near
future. You won't ever know if they deny you the right to get
a blood test after you blow, remember as Danny West said, "All
the LEO are required to do is to give you a phone book and
phone, how are you going to know who to call at 2-3:00 am in
the morning...???
Here is an article by a Professor of Pharmacology with a
review of these issues:
Breath Test for Blood Alcohol Determination
Are other states having the same problems with law enforcement
officers deleting failing test results or manipulating their
states alcohol testing program policies and procedures?
Yes, when law enforcement has control over the DUI breath
testing program, the program is ripe for manipulation. Florida
isn't alone because deleting failing test results isn't just a
local or state problem it is a nationwide problem.
Recently
the state of Ohio has exposed issues with Ohio law enforcement
employees destroying failing test results.
Ohio uses the BAC
DATAMASTER.
Drink-Think-Triple DDD = Don't Drink & Drive = Call a cab...
call a friend... or call me..
In my opinion, any state that uses the Intoxilyzer 8000 as an
evidentiary breath test device is more interested in using the
Intoxilyzer as a tool in producing revenue than helping to
remove impaired drivers from the roadways. Why would I make
this statement? Think about this, if the Intoxilyzer 8000 is
so accurate why does CMI, Inc. limit the sales of this
"magical" machine strictly to law enforcement? There is only
one answer to this question, it's because CMI, Inc. knows that
if defense attorneys had the ability to purchase the same
Intoxilyzer 8000 with the same state specific source
code/software, the inherent design flaws would be immediately
disclosed instead of taking years and years of legal
maneuvering winding through the halls of justice, and then the
main source of revenue for CMI, Inc.
"Why Call DUI undo?"
Because you can't undo what you don't know how to do.
