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
 

 

Warning: Don’t drink Dr. Pepper and drive… CMI, Inc. says the Intoxilyzer 8000 will read Dr. Pepper as BrAC of 0.007.


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.

 

Contact Us Today!
 

"Why Call DUI undo?"

Because you can't undo what you don't know how to do.

 

Website By:


Questions / Problems with this site? Please e-mail the
webmaster