D.U.I. undo Consultants, LLC

Consulting Fees:

DUI undo Consultants, LLC. has a standard fee schedule for our services however, if your DUI has created financial hardships for you or your family we offer various payment options to accommodate your monthly budget. In extreme cases and if you qualify,  we will take your case gratis. Please call for fee schedules or to see if you qualify for our fee exemption program. Remember, helping to prove your innocence and protect your liberty to drive is our first priority but, being compensated for our services is our reward for a job well done.

*DUI undo Consultants, LLC services and expert witness testimony are also available to the Office of the State Attorney upon request.

YOU CAN'T WIN IN THE GAME OF INTOXILZYER ROULETTE

Don't take a chance and play the game of Intoxliyzer Roulette, (not knowing if the machine is working correctly or the Breath Test Operator is following the rules and procedures of F.A.C Implied Consent Rules Chp.11D-8). You are only one breath away from losing your liberty to drive, but....
                    
If you do "BLOW" 
DEMAND A BLOOD TEST.

Drink Responsibly 
Drive Responsibly

If you do "blow" and provide breath samples, the state with have to lay what is called "traditional scientific predicate" to be able to get your breath test results into evidence at your trial. How does the state do this? The state has proffer the monthly inspections of the month before, the month of, and the month after your "Subject Breath Test" to show that the Intoxilyzer was properly functioning. When this is done the courts will allow your results to be used against you.  

The irony is that NO where on the warranty for the Intoxilyzer 8000 does it say that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is "scientifically reliable". 
Click here to see a warranty from the old Intoxilyzer 5000 that Florida used.

SIX reasons why blood testing is better than non-evasive testing, i.e. Breath Testing?


1. Blood Test Results cannot be deleted. On October 7, 2008 an FDLE Alcohol Testing Program Employee was charged with deleting tests results from Intoxilyzers that were failing an inspection. Ms. Sandra Veiga, one of the FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspectors was "FIRED-DISMISSED" for deleting test results in which the Intoxilyzer she was testing failed a testing sequence. Why would she delete the failing test results?  By deleting test results that failed, the Intoxilyzer would not have to be taken off line and sent for repairs. What does this mean to anyone who tested on one of the machines that had test s deleted. Your breath test results cannot be deemed to be scientifically reliable because Intoxilyzer would have not been in compliance with the Implied Consent Rules Chapter 11D-8 F.A.C. Furthermore, this type of behavior in not just happening “only” at the FDLE/ATP  level, the Agency Inspector’s who work for the local law enforcement agencies are also deleting failed test results.

Click here to see Sandra Veiga's dismissal notice for FDLE Commissioner Gerald M. Bailey.

People are starting to listen to what we have been saying all along:
FLORIDA INTOXILYZER'S THAT ARE FAILING MONTHLY INSPECTION TEST ARE BEING KEEP ON-LINE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT DELETIING THE FAILING TEST RESULTS.
 

2. The state has an unfair advantage in collecting evidentiary breath samples, why?

Defense attorneys cannot purchase an Intoxilyzer to perform "independent" testing. Click here to see why.

3. Breath Test Operators (BTO) are instructed in their training to have the subjects blow into the machine for as long as possible. The curriculum designed by FDLE allows for an unambiguous standard of administration allowing the breath test results to be subjective instead of objective. Click here to see what "some" courts agree to.
 

4. The Intoxilyzer 8100.27 sourcecode requires a minimum criteria for   a "valid" or scientifically reliable breath test sample. The minimum are:

1. Continuous blow for at least 1 second
2. Provide 1.1 liter of breath sample
3. Satisfy the alcohol slope.

Click here to see why breath test results are not "scientifically reliable" kudos’s to Robert Harrison, Esq. 

Click here is see how FDLE still refuses to address this malfunction or test the "Flow Meters" to gaurantee the breath volume submitted is accurate.

Wait, didn't the Program manager for FDLE/ATP recently testify that the "Volume" is very important and without the "Volume" of 1.1 liter of breath the Intoxilyzer doesn't even look for an BrAC? 

The program manager recently testified that the Intoxilyzer 8000 checks for slope in this manner. The three (3) minimum requirements for scientifically reliable (valuable) breath sample are; TIME and VOLUME and SLOPE. And actually TIME and VOLUME help you achieve SLOPE.   That manager also stated that the Intoxilyzer 8000 looks for the 1.1 liter of breath then verifies that that 1.1 liter has been provided in at least 1 second, if and only when those 2 minimum criteria are met, does the Intoxilyzer look for slope. The program manager then confirmed FDLE/ATP's  position that the Intoxilyzer 8000 has to have "both" the 1.1 liter of breath in "at least" 1 second when later on in her testimony she said, "So you can’t get a posted number at all, if you don’t provide the sample for at least the minimum one second. It’s physically impossible to get a number at all.

Impossible? Tell that to Ludmila Svoboda, who was one of the hundreds of people I have found that had a breath test result resulting in a BrAC with no volume of breath supplied to the Intoxilyzer 8000. Ludmila Svoboda's breath volume on the 1st sample reads 0.000 with a BrAC of 0.186. Remember, the "Program Manager" of FDLE/ATP said this scenario was PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to get a number at all!!!

 
I will post the audio of the program manager's testimony here at a later date, so check back here to hear it. The bottom line is the "Program Manager" of FDLE/ATP makes critical errors in regards to how the Intoxilyzer 8000 functions. Unfortunately, the court that heard the MOTION TO EXCLUDE argument missed the inconsistent testimony in regards to the way the Intoxilyzer 8000 functions".  

5. Wow, the Intoxilyzer is a magical machine; it can read a person's BrAC (breath alcohol concentration) without that person even blowing into the machine.

Didn't the program manager say the breath test result below is "impossible" and the machine won't even look for a (BrAC) number? Who do you believe the document from the Intoxilyzer 8000 or the FDLE/ATP" Program Manager" ?
Click here to see a Subject Breath Test result of 0.186 with "NO VOLUME" of breath provided.

6. When the defense attorneys are successful in using their shield to protect a defendant, or in lay terms find a loophole in the implied consent laws, FDLE will close that legal loophole; as when several GLADIATORS were successful in arguing for source code disclosures for the old Intoxilyzer 5000. 

Why were the defense attorneys' successful? They argued constitutional law and precedent case law that the courts interpreted as "full disclosure" which meet "source codes" were ordered disclosed. So, what did FDLE do? They re-wrote the Implied Consent Rules which then stated:

316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.--
(1)(a)1.a.  Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The chemical or physical breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The administration of a breath test does not preclude the administration of another type of test. The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties. The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.
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.
History.--s. 3, ch. 82-155; s. 3, ch. 82-403; s. 1, ch. 83-218; s. 4, ch. 83-228; s. 3, ch. 84-359; s. 2, ch. 86-296; s. 3, ch. 88-5; s. 1, ch. 88-82; s. 2, ch. 91-255; s. 20, ch. 92-58; s. 314, ch. 95-148; s. 4, ch. 96-330; s. 1, ch. 98-27; s. 6, ch. 2000-160; s. 1, ch. 2000-226; s. 2, ch. 2002-263; s. 1, ch. 2003-54; s. 33, ch. 2005-164; s. 1, ch. 2006-247.


Clink on this link to see what James C. Smith of the Lynn Haven Police Department had to say about the Intoxilyzer 8000. This document is a monthly FDLE Agency Inspection report. Be sure to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to see his comments in the REMARKS section.


In January 2008 the document "This Machine Sucks" was proffered in court to the FDLE/ATP program manager. Since then FDLE/ATP has removed the hyperlink I had here to their website that showed all 7 records for Intoxilyzer 80-000206 in which the machine failed 7 test in a row, and failed those test in six (6) different testing procedures. I have now reposted the records from my files for your viewing.  Click here to see why James C. Smith of the Lynn Haven Police Department (using an Intoxilyzer 80-000206 on loan from FDLE/ATP, pgs 25-31) said, "This Machine Sucks".  Maybe Officer Smith was extremely frustrated that this Intoxilyzer failed seven times, count them, (7) failed test in a row, see pages 25 -31. Make sure you scroll down to the bottom of the page to read the comments in the "REMARKS" section to see not only James C. Smith's comments, but the Intoxilyzer's Warning Flags signaling that the machine "DOES NOT COMPLY" and marvel in the "RELIABILITY" of this Magical MACHINE.

WARNING: If you tested your blood pressure with a machine that had the same reliability and accuracy as the Intoxilyzer 8000... You would be dead...!

Now for the real joke. Here is proof that FDLE/ATP can make up any old excuse for any "unexplainable" failure with the Intoxilyzer 8000. How can FDLE/ATP do that? Because the state of Florida and our courts give FDLE/ATP employees the power and authority to "LIE". Why can't the "bogus" excuses that FDLE/ATP or the individual law enforcement Agency Inspectors make up be challenged? Well CMI, Inc., (the company that manufactures the Intoxilyzer 8000) will not sell an Intoxilyzer 8000 to anyone other than a law enforcement agency. 

Click Here to see to how the State of Florida allows the "exclusive" business practice of selling ONLY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. Here is CMI, Inc.'s response to DUI undo Consultants, LLC. when we tried to purchase an Intoxilyzer 8000 for independent testing. This restriction of selling evidentiary equipment to only law enforcement agency is why neither your Defense Attorney or the Public Defender's office, or a DUI Expert Witness have the ability to verify any old excuse that FDLE/ATP or the individual law enforcement agencies Agency Inspector decide to "make-up" for a failure during a testing procedure. Why would this void of failure verification tilt the hand of justice in favor of the state? If NO ONE CAN REFUTE ANY AND ALL EXCUSES made-up by law enforcement agency inspectors or FDLE/ATP Inspectors, the courts assume that every excuse for any failure must be valid and the Intoxilyzer 8000 results are therefore "reliable" = you are guilty. 

Back to the lame excuses that FDLE/ATP and the local law enforcement agencies Agency Inspectors document in the "Remark“ section of the Agency Inspection reports. Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. After the program manager was proffered the "This Machine Sucks" document in a hearing back in January of 2008, you know what hit the fan and it is obvious
that "someone" from high up in FDLE/ATP
authorized the following damage control, i.e. bogus excuse.

Click Here: (see pages 1 -3) for the lame excuses made up by FDLE/ATP for Intoxilyzer 80-000206 from failures back in September 2006. Why are these excuses a joke? The machine failed 6 different testing procedures including the Alcohol Free and Mouth Alcohol testing sequences and these failures are all blamed on a "bad" seal on the thermostat of one (1) simulator. Maybe it was FDLE/ATP Maggie Geddings who came up with this bogus excuse (again most likely with the authority of the program manager for FDLE/ATP) and Inspector Geddings probably demanded (again at the program manager's request)that Lynn Haven Police Chief David Messer order Officer James Smith to write memo using this lame excuse; "The remarks section of this report, when submitted electronically, stated this machine sucks(air through a bad simulator seal) and does not refer to the above referenced Intoxilyzer 8000". WOW!!! FDLE/ATP and the program manager expect everyone to believe that after Officer James Smith typed in "THIS MACHINE SUCKS" (in all CAPS mind you, as if Officer Smith was frustrated and screaming at Intoxilyzer 80-000206) Officer Smith just plain forgot to type in the rest of his excuse: (air through a bad simulator seal)!!!

This excuse is not feasible because it would mean that Officer James Smith used the same simulator for every solution during the Agency Inspection test while testing the various solutions of: .05, .08, and .20, and during the Alcohol Free test, using only one simulator is a violation of procedures per FDLE/ATP Form 39. Opps both the FDLE/ATP program manager and FDLE/ATP Department Inspector Maggie Geddings missed that little requirement in Officer James Smith's lame excuse.

NOTE: Almost all Agency Inspections use from 3-5 simulators during an Agency Inspection or FDLE/ATP Department Inspection., and in my opinion, the real kicker to prove the excuse in the memo is a "LIE" fabricated by FDLE/ATP is that FDLE/ATP Form 39 states you must use at least two (2) simulators when conducting an Agency Inspection. Click Here to see FDLE/ATP Form 39 requiring 2 simulators to be used.

As you can see Officer James Smith and FDLE/ATP Department Inspector Maggie Geddings have both taken part in this conspiracy to "LIE" by committing themselves to the excuse in which only one simulator was used and only that one simulator was sent in for repairs. Click here to see the "LIE' on the bottom of page 2 were Officer Smith said "the" simulator in question was removed and sent for repairs on the bottom of his memo page 2. 

The funny part about this lame excuse is not that the FDLE/ATP program manager would actually allow this excuse to be used as the reason for failures or allow this excuse to be posted 17 months after the fact, but funny part is the fact that not only did Inspector Geddings miss the (2) simulator requirement, but the "Program Manager" for FDLE/ATP also missed the (2) simulator requirement.

The reality question becomes how could FDLE/ATP Department Inspector Maggie Geddings or Lynn Haven Police Officer James Smith determine the cause of these failures 17 months later was only ONE simulator? By the way check the date the officer Smith's memo was recieved by FDLE/ATP , it appears as if someone at FDLE/ATP attempted document the receipt date of his memo as January 9, 2007 and then someone from FDLE/ATP corrected the date and initialed the discrepancy/change.

 

Contact Us Today!

 

"Why Call DUI undo?"

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