Breath Testing

« Older Entries

Intoxilyzer 8000 Is Unreliable!

January 27th, 2012

Today, in State v. Heather Reid, Case No. TRC 1100716 in the Circleville Municipal Court, Judge Gary Dumm has ruled that “The State of Ohio cannot expect this Court to find the Intoxilyzer 8000 reliable when the State refuses to address known problems and explain why those problems can be ignored.”

The Court calls for independent laboratory testing to address the issues raised by the adoption of the Intoxilyzer 8000: RFI, sample size of the chamber, volume of the sample tested, possible operator manipulation of the results, possible CMI modifications of the software without the knowledge of ODH and slope detector inadequacy.  Judge Dumm wrote, “If this testing is not done independently of CMI and ODH, all municipal courts in Ohio will be dealing with these challenges for years to come.” The Court also states, “At a time when scientific testing can readily determine the accuracy and validity of many tools and processes, it would seem that both CMI and ODH should be happy to run independent testing with known and respectable laboratories to determine the accuracy and reliability of the equipment.”

The Court does not address the looming question of whether or not ODH or CMI will have to turn over source code data.  However, the Court eviscerated ODH stating that “the less than candid answers to the questions regarding the data base, the ability of CMI to enter and alter the machine without knowledge or documentation, lack of explanation of newer versions software, missing information and unexplained inconsistent results clearly cast doubt on ODH’s transparency as to the Intoxilyzer 8000.”

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. “All I do is DUI.”

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in Breath Testing, DUI Case Law

Tags:

DaytonDUI, Defending a Breath Test Case

January 26th, 2012
Big Bad Wolf

“I’ll Huff and I’ll Puff and Blow Your House Down”

Did you know that your breathing pattern can significantly alter the concentration of alcohol on your evidential breath test?  According to scientific research, “[t]he subject’s test manner of breathing just prior to providing breath for analysis can significantly alter the concentration of alcohol in the resulting exhalation.” (Jones, 1982, Schoknecht, 1989) as cited in Physiological Aspecs of Breath-Alcohol Measurement, Alcohol Drugs & Driving Vol. 6, No. 2, A.W. Jones.

Hyperventilation “…lowers the breath alcohol concentration by as much as 20% compared with a single moderate inhalation and forced exhalation used as control tests.” Id. (Jones, 1982).  Whereas, “holding breath for a short time (20 seconds) before exhalation increases the alcohol concentration in exhaled air by 15%. Id. (Jones, 1982).

With Ohio’s adoption of the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machine, attorneys should be on the look out for these types of breathing pattern defenses.  Tell your Ohio DUI lawyer if you were asked to hold your breath, blow in an unusual pattern or if the officer abruptly told you to stop blowing.  Your attorney needs to know how you blew because an operator may be looking to manipulate your breath pattern to force agreement of a first blow and  a second blow.

Charles M. Rowland II, DaytonDUI, is certified on the Intoxilyzer 8000 and has attended training on the machine wherein defenses like the breathing pattern defense and the long-blow breath test defense are explained in scientific detail.  He has been a city prosecutor and is Ohio’s only Forensic Sobriety Assessment certified attorney.  If you need to fight your DUI, contact attorney Charles M. Rowland II at 937-318-1DUI or 888-ROWLAND. “All I do is DUI Defense.”

Related articles

2 comments »

Posted in Breath Testing

Tags:

Should I Blow?

December 23rd, 2011

Under What Circumstances Should I Take A Breath Test?

To blow or not to blow, that is the question.  Unfortunately, the answer is “maybe” and involves a very complicated investigation of the facts of your case and your personal history.  You should NEVER refuse the test without understanding how a refusal would affect YOU.  No attorney can know all of the circumstances of your arrest and your personal history, always ask to speak to an attorney when making this decision.

Can you answer “TRUE” to ALL of the following questions? If so, you can politely DECLINE any police test(s) of your blood, breath, or urine with minimum impact.  Be prepared and know your rights.

a. I am an Ohio license holder, 21 years or older; AND

b. I was not involved in an accident involving possible death or to serious injury to ANYBODY, even members of my family, pedestrians or passengers; AND

c. I do not have a commercial driver’s license (CDL); AND

d. No matter where I currently have a license to drive, I have had no prior drunk driving convictions or deferred pleas for DUI in ANY state within 6 years (from the date of conviction until now).

Refusing a chemical test can result in harsh penalties which includes a one-year license suspension, but your attorney can fight to get this reduced.  In some courts your refusal may be held strictly against you and in others you may be able to get a reduced suspension despite your refusal.  In State v. Hill, 2009-Ohio-2468, the Appellate Court upheld the right of a trial court to enhance a penalty based on a refusal to take the chemical test. In most circumstances, a refusal to take a chemical test will result in a longer hard-time suspension (30 days rather than 15 days without any driving privileges). [see the Automatic License Suspension section of this blog].  You should also engage in an honest assessment of your alcohol consumption. If you risk testing over Ohio’s “super-OVI” threshold (over a .17% BAC) you may do harm by taking the test.  Take these factors into account when making your decision to blow or not to blow.

Any criminal defense attorney would rather have less evidence against you rather than more, but giving blanket advice to refuse the chemical test is a mistake.  Be prepared to make the best decision for you.  You can also plan ahead by storing my contact information in your smart phone: (937)776-2671.

 

Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (1-888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.Immediate help is available by filling out the CONTACT form on any of these pages.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting follow DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and you can access updates by becoming a fan of Dayton DUI/OVI Defense.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

 

Related articles

3 comments »

Posted in Breath Testing

Tags:

Scientific Defenses to an OVI: The GERD Defense

December 15th, 2011
The hazard symbol for corrosive substances acc...

The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that acid reflux (called gastroesophageal reflux) and the more serious Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (hereinafter GERD) affect more than 90 million people at least one time per month and about 25 million people experience serious GERD problems daily. “  GERD is usually caused by changes in the barrier between the stomach and the esophagus, including abnormal relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter, which normally holds the top of the stomach closed; impaired expulsion of gastric reflux from the esophagus, or a hiatal hernia. These changes may be permanent or temporary (“transient”). [cite]

Although about 10 percent of the population of the United States has GERD, between 43 and 75 percent of those folks actually have silent or subclinical GERD, meaning they have no signs except for an occasional cough or raspy voice.  These signs result from refluxed hydrochloric acid (HCl) from the stomach and may present in vocal cord irritation.”  Greenberger, N.J. Update in Gastroenterology, ANN INTERN MED 125 (3) (February 1997) 221-225 as cited in Understanding DUI Scientific Evidence, 2011 ed.,  Developing a GERD Defense, McShane J.D. et al., pp. 136-138.  The defendant who suffers from Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) will not exhibit outward signs of distress or other signs which a breath testing technician would likely notice.  The surging ethanol vapor can cause an elevated reading on an evidential breath testing device.  The elevated test can appear following a valid and conscientious observation period.  Because the evidential breath testing device cannot distinguish contaminated air from deep-lung alveolar air, it registers a reading which can be incredibly higher than observational evidence (i.e. the standardized field sobriety tests) would suggest.  Because of the GERD a factually innocent person will appear guilty of OVI.  Couple this with the elevated status afforded the evidential breath testing devices by Ohio law and you have a scientifically provable instance of injustice.

Do you have GERD? Do you have a verifiable diagnosis?  Have you been on prescription medication for this disorder?  If you answered yes to these questions, have your Ohio OVI attorney consider the science behind a reflux-based defense.  Attorney Charles M. Rowland II is certified in Forensic Sobriety Assessment, has been trained in the administration and evaluation of the standardized field sobriety testing, and has attended the National College for DUI Defense Forensic DUI Science national seminar where he was trained in presenting science based drunk driving defenses.  In addition, Charles M. Rowland has been certified on the operation, calibration and maintenance of the  Intoxilyzer 8000 and the BAC DataMaster breath testing machines.  Ohio drunk driving attorney Charles M. Rowland can be reached by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (1-888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.   Immediate help is available by filling out the CONTACT form on any of these pages.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting follow DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and you can access updates by becoming a fan of Dayton DUI/OVI Defense.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles

1 comment »

Posted in Breath Testing

Tags:

DUI Science and More Faulty Breath Machine Assumptions

December 8th, 2011

Evidential Breath Testing Measures The Amount of Alcohol In Your Breath Not in Your Brain!

A chimpanzee brain at the Science Museum London

One of the faulty assumptions underlying evidential breath testing is the assumption that the tests are measuring the ability of alcohol to impair your brain.  They do not.  The breath test does not care how, or even if, the alcohol is impairing your brain only that it is in your breath via your lungs via your blood.  The machines do not test venous blood but arterial blood utilizing the scientific principle of Henry’s Law.  As alcohol can be at different rates throughout your body, the machine is not measuring impairment.

During peak absorption arterial blood is higher than  venous blood.  Arterial blood travels to the lungs for normal bodily air exchange and comes into contact with the highest level of alcohol concentration thereby resulting in an overstated (disproportionately high) BAC level.  Venous blood  more accurately indicates BAC levels inside the tissues of the brain and is a better indicator of how much the alcohol is impairing your brain function.

When you start looking closely at the built-in assumptions underlying the tests, you begin to see that evidential breath testing is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Like any other evidence offered in the courtroom it should be vigorously cross-examined just like any other witness against you.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Huber Heights, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook, www.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles

5 comments »

Posted in Blood & Urine Tests, Breath Testing

Tags: