"Up to 1000 DUI cases in Philadelphia may be impacted by a
faulty breath test machine that was not properly calibrated. What
happened in Philadelphia is that an expired solution was used to
calibrate the breath test machine. This error was discovered by a DUI
Lawyer likely in preparing one of his cases in order to attempt to have
the results excluded at trial. Gray Hall wrote an article for ABC6
in Philadelphia discussing the problems with the machine and notes that
the police department were quick to say that the machine was working
properly and that is was human error. In Massachusetts, we are in the process of our own litigation over
the accuracy of the breath test machine. Over 700 cases have been stayed
awaiting the resolution of the litigation in the Concord District Court
which concerns the following issues: Is the Computer Program, known as the source code, scientifically reliable? Is the breath test machine sufficiently specific for alcohol as
other compounds may be confused with the alcohol by the breath test
machine. Does the machine properly calibrate itself? Why was the Commonwealth using breath test machine that were not
properly calibrated. The breath test machines were allowing the machine
to produce reading even if the machine did not calibrate at the accepted
range when reading a known alcohol solution of .08.......... The police in Philadelphia use
the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test, which uses a wet bath solution like
the old machine used in Massachusetts, the Alcotest 7110. The current
machine in Massachusetts operates on a dry gas solution. This solution
is suppose to be a .08 alcohol content and is used to calibrate the
machine prior to every breath test. In Massachusetts, the regulations
put out by the Office of Alcohol Testing consider the machine as being
accurate as long as the machine reads anywhere from .074 to .086. The
breath test machine was still providing a reading when the machine read
below the calibration range. This caused the District Attorney or stop
using the breath test machine for about four months in some counties
during the summer of 2015. The litigation concerning this controversy
is still ongoing. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
judge allowed a defense motion allowing great access to test the breath
test machine, including giving the defense expert access to tow breath
test machines as well as allowing the expert to conduct a dynamic test
analysis.This story from Philadelphia illustrates why breath test evidence
should be challenged and the those charged should understand the
numerous defenses when you take a breath test and how to challenge them
in Court."
http://www.massachusettscriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2016/07/breath-test-calibration-errors-impact-1000-dui-cases-philadelphia.html
See the May 2, 2016 post of the Charles Smith Blog, which discussed a "significant development" relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C, as follows: "Breathalyzer test validity: Gurdev Singh; Ontario: Judge rejects reading from American manufactured breathalyzer instrument after Ben Joseph - a "whistleblower" who once worked for Ontario's Centre for Forensic Sciences - testified that convicting people for breath readings obtained by the Intoxilyzer 8000C is “flirting with disaster.” Betsy Powell reports in the Toronto Star that the decision could have 'great significance' across Ontario..."Prior to the trial, Joseph studied the historical data and maintenance and calibration records for the breath-testing equipment used by Peel Region police to obtain a breath sample from Gurdev Singh on March 4, 2014. Joseph said he determined the instrument’s history was littered with inaccurate results and other failures. He noted that none of the device’s maintenance records explained the malfunctions or what, if anything, police had done to address them. For that reason, no one could have confidence in the reliability of Singh’s breath-test results, Joseph testified. In addition, Joseph told court that since, to his knowledge, all the 8000Cs used in Ontario lack an “uncertainty of measurement” — an established error rate, used to ensure results account for uncertainty — there is no way to be “statistically confident” about a subject’s breath-test reading. He suggested he and other toxicologists at the forensic centre discussed their shared concern about uncertainty of measurement with breath-testing instruments, but it appears nothing was done."...The company did not respond to a request for comment. The company explained the machine’s “flow sensor” can fatigue and need replacing. But Joseph said his analysis led him to conclude that some people may have been charged wrongly with refusing to supply a breath sample because they were blowing into machines later found to have faulty flow sensors. “That’s the big elephant in the breath room that nobody wants to talk about,” Joseph said"........." Police forces in Ontario began using the U.S.-manufactured Intoxilyzer 8000Cs about six or seven years ago. Joseph compared the case to Motherisk, the Hospital for Sick Children’s now discredited hair-testing program. “It’s no different. It’s just another judge saying things in another forensic setting. Because of the lack of quality standards that Sick Kids did not adhere to, same thing, no uncertainty of measurement here, no proper maintenance here, so (it) calls into question the reliability of breath testing in certain instruments.”
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2016/05/significant-development-breathalyzer.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
http://www.massachusettscriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2016/07/breath-test-calibration-errors-impact-1000-dui-cases-philadelphia.html
See the May 2, 2016 post of the Charles Smith Blog, which discussed a "significant development" relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C, as follows: "Breathalyzer test validity: Gurdev Singh; Ontario: Judge rejects reading from American manufactured breathalyzer instrument after Ben Joseph - a "whistleblower" who once worked for Ontario's Centre for Forensic Sciences - testified that convicting people for breath readings obtained by the Intoxilyzer 8000C is “flirting with disaster.” Betsy Powell reports in the Toronto Star that the decision could have 'great significance' across Ontario..."Prior to the trial, Joseph studied the historical data and maintenance and calibration records for the breath-testing equipment used by Peel Region police to obtain a breath sample from Gurdev Singh on March 4, 2014. Joseph said he determined the instrument’s history was littered with inaccurate results and other failures. He noted that none of the device’s maintenance records explained the malfunctions or what, if anything, police had done to address them. For that reason, no one could have confidence in the reliability of Singh’s breath-test results, Joseph testified. In addition, Joseph told court that since, to his knowledge, all the 8000Cs used in Ontario lack an “uncertainty of measurement” — an established error rate, used to ensure results account for uncertainty — there is no way to be “statistically confident” about a subject’s breath-test reading. He suggested he and other toxicologists at the forensic centre discussed their shared concern about uncertainty of measurement with breath-testing instruments, but it appears nothing was done."...The company did not respond to a request for comment. The company explained the machine’s “flow sensor” can fatigue and need replacing. But Joseph said his analysis led him to conclude that some people may have been charged wrongly with refusing to supply a breath sample because they were blowing into machines later found to have faulty flow sensors. “That’s the big elephant in the breath room that nobody wants to talk about,” Joseph said"........." Police forces in Ontario began using the U.S.-manufactured Intoxilyzer 8000Cs about six or seven years ago. Joseph compared the case to Motherisk, the Hospital for Sick Children’s now discredited hair-testing program. “It’s no different. It’s just another judge saying things in another forensic setting. Because of the lack of quality standards that Sick Kids did not adhere to, same thing, no uncertainty of measurement here, no proper maintenance here, so (it) calls into question the reliability of breath testing in certain instruments.”
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2016/05/significant-development-breathalyzer.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
