2003 Tennesse Study Reveals Truth About Minnesota's DWI Program
MINNESOTA BCA: INCOMPETENCY OR CHICANERY?
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension claims the software is not relevant or necessary when ascertaining whether a particular breath test machine gives results that are valid, reliable and accurate.
The Supervisor of the BCA Toxicology Division testified under oath before me that its not necessary to review the software of any instrument when evaluating whether it gives reliable, valid and accurate results. In fact, he's never heard of such a thing.
The person is either incompetent or continues to obscure the truth. See, for example, the 2003 Tennessee breath machine validation studies (Documenting that evaluation of the software is "critical" in evaluating breath test instruments).
The Tennessee studies provide additional insight into Minnesota's incompetence and/or deceitfulness. The BCA and their lawyers claim they are not sure whether any manufacturer would disclose software as part of validation studies in their most recent version of their source code propaganda.
Again, the BCA is either incompetent or less than forthcoming. The Tennessee study again documents that at least one manufacturer disclosed the software for validation studies.
Below the document is the text:
<
To: Samera Zavaro, Special Agent Forensic Scientist Supervisor
From: David Ferguson and Robert Marshall, Special Agent Forensic Scientist's
Subject: Evaluation of the Intoximeter EC/IR II, CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 and Drager Alcotest 7110 Breath Alcohol Instrument
Date: September 12, 2003
The Breath Alcohol instruments listed above were evaluated for accuracy, precision, and performance. Accuracy and precision were evaluated using a series of standard ethyl alcohol solution and a series of standard ethyl alcohol solutions containing various interferants. Performance was evaluated by placing each instrument in a field environment and using DC current in a vehicle.
The Intoximeter EC/IR II and the Drager Alcotest 7110 yielded satisfactory results on the accuracy, precision and performance tests. The CMI Inotoxilyzer 800 did not yield satisfactory results.
The controller software, a requirement of the TBI Forensic Services Division specifications is a critical part of the evaluation. Intoximeter Inc., has submitted its controller software system and has satisfied this requirement.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Intoximeter EC/IR II instruments and software system be approved for use in the State of Tennessee's Breath Alcohol Program. The CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 and Drager Alcotest MK-7110 are not recommended for use at this time pending evaluation of their software system.
Procedure
Standard Solutions: Each instrument was evaluated using a series of ethyl alcohol standards ranging from 0.02gm% to 0.30gm% (0.02,0.05,0.08,0.10,0.20, and 0.30) prepared and analyzed with NIST Traceable material by Guth Laboratories. The NIST Traceable were certified by Guth Laboratories. Solutions containing inteferants: Each instrument was evaluated using a series of ethyl alcohol solution containing the following interfering substances: Methanol, Isopropul Alcohol Toluene and MIBK (methylisobutylketone) Guth Laboratories alcohol-water bath simulators were also utilized at this time. Mobile Using DC Current: The breath instruments were evaluated using a series of Ethyl Alcohol standards ranging from 0.02gm% to 0.30gm% and (0.02,0.05,0.08,0.10,0.20,0.30) generated by alcohol-water bath simulators certified by Guth Laboratories. Several human breath blanks were utilized. No RFI was noted.
Results
Results of the evaluation using standard solutions demonstrated the Intoximeter EC/IR II and Drager Alcotest MK-7110 were within the NHSTA specifications of plus or minus 0.005gm% or 5% whichever is greater. The CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 did not meet the NHSTA specifications.
A footnote: The 2003 Tennessee study found that CMI's Intoxilyzer 8000 was not valid, reliable or accurate.
Hmmmmm......
Contact Charles Ramsay immediately for more information about Minnesota's problematic breath testing program.
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
www.RamsayResults.com