Urine Tests Found to be Unreliable
Charles Ramsay Beats Urine Testing in Minnesota
Recently Chuck Ramsay convinced a district court judge to throw out an alcohol urine test. In the following case Mr. Ramsay argued that the prosecutor should not be able to use the test based on the unreliable nature of urine testing. The original document is available in PDF format by clicking here.
The transcripts from the Implied Consent proceedings are available in PDF format by clicking here.
On this page, you'll see the text version of the Judge's Order, with links added to referenced cases where available (this page is under construction, the links may not all be in place yet).
Summary
Mr. Ramsay is challenging the method, specifically urine testing, (he's also challenging blood and breath testing!) that the police and prosecutors used to attempt to attempt to prove his client's guilt. Urine testing is extremely unreliable because it is not an accurate indicator of the amount of alcohol in your system at the time of the test. Unlike the blood flowing through your body- where the alcohol is filtered out by your kidneys over time, the urine in your bladder remains until urination. So, the level of alcohol in your bladder is really more a function of other factors, such as when the last time you urinated (or "voided" the bladder, as seen below), NOT the amount of alcohol currently in your system, which is the standard for establishing intoxication.
Ramsay believes the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is Grossly Negligent in permitting such testing in Minnesota. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the BCA claims it is valid, even as it acknowledges no peer-reviewed scientific articles support urine testing. As a result, many innocent drivers lose their licenses, jobs and way of life. Why does the BCA continue to permit this type of testing without requiring a "first void" at a minimum?
If you find yourself a victim of Minnesota's Urine Testing program, Contact Chuck Ramsay immediately for help.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of District Court, Minnesota on October 16, 2007. The final submissions of the parties were received by the Court on November 10, 2007.
Charles A. Ramsay, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. James E. Haase, Esq., Assistant Minnesota Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The sole issue identified for the Court's determination is whether the testing method used is valid and reliable.
Based upon testimony adduced, the arguments of counsel, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. After being arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired, sometime after 6:45 a.m. by Office Paul Tupy (hereinafter, "Officer Tupy"), of the Eagan Police Department, the Respondent submitted to a urine test administered at 8:25 a.m. by Officer Judy Dretzke (hereinafter, "Officer Dretzke" of the Eagan Police Department.
2. Officer Dretzke testified that the sample was taken using a BCA test kit, that she observed the Petitioner provide the sample, that the sample was sealed, and that the Petitioner initialed the cup containing the sample.
3. Donna Zittel, (hereinafter, "Ms. Zittel") a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (hereinafter, "BCA") toxicologist, performed a gas chromatography test of the sample, which revealed the Petitioner's alcohol concentration to be 0.13 grams per 67 milliliters of urine. Ms. Zittel testified that the BCA procedures for alcohol testing of urine do not contain a pre-test void requirement. Ms. Zittel further testified that the length of time between when the bladder was last voided and when the sample is produced may affect the results of the test, and that the lack of a requirement that an individual void prior to providing a sample for testing makes it theoretically possible for an individual's urine to contain a concentration of alcohol greater than the legal limit for driving at the same time that an individual's blood contains no detectable alcohol. Ms. Zittel conceded at hearing that she is unaware of any peer-reviewed articles supporting as scientifically valid the administration of a urine test without a pre-test voiding of the bladder.
4. Thomas Burr (hereinafter, "Mr. Burr"), the Petitioner's forensic expert, testified that in his opinion, the failure to require the Petitioner to void her bladder prior to providing a sample resulted in an alcohol concentration measurement that was not scientifically valid because the urine obtained was "pooled" and measured the average alcohol concentration since the last time the Petitioner urinated, rather than the alcohol concentration at the time of the test. Mr. Burr further testified that the consensus among the scientific community is that testing of urine obtained without requiring the bladder to be voided first does not result in a reliable measure of alcohol concentration, and that to his knowledge, Minnesota is the only state in which there is no requirement that the bladder be voided prior to conducting alcohol testing of urine.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following:
ORDER
1. The revocation of the Petitioner's driving privileges is RESCINDED
2. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein.
The Statutes of Minnesota provide that an individual's driving privileges shall be revoked upon certification by a peace officer that there existed probable cause to believe the individual had been driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired) and that the individual submitted to a test and the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. Minn. Stat § 169A.52, subdivision 4. Alcohol concentration is defined as the number of grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; the number of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath; or the number of grams per 67 milliliters of urine. Minn. Stat § 169A..03, subdivision 2.
A party offering the results of a chemical or scientific test into evidence has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the test is reliable and that its administration confirmed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability. Genung v. Comm'r. of Pub. Safety, 589 N.W. 2d 311, 313 (Minn.App 1999), quoting State v. Dille, 258 N.W. 2d 565, 567 (Minn. 1977). The burden of production then shifts to the party opposing admission to show why the test is untrustworthy. Id. The burden of persuasion regarding the accuracy of the result remains with the proponent of the evidence. ID.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals, when dealing with the issue of the scientific validity of urine testing for alcohol concentration, has deferred to the judgment of the BCA and consulted that so long as the BCA does not require a pre-test void, the lack of a pre-test void will not by itself render a urine test untrustworthy. ID at 313; State v. Galloway, No. C1-99-107, 2000 WL 462309 at 2 (Minn. App., April 25, 2000) Anderson v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, No. C8-99-2009, 2000 WL 665712 at 2 (Minn.App May 23, 2000).
Here, however, the Court is confronted with overwhelming evidence that a test performed upon a urine sample obtained without first voiding is no a reliable measure of alcohol concentration at the time it is administered, and thus the level of intoxication, or the driver. The commissioner's own witness, Ms. Zittel, conceded that the length of time between when the bladder was last voided and when the sample is produced may affect the results of the test. Moreover, Ms. Zittel admitted that it is theoretically possible for an individual's "pooled" urine to contain a concentration of alcohol greater than the legal limit for driving at the same time that an individual's blood contains no detectable alcohol.
The Court finds that the continued use of a testing procedure which experts agree may not measure the level of alcohol concentration, and thus intoxication of a driver at the time is administered, and which the state's witness admitted may yield results that do not correlate with blood tests performed at the same time, constitutes an absurd results which the Legislature could not possibly have intended, especially given the stated goal of enhancing safety by removing intoxicated drivers from the roads. In light of this, the Court is compelled to rescind the revocation of the Petitioners' driving privileges.
