DWI Breath Tests: Surreptitious Government, Secret Science & Stealthy Machines

Posted On May 18, 2010 by Charles Ramsay

Many people believe our government should have secrets, at least when it comes to our national security. But scientists agree that forensic testing should be open. Their formulas, procedures and test results must be reproducible in order to be good science. But government scientists and the companies that supply them disagree.

CMI, Inc. â?? Owensboro, Kentucky

CMI, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000 and Intoxilyzer 8000, is holding its 26th Annual Meeting of the Intoxilyzers Users Group in Providence, Rhode Island on August 15-19, 2010. Although I own my own Intoxilyzer 5000 and am certified to operate the breath test machine, I am not permitted to attend. CMI is guarding the program's agenda, only saying "This conference promises to be an exciting one with many new things, courses, and information to share.|

CMI is notorious for its secretiveness. It has shunned its customers â?? numerous states including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan and Minnesota â?? by refusing to provide access to the software that runs its breath test machines. Only after we obtained a federal court order, was CMI forced to permit us access to its source code. (Our experts are currently in Kentucky at CMI's headquarters examining the Intoxilyzer 5000 software).

Intoximeters, Inc. â?? St. Louis, Missouri

Intoximeters, another breath testing company which produces the EC/IR II and the alco-sensor, also conceals the science behind its breath test machine. It is holding its 2010 Users Group Meeting in its home town September 12-15, 2010. Intoximeters program will include the |'Thomas Workman' Update| and |Source Code Challenges|. Apparently it felt it was being to open, however, as it recently revised its program omitting the above and instead chose the more generic |Legal Challenges.|

It, too, however, will not permit me or defense experts to attend.

Minnesota County Attorneys Association â?? St. Paul, Minnesota

Under our government's leadership, it's not surprising breath test manufacturers are so secretive about their breath test machines, the science they use and the software that runs their machines. The Minnesota County Attorneys Association (MCAA) is one of those organizations that perpetuates the covert treatment of DWI law enforcement.

The MCAA describes itself on its internet page:

The Minnesota County Attorneys Association is an independent, voluntary organization of County Attorneys dedicated to improving the quality of justice in the State of Minnesota. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation governed by a Board of Directors elected annually by the membership.

The members of the Association are dedicated to the accomplishment of this Mission by developing consensus on legal and public policy issues of statewide significance to County Attorneys. The Mission will be implemented competently and professionally while adhering to the highest ethical standards of the legal profession.

The MCAA closely follows my work. On its home page, it tracks my issues including the consolidated source code case, urine testing cases (see |Matthys Order|), and obtains transcripts (see |Implied Consent Transcript Bank|) of my expert witnesses and case issues. It will not give me access to its indexed transcript data base.

MCAA's clandestine treatment of DWIs is particularly troubling. Its annual DWI Program includes:

Initial contact, probable cause and preconditions to a test request

Testing and refusal issues

Right to counsel and additional testing issues

Tips from judges and prosecutors on how to proceed with your case

The impact of administrative rules

The program, entitled |Impaired Driving: New Laws, New Issues, New Decisions| will be held June 25, 2010 at the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in St. Paul.

To help satiate my thirst for knowledge, I thought it would be beneficial to attend. I registered and paid my fee. However, the MCAA told me that defense lawyers are not welcome at the continuing education seminar.

I was surprised given the fact that it advertised one of courses would include |Tips from judges â?¦ on how to proceed with your case.| I wonder which judges will present the (secret) tips and if they know the MCAA is precluding defense lawyers from hearing the inside information?

Should your government keep secrets? Maybe when it comes to matters of national security. But not when it comes to |science| that puts innocent people behind bars.