Articles Posted in Breath Tests

Published on:

dic24After being arrested for DWI, a police officer will read the citizen accused their "Statutory Warnings" before asking them to submit to a breath test.

This form, the DIC-24, goes through the warnings to a person discussing potential license suspension for refusal, failure, and hearing requests.  It was originally created as a "dummy proof" form so that officers weren’t illegally coercing people into giving breath or blood samples.

The DIC-24 is often criticized by DWI attorneys as overly complicated, and in some cases, flat out deceiving.

Published on:

I have reported in the past that whenever a Judge or a police officer is arrested, they always refuse breath tests (and here).  But when an average Joe is arrested, they will often submit.

Well, it looks like one judge was able to take it a step further and get his case dismissed.  In a recent article, "Texas judge’s DWI charge dropped," the Houston Chronicle reports that that the Judge had his case dismissed after a special prosecutor was appointed on the case. 

Naturally, following his arrest, "He refused to take a breath test."

Published on:

I reported in the past here and here, about CMI, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer’s reluctance to tell the world how their machines determine and calculate the alcohol concentration in someone’s breath.  This calculation, of course, has the power of making someone a convicted criminal for the rest of their lives, and putting them in jail or prison.

In a brand new published opnion in Kentucky, the Court ruled that CMI must turn over the code.  The original court quashed the defense’s subpoena requesting the information.

Below is the opinion of the Court:

Published on:

In yet another showing of solidarity, a recent Dallas Civil Court Judge refused to take a breath test after being arrested for suspicion of DWI.  His answer to the officer was "not until I get some water and insulin".  Do you think the officer obliged, or just charged him with DWI?

This is just one of a long line of people who know the system, and refuse to take a breath test on the State’s often faulty machine.  You can read about other Judges refusing breath tests HERE.  Along with judges, the police refuse breath tests as well.  Along those lines, Mark Bennett has been blogging about what the Police know that you don’t know (not even talking to the police during their investigations).

Dallas civil court judge arrested on suspicion of DWI

Published on:

device      In a new law enacted at midnight tonight, Arizona will require all first time offenders convicted of DUI to install an ignition interlock device on their vehicles.  The Arizona Republic Online reports that not only will 1st time offenders be required to install this device, but also, anyone whose BAC is over .20 will have a mandatory jail sentence of at least 45 days.

The article reports:

Hardest hit are first-time violators and a new class of "super extreme" DUI offenders whose blood-alcohol concentration registers 0.20 percent or above, which is more than double the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

Published on:

I last posted regarding CMI’s refusal to reveal their source code here.  Apparently, court orders do not seem to phase this "government contracting" juggernaut.  CNET now reports that CMI has missed their deadline for turning over the source code. According to CNET:

The next step is a court hearing scheduled for September 19, Underdahl’s attorney, Jeffrey Sheridan, told CNET in a phone interview on Tuesday. At the hearing, Sheridan is expected to ask the judge to throw out any evidence the state had obtained using the the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. If the judge agrees, at least one charge–that his client was driving with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit of .08–would likely be dismissed.

Sheridan had predicted in an interview with CNET last month that the Minnesota state public safety commissioner would not supply him with the source code to the device, as ordered by the Minnesota Supreme Court, by the August 17 deadline.

I understand their arguments, "proprietary information, and all" but I don’t buy it.   This is a device that is used to convict people.  Take away their freedom.  Restrict future jobs and earnings.  Gets people fired from existing jobs.  Takes away MILLIONS of dollars from people through fines, court costs, and attorney’s fees. 

Published on:

For quite some time now, DWI attorneys have been seeking the source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000.  In a recent article posted on CNET, one defendant in Minnesota received a favorable decision.  Congratulations to fellow DWI attorney Jeffrey Sheridan, of Strandemo, Sheridan & Dulas with the favorable ruling.  . . We’ll see if CMI actually turns it over. …

Police Blotter: Defendant wins breathalyzer source code

Man charged with drunk driving says his attorney needs access to the source code to fight the charges; state supreme court agrees.

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET
Published on:

The following is an article by Lawrence Taylor that is by far the best article I’ve seen on the "history" of breath testing.  I thought about making comments to it, and adding my take on each of the pieces of the article, but I don’t want to mess up his article.  It’s great just how it is.

During trial, in a breath test case, attorneys often want to relate the message to the jury that this machine is simply the newest contraption in a long line of contraptions.  The argument is that the state is going to tell us that this is up to date technology, and works perfectly.  . . But here’s the problem.  They used say the last machine was up to date technology and worked perfectly.  And the machine before that, and the machine before that.

Right now, in the Collin County, Dallas County and Denton County they use the Intoxilyzer 5000.  some use the en version, and some do not.  There is an intoxilyzer 8000 out there already.  On CMI’s website, they even proclaim:

Published on:

In a recent arrest in Ohio, a police officer was arrested after driving erratically.  What I find most interesting is that he refused to submit to any chemical testing….  Hmmmmm….

It is interesting when many officers "encourage" or bully people into taking these tests, but when push comes to shove, they refuse.  Is it  really possible that only DWI attorneys know there is a fallacy with these tests?  Or is it at all possible that the police as well realize that there is a problem here?

Akron Detective Turns In His Badge After DUI Stop

Written by OJ Fagbire   

Detective Kris Hanzel, of the Akron police force, was pulled over last week when he was seen driving erratically.

He was off duty at the time. Officers report that Hanzel refused to take an alcohol test or any drug tests.
Hanzel, who has been a member of the department for 14-years, turned in his badge and resigned his post the day after his arrest.

Contact Information