millerboycott.com

Proponents of the so-called “standardized” field sobriety tests (SFSTs) have long pointed to federally-funded field studies which indicate a high correlation between performance on the tests and actual blood alcohol concentrations (BAC). 

Subsequent studies, however, have called those conclusions into question.

Originally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) paid a private group, the Southern California Research Institute, to conduct studies to find which among the various field sobriety tests used by police were most effective and to develop a standardized 3-test battery.  SCRI subsequently reported to NHTSA that a battery of walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus provided a strong correlation with breath test results.

Confronted with questions about those conclusions, NHTSA later commissioned the same researcher who had conducted the original studies, Marcelline Burns, to  corroborate the accuracy of her own tests of the SFSTs – rather than commission an independent source. 

Burns accompanied a small number of San Diego officers conducting actual DUI investigations in the field.  After administering the SFSTs, the officers were asked to guess whether suspects had blood alcohol  concentrations (BAC) over or under .08%.   Burns reported a 91% correlation between SFSTs and BAC over-under estimates, thereby validating the battery of tests she had helped create.

A subsequent scientific article challenged Burns’ corroboration of her own research.  In Hlastala, Polissar and Oberman, “Statistical Evaluation of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests”, 50(3) Journal of Forensic Sciences 1 (May 2005), the raw data used in the validation study were obtained from NHTSA through the Freedom of Information Act.  The methodology used was then reviewed and the data subjected to statistical analysis.

The methodology was found to be seriously flawed in a number of respects.  For one thing, many of the suspects had very high BACs, making estimates of whether a suspect was over .08% obvious regardless of SFST performance.  For another, there was no attempt to isolate the influence of SFST performance from other factors:  officers estimated BACs after the field sobriety tests, but they also took into account earlier observations, such as erratic driving, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, flushed face, admissions as to amount of alcohol consumed, etc.

The most glaring defect in Burns’ corroborative study was that “all police officers  participating in the study were equipped with NHTSA-approved portable breath testing devices”.  In other words, the San Diego officers already had the results of portable breath tests before they were asked to estimate the BACs later obtained at the station!

After reviewing the flawed methodology, the raw data was then statistically analyzed.  The conclusions:

If we consider three ranges of MBAC [measured blood alcohol content], 0.00% to 0.04%, 0.04% to 0.08%, and 0.08% to 0.12%, the officers’ EBAC [estimated blood alcohol content] overestimated the MBAC 76%, 67% and 48% of the time, and underestimated it 14%, 26% and 28% of the time. 

In other words, officers relying upon field sobriety tests were far more likely to overestimate  BACs than underestimate — particularly with those suspects having very low BACs. 

(T)he utility of the SFST depends very much on how intoxicated an individual is.  Accuracy (and specificity) are low when individuals are close to 0.08% MBAC, but if the individuals are quite intoxicated, such as above 0.12%, then accuracy is high.

In borderline cases involving persons at or under the legal limit, then, officers were very poor at estimating blood-alcohol levels based upon SFSTs.  And it is these cases, of course, that are critical.  Suspects with high BACs are relatively easy to single out without the help of field tests; it is for the closer cases, particularly those who are innocent (below .08%), that the SFSTs are designed.  And it is with these very cases that the tests apparently fail. 

Put another way, accuracy in using field sobriety tests is high when they are not needed — and low when they are.

For another independent study conducted by Professor Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University, in which he found field sobriety tests to be worthless, see Are Field Sobriety Tests Designed for Failure?.
 

DUI BLOG

The latest news fresh from the front lines of MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving": 

DUI Cases in Jeopardy After Richmond County Deputy Admits Falsifying Readings


Richmond County, GA. Nov. 19 – The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Norman told the department’s internal affairs division that he had done it only “once or twice” but couldn’t recall exactly which cases were involved.

Norman’s credibility is gone now, no matter how many times he falsified readings, said Augusta attorney Robert “Bo” Hunter, who prosecuted drunken driving cases as the Richmond County State Court solicitor from 1988 to 1996…

Even worse, Hunter said, is that there probably were people charged with driving under the influence who shouldn’t have been.

Norman, hired as a jailer in July 2002, was transferred to the DUI task force in March 2009. An accurate count of his DUI convictions cannot be made through court records, but during his time on the task force, he arrested an estimated 250 to 400 people.

State Court Solicitor Charles Evans said his office has 62 pending DUI cases in which Norman was the arresting officer. Each will have to be judged on its merits to determine whether to continue prosecuting them as DUIs. If necessary, the office will bring in Norman as a trial witness, Evans said.

The Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Coun­cil is investigating to determine whether Norman can keep his certification, said Ryan Powell, its director of operations. Unless he is arrested on felony charges or his certification is suspended, Norman is free to work as an officer, Powell said.

Falsifying evidence is a felony – making false statements – but prosecuting Norman for it would be difficult, District Attorney Ashley Wright said. A prosecutor would have to prove in which case Norman falsified the results, and there is no way to uncover those cases without Norman’s admission. He claimed he didn’t know which cases were falsified…

Do you really think this Georgia deputy is the only cop out there falsifying breathalyzer readings to justify his DUI arrest?
 

DUI BLOG

Hmmm….Maybe the citizens of this country are beginning to wake up to the fact that those infallible breath machines aren’t so infallible.  And prosecutors don’t like it.

Controversy in BAT Van Investigation

Houston, TX.  Oct. 21 – There are new questions about just what a grand jury is investigating after prosecutors were thrown out of the grand jury room.

In an incredibly rare move this week, the foreperson of a Harris County Grand Jury asked a bailiff to remove prosecutors so jurors could hear from a witness on their own about potentially faulty DWI tests.

13 Undercover first raised questions about the accuracy of the Houston Police Department’s so-called BAT [Breath Alcohol Test] vans, but now it’s the investigation into how those problems were handled that’s causing controversy.

For months, some of the people closest to HPD’s breath testing vans have told you and us that the vans are unreliable — meaning the roadside tests they do on alleged drunk drivers may not be accurate.

Now the controversy has spilled over into a grand jury investigation, and it’s become so heated that a prosecutor working for Harris Co. District Attorney Pat Lykos was thrown out of the grand jury room earlier this week under the threat of arrest.

Amanda Culbertson worked for HPD for four and a half years as one of the supervisors overseeing mobile breathalyzer machines known as the BAT vans. She quit when she says HPD’s poor maintenance was leading to unreliable test results.

But her real trouble started when she spoke out about it. After Culbertson told a judge about her concerns, the DA questioned her credibility and pushed the county to cancel a contract with her new employer, in essence firing her.

Culbertson told her lawyer Chip Lewis that the DA is targeting her.

"She has not only thought it herself, but been told by people very close to the fire that the District Attorney’s Office is after you," said Lewis.

This week a Harris County Grand Jury wanted to hear from Culbertson as well as Brent Mayr, a former prosecutor who previously alleged the DA is bullying Culbertson to force her silence.

"Clearly retaliation for these individuals expressing opinions that the DA’s office didn’t like," Mayr said on October 4.

When Mayr walked in to testify before the grand jury on Tuesday, the foreperson told prosecutors to get out. They wanted to hear from Mayr and Culbertson without a DA in the room.

"They obviously believe that the DA’s Office played a role in this case and that they can’t be independent," said KTRK Legal Analyst Joel Androphy.

While it is rare — and legal — the DA’s Office threw a fit. Court records show top assistants to the elected DA refused to leave the room until a bailiff threatened to arrest them. The DA tried to force a judge to let them back in, but it was denied. An appeals court said the same thing.

"The grand jury is a function of independent people from the community. It’s not supposed to be the vote of the DA’s office," said . "This is rare and it would happen one out of a hundred times that a grand jury would have the courage enough to basically say to the DA’s Office get out of here or you’re going to get arrested."

We tried to ask the DA about it Friday, but they refused repeated interview requests. We’d love to ask what they knew about the BAT van problems, when, and what they did about it. It may be the same thing the grand jury is looking at on its own; and it may be the reason the DA was so angry about being thrown out of a supposed independent investigation.

"It’s clear to me that the grand jury has questions about how this was handled from a law enforcement standpoint. Now, I don’t know if that’s specifically confined to how HPD treated her or if they have some beef with what the District Attorney’s Office did as well," said Lewis.

Androphy told us in cases like this it would be best for the DA to ask for an independent prosecutor, but the DA’s Office said they haven’t. It would’ve been one of the questions we asked if anyone at the DA’s Office would’ve been willing to join us for an interview, but no one was.

13 Undercover and Wayne Dolcefino exposed the potential maintenance problems with the BAT vans back in March. We found documents detailing electrical problems that kept some of the very expensive mobile breath vans from ever being used. We showed you emails showing some cops were worried it might affect criminal cases. HPD didn’t tell the DA’s Office.

Funny, when I was a Los Angeles Deputy D.A., we understood our duties as they are set forth in the Canons of Ethics:  the prosecutor’s job is not to win, but to seek truth and justice.  I guess times change….

(Thanks to Art Weiner.)

 

DUI BLOG

When the police administer a breathalyzer, the suspect’s breath sample is analyzed — and then destroyed by purging it into the air. Although it is easy and inexpensive to save the sample so that it could later be independently analyzed by the defense, the U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Trombetta ruled that there is no right to this. (See "Why Do Police Destroy the Evidence in DUI Cases?".)

Recognizing that an accused should have some minimal rights even in a DUI case, many states have enacted laws requiring the police to advise the suspect that he has the right to have an independent blood sample drawn so that it may be later analyzed and compared to the breath test results. California’s Vehicle Code Section 23614 is an example:

(a) ….a person who chooses to submit to a breath test shall be advised before or after the test that the breath testing equipment does not retain any sample of the breath and that no breath sample will be available after the test which could be analyzed later…

(b) The person shall also be advised that, because no breath sample is retained, the person will be given an opportunity to provide a blood or urine sample that will be retained at no cost to the person so that there will be something retained that may be subsequently analyzed for the alcohol content of the person’s blood. If the person completes a breath test and wishes to provide a blood or urine sample to be retained, the sample shall be collected and retained in the same manner as if the person had chosen a blood or urine test initially. [italics added]

Sounds fair. Except officers don’t like handling a suspect’s urine or spending an hour or so finding a blood technician to draw a sample. Result: this law is commonly ignored by the police. (Some DUI report forms contain a place for the officer to indicate that he advised the suspect of the right to an independent test, and it is commonly checked off — and ignored.)

So what can a defendant do if this legal right is violated? Well, the statute clearly says "shall" advise and collect: it is mandatory, not optional. It would seem to follow that there would be some legal sanction for a willful refusal to follow this law — the only meaningful one being suppression of the breath test.

Wrong. Remember: this is a DUI case we’re dealing with. If you look closely, another little provision at the end of California’s statute adds the following:

(d) No failure or omission to advise pursuant to this section shall affect the admissibility of any evidence of the alcohol content of the blood of the person arrested.

Cute, no? The law gives you a "right", and then makes it unenforceable. It is, as we lawyers say, "a right without a remedy". And, of course, since there are no consequences for ignoring this advisement of the right to an independent test, most officers continue to ignore the law. Practically speaking, then, officers do not have to follow the law and advise the suspect of his right to an independent test.

There are some court decisions, however, which seem to say that interfering with attempts by the arrested person to have blood drawn may be grounds for suppression of the breath test. See, e.g., In re Martin, 58 Cal.2d 509. And many states will suppress breath test results if the police refuse to permit the suspect to obtain a blood sample. In State v. George, 754 P.2d 460, for example, the Kansas court ruled that breath results should have been suppressed where the arresting officer refused a suspect’s request for an independent test because of the time required to transport him to a hospital and find a physician.

Bottom line:  yes, you have an absolute legal right to a blood sample…except, well, you don’t. 
  

DUI BLOG

A former state legislator took his DWI case to trial earlier this week. On June 29 the former legislator had an encounter with police outside a restaurant in Burlington. The legislator told the officer he did not want to talk because he had been drinking beer.

Roughly a half-hour later, Burlington police conducted a traffic stop as the man was driving home. After an investigation, the man was charged with DWI on allegations of breath test refusal.

During pretrial hearings the accused attempted to have the charge dismissed arguing that officers did not have sufficient evidence to conduct the traffic stop and lacked probable cause to charge the man with DWI. The judge denied the challenges and the matter proceeded to trial.

Law enforcement claimed that the accused used his tongue to block the airflow into the Intoxilyzer unit during several attempts to perform the breath test. The accused reportedly had told the Times-News after the arrest that he had bronchitis on the night of the arrest.

After several attempts to perform the test, the arresting officer testified that he believed the accused was willfully refusing to provide an adequate test sample. A videotape shown in court shows the man asking the officer to allow him to take the breath test one more time. He reportedly could be heard saying he had not been told how hard he had to blow.

Bartenders at both establishments in Burlington testified at trial that the man had ordered only one beer in each of their restaurants that night. One bartender said the man did not finish the one ordered at the establishment where the bartender worked.

The accused was found guilty of the North Carolina DWI charge. The judge sentenced the former legislator as a Level 5 DWI. The judge imposed a suspended 60-day sentence. The man was fined 0 plus court costs, he must complete 24 hours community service within 30 days and make an appointment for a substance abuse assessment. He is on probation for 18 months.

Source: Greensboro News & Record, “Allred convicted of drunken driving,” 18 Nov 2010

Greenville DUI Attorney Blog | North Carolina Underage Drinking Lawyer | Pitt County First DUI Law Firm

In my last post I presented a videotape from breathalyzer expert Stephen F. Daniels showing the falsification of monthly breath machine reports in the Hillsborough County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office.  

The following is another videotape from Mr. Daniels, depicting officers falsely signing a document verifying compliance with breath test regulations before the test of an arrested suspect.  The regulation involves the requirement that the suspect must be kept under constant observation for a period of at least 20 minutes before the test is administered.  This is to ensure that the suspect has not burped, belched or regurgitated — which can tremendously increase a breath test reading; it takes up to 20 minutes for the "mouth alcohol" to be dissipated.

The videotape on YouTube:  Falsify Notary and Violate the 20-Minute Observation Period – Officer Cooper and Deputy Glover.   

As the video clearly shows, none of the officers signing the document (which was blank) under penalty of perjury observed the suspect for more than a few seconds, if at all.  This was later confirmed by a Florida court, which stated in its ruling in favor of the accused: "The lack of candid disclosure concerns this court.  The affirmation of Officer Cooper (DD9) of constant observation of the Petitioner from 5:58 am until 6:17 am is clearly not true…Officer Cooper failed to maintain observation of Petitioner and falsely states that he observed her when he did not."  

It should be understood that what happened on this videotape is not an isolated instance.  Cutting corners and falsifying documents in drunk driving cases is common in police agencies across the country.
 

DUI BLOG