DUI BLOG

If you are facing drunk driving charges, you will have taken (unless you refused) a chemical test for blood alcohol concentration (BAC). In the great majority of cases, the test will be done with a breath machine. When you go to court, you will find that you have been charged with not just one, but with two crimes.

The first is the so-called "per se" offense: driving while having a BAC of .08% or greater. No one cares whether you were intoxicated or not. All of the evidence could prove that without question you were sober: the crime is your chemical composition, not your condition. And what is the sole source of evidence upon which you will be either convicted or acquitted? A machine.

The second charge you are facing is "driving under the influence of alcohol" ("DUI"), or in some states, "driving while intoxicated" ("DWI") or "operating under the influence" ("OUI"). They are basically the same thing. In each case, however, the prosecution can prove you were under the influence of alcohol by offering the results of the same breath test into evidence — and the jury will be instructed that the defendant is rebuttably presumed to be guilty unless he can prove otherwise.

That’s right: a presumption of guilt. Based upon what? Again, a machine. So it all comes down to a machine. Your innocence or guilt depends largely if not entirely upon what a machine says. Maybe we should take a closer look at this "breath machine"….

Sometimes generically referred to as "Breathalyzers" after the original Breathalyzer 900, today there are a number of makes and models manufactured by different companies. For many years, the most popular of these has been the "Intoxilyer 5000", manufactured by CMI, Inc. How reliable is this machine at measuring alcohol in a person’s blood by measuring his breath? How accurate?

Well, what do the manufacturers think? How confidant are they that these devices are reliable enough to send a man to jail? Let’s take a look at their manufacturer’s warranty. The following is from their manual’s "Statement of Warranty":

"CMI, Inc., a subsidiary of MPD, Inc., warrants that each new product will be free from defects in material and workmanship, under normal use and service, for a period of one year from the date of delivery to the first user-purchaser…."

One year? These things are warranted for only one year? Model 5000s are commonly found in service at law enforcement agencies for ten years or more. What if there’s a problem with the machine requiring repair by the manufacturer?

"Repaired components are warranted for a period of 90 days from the date of repair."

90 days? The toaster in my kitchen has a better warranty. But the "warranty" continues:

"There are no other warranties expressed or implied, including but not limited to, any implied warranties of merchantibility or fitness for a particular purpose…."

What? CMI, Inc., says this machine is not warranted for any "particular purpose" — which, for the Intoxilyzer 5000, is measuring alcohol on the breath. So they don’t guarantee that it will measure breath alcohol? And this, the law says, is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Ok, let’s take a look at another of these machines which determine guilt or innocence: the BAC DataMaster, manufactured by National Patent Analytical Sytems, Inc. Their warranty, at least, is for two years –but with that same refusal to guarantee that the thing measures breath alcohol:

"There are no other warranties expressed or implied including, but not limited to, any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose."

And, as with CMI, Inc., there is the added warning that "In no event shall National Patent Analytical Systems be liable for any loss of profit or any indirect or consequential damages arising out of any such defect in material or workmanship". In other words, if you end up going to jail because of defects in our machines, you can’t sue us.

The simple fact is that, for perhaps the first time in our history, we are convicting people of crimes — beyond a resonable doubt — based entirely upon what a machine says. Are we that sure of their accuracy? Are the manufacturers?

As we all know from watching TV, the police are always very careful to preserve the evidence in criminal investigations. Except in DUI investigations.

What is the single most important piece of evidence in most drunk driving cases? The Breathalyzer test. In fact, it’s the ONLY evidence of the crime of driving with over .08% blood alcohol. And it’s pretty important for the "driving under the influence" charge, too: the law presumes the defendant is under the influence if the test result is .08% or higher. Evidence just doesn’t get more important than that.

So, of course, the police are careful to preserve the breath sample, right? I mean, there may be some question later of whether the machine was working correctly; it would be a simple matter to save the sample so it could be tested again on another machine. And, hard to believe, but the defense may not want to just take the officer’s word that the test results were from the defendant’s test.

Unfortunately, the breath sample is routinely destroyed moments after it is tested.

But how can this be? That’s a question that was asked a few years ago by a defendant in California appealing his DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals of that state agreed and reversed the conviction:

"Due process simply demands that where evidence is collected by the state, as it is with the Intoxilyzer, or any other breath testing device, law enforcement agencies must establish and follow rigorous and sytematic procedures to preserve the captured evidence or its equivalent for the use of the defendant." People v. Trombetta, 142 CalApp.3d 138 (1983).

How hard is it to save the defendant’s breath sample for later retesting? The Court noted that a "field crimper-indium encapsulation kit" was readily available, cheap and approved by the California Department of Health Services. So why isn’t the evidence saved in DUI cases today?

The Trombetta case was appealed by the state to the United States Supreme Court….where it was reversed:

"Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case." California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).

What? Neither of these two conditions is met in a DUI case? Let’s take another look at the Supreme Court’s test:

1. The possible value of the defendant’s breath sample in helping prove innocence was not apparent before it was destroyed…..What? The machine never makes mistakes? It was not apparent to the police that a re-analysis of the all-important breath sample might be of any value to the suspect?

2. The defendant was able to "obtain comparable evidence by other means"…..How? He has no access to another breath test. At best, he might be able to get a blood test at a hospital, if the police let him — but it would probably be so much later that it would not be relevant or even admissible in court.

Another example of "the DUI exception to the Constitution".

It’s interesting that the New Hampshire Supreme Court later rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and relied upon its own state constitution in requiring breath samples to be saved:

"A suspect would face numerous practical difficulties in obtaining a second sample on his or her own. While in police custody, the suspect would have to locate an available, licensed technician capable of promptly performing a second test, no matter what time of day or night. Even if a defendant successfully obtained an independent second test, the results would not have the same evidentiary force as would a second test performed on the same machine at approximately the same time." Opinion of the Justices, 557 A.2d 1355 (1989).

The Trombetta decison was, as intended, a huge green flag to police agencies across the country: Go ahead and destroy the main evidence — but only in DUI cases. And law enforcement agencies have happily complied.

In most countries of the world, an accusation by the State forces the accused to prove himself innocent. In America, however, the presumption of innocence has always been a fundamental part of our rights as a free people. This basic protection against the power of the government has been recognized as flowing from the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to our Constitution. As the United States Supreme Court has said, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." Coffin v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

So what happened to this presumption of innocence in a drunk driving case? Is this yet another example of "the DUI exception to the Constitution"? Let’s take a look at how our DUI laws have slowly eroded this fundamental right….

Let’s assume you have been arrested for drunk driving, and a Breathalyzer gave a reading of .09% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). You will probably be charged with two crimes: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol, and (2) driving with over .08% BAC. Let’s look at the .08% charge first.

The .08% offense depends entirely upon the results of the breath machine (often called a "Breathalyzer", although there are many makes and models). These machines are notorously unreliable for any number of reasons. But a funny thing happens when your attorney tries to bring out those reasons for the jury. He tries to point out, for example, that the Breathalyzer computes the results by presuming that the defendant has a "partition ratio" of 2100:1 (the ratio of alcohol in the breath to the alcohol in the blood) — but that this is only an average: the defendant’s ratio is much lower, so the .09% reading should actually be .07%. However, the judge stops him: the law presumes that all men are average — even if they are not.

In fact, the Supreme Court of California has specifically ruled that such scientific facts are irrelevant. People v. Bransford, 884 P.2d 70 (1994). The Court justified its ruling in a rather frank — and amazing — justification: "It (.08%) will increase the likelihood of convicting such a driver, because the prosecution need not prove actual impairment…Adjudication of such criminal charges will also require fewer legal resources, because fewer legal issues will arise. And individuals prosecuted under such a statute will be less likely to contest the charges." In other words, ignoring scientific facts makes it easier to convict.

What about the officer who gave the breath test? Surely, we can question his experience and the way he administered the breath test. And this raises a prosecutrial favorite: the "Offical Duty Presumption". The California Evidence Code (sec. 664) puts it very simply: It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed." Period. That’s it: Since it was the officer’s official duty to give the test, the law presumes he was qualified and did it correctly. And the burden is on the defendant to prove he didn’t. Interesting twist on the presumption of innocence, huh?

Well, so much for the .08% charge. At least the defendant is presumed innocent of the DUI charge, right? Wrong. The laws of most states create a presumption of guilt: if the Breathalyzer reads .08% BAC or higher, the jury will be instructed that the defendant is legally presumed to be under the influence of alcohol. That’s right: the defendant is presumed guilty. This is called a "rebuttable presumption" — that is, the defendant can try to rebut this presumption with other evidence. Put another way, he is presumed guilty and the burden is on him to prove his innocence. Just like in third world countries.

Ok, but the law says it’s illegal to have .08% BAC when driving — not when tested an hour later at the police station. If, for example, a person has a drink or two before driving, the alcohol will not be absorbed into the system for an hour or so: it will not be in his system while driving, but will be reaching peak BAC levels when tested an hour later at the station. So how does the prosecution prove BAC at the time of driving?

Easy: the law presumes the BAC is the same. Let’s take a look at California’s fairly typical law: "In any prosecution…it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her breath at the time of the performance of a chemical test within thre hours of the driving." Well, now, that’s really amazing. The Legislature simply passed a law against scientific truth. We can absolutely say, with scientific certainty, that the BAC will NOT be the same for three hours after the test.

So much for the "presumption of innocence" in a DUI case….

You will never see a DUI case where the officer does not report an odor of alcohol on the suspect’s breath. Never. The officer expects to smell it and it is a psychological fact that we see, hear and smell what we expect to see, hear and smell.

In fact, most police DUI reports are formatted for the usual symptoms: there will be a box for "odor of alcohol", which the officer checks off. There are often three boxes, labelled "strong", "moderate" and "weak"; there is no box for "none", so that is not an option for the officer. The "strong" box is almost always checked. Presumably, the stronger the odor of alcohol, the more intoxicated the person arrested.

There is only one problem with this: Alcohol has no odor. Assuming the officer actually does smell an odor on the breath, what he is smelling is not ethyl alcohol but the flavoring in the beverage. And the flavoring can be deceptive as to the strength or amount consumed. Beer and wine, for example, are the least intoxicating drinks but will cause the strongest odor. A much stronger drink, such as scotch, will have a weaker odor. And vodka leaves virtually no odor at all.

Consider a simple experiment. Have a friend drink a can of "near beer" — the stuff that looks, smells and tastes like beer but has no alcohol in it. Then smell his breath. You will smell an "odor of alcohol" — and maybe a strong one.And, of course, there can be any number of causes of an "odor of alcohol" on a person’s breath: mouth wash, throat spray, cough syrup. Illness, indigestion or simple bad breath has been the cause of more than one officer’s trigger-quick conclusion that the suspect has an "odor of alcohol on his breath".

The point of all this is that the odor of alcohol has very little relevence in a drunk driving case. It may or may not indicate that the person has consumed alcohol. It absolutely has no evidentiary value on the much more important question of how much the person has consumed — or what he had to drink, or when. Depending upon circumstances, a person with a single drink can have a "strong odor of alcohol on his breath", and an extremely inebriated person can have a "weak" odor. And an experienced and honest DUI officer will readily admit this….if he is ever asked.

Unfortunately, the odor of alcohol on a person’s breath may have a greater impact on a DUI case than any other single factor. This is because most officers who pull a driver over for some driving irregularity at night are looking for further signs of drunk driving. When the officer approaches the driver’s window and smells alcohol, that confirms his suspicions. Since few can pass the "field sobriety tests", particularly under the conditons in which they are given, an arrest is likely.

As any experienced criminal attorney knows, truth, justice and fairness can be rare commodities in our courts when dealing with a drunk driving offense. This has become such a common phenomena that it has acquired a label: "The DUI exception to the Constitution". When it comes to cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, there seems to be a distinct bias in favor of "streamlining" procedures and facilitating convictions.

Cynics might suggest that this may have something to do with political considerations — with the desire of some judges to get reelected. We’ll talk about that in a moment….. In the meantime, let’s take a look at an example of what kind of thinking goes on in the judicial mind in a DUI case. In fact, let’s go to the highest court of the most populated state in the country: the Supreme Court of California.

In People v. Bransford, the Supreme Court was confronted with a defendant who was challenging his .08% DUI conviction on the grounds that he was not permitted to offer scientific evidence to the jury. Specifically, he was not permitted to offer the testimony of recognized experts that the breath machine’s computer was programmed to assume that there were 2100 parts of alcohol in his blood for every 1 part it measured in his breath. He was also prevented by the trial judge from offering further evidence that this 2100:1 ratio was only an average — and that the actual ratio varied widely from person to person, and within one person from moment to moment. (If, for example, a suspect’s ratio had been 1300:1 at the time he blew a .10% on the machine, his true blood-alcohol would have actually been .06% — that is, he would have been innocent.)

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction, ruling that such scientific facts are irrelevant: the law was written in a way that concerned the amount of alcohol in the blood "as measured on the breath". In a display of either twisted logic or ignorance of the scientific facts involved, the Court simply said that the crime consisted of the amount of alcohol in the blood — but only as measured on the breath. In other words, although the crime is having .08% alcohol in the blood, you can’t offer evidence about the amount of alcohol actually in the blood! An amazing decision.

More interesting, perhaps, is language in the opinion — an opinion which gives us a window into the justices’ minds. In what must have been a complete failure to appreciate the significance of what they were writing, the Court justified its ruling in a rather frank — and incredible — admission of its hidden agenda:

"It will increase the likelihood of convicting such a driver, because the prosecution need not prove actual impairment…Adjudication of such criminal charges will also require fewer legal resources, because fewer legal issues will arise. And individuals prosecuted under such a statute will be less likely to contest the charges." People v. Bransford, 8 Cal.4th 894 (1994).

In other words, barring an accused from defending himself with scientific truth serves justice by making it easier to get convictions. Are all judges oblivious to the truth? Not entirely. One judge, Justice Joyce Kennard, dissented from the majority opinion. She wrote in a separate opinion: "The majority…has on its own created the new crime of driving with alcohol in one’s breath."