It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers
In 1990, the New Jersey courts declared that the science was settled, the debate was over: breath analysis is a reliable and accurate means by which to determine blood alcohol content (BAC). This proclamation is known as the “Downie decision.”
The lead witness, who held the most sway in the court’s opinion, was Dr. Dubowski, a forensic scientist with a history of research experience dealing with Breathalyzers and alcohol breath analysis. A study he published in 1985 was considered the pre-eminent work in this field.
The Downie case revolved around the accuracy of breath analysis in terms of serving as a surrogate for actual BAC. One aspect would be of particular importance from the defendant’s perspective; how often does the alcohol breath analysis regimen overstate actual BAC?
Dr. Dubowski testified that his research determined that in only 2.3 percent of the tests did the breath reading overstate the actual BAC. This was the first time this number was made publicly available; it had not been presented in his 1985 report.
Another witness in the Downie case, Dr. Gerald Simpson, a physical chemist also testified, and attempted to describe the variables that could render a Breathalyzer reading inaccurate. The court largely disregarded his testimony in favor of the assured endorsement of breath analysis offered by Dr. Dubowski.
The court determined that the use of breath alcohol was scientifically valid for the purpose of determining BAC. Was that the end of the story? Not quite.
After the Downie trial, Dr. Simpson obtained the actual data from Dr. Dubowski’s 1985 report. In applying the same analysis to the data that Dr. Dubowski used, Dr. Simpson discovered a major error. The incidences when breath analysis overstated actual BAC were not 2.3 percent of the tests, as Dr. Dubowski had testified to in the Downie case, but rather 23 percent of the tests – a wandering decimal point!
Dr. Simpson then published his findings in a respected scientific journal. They were never rebutted and Dr. Dubowski remained silent on the subject.
Attorneys across the country have taken note of the breathalyzer’s failings. This has lead authorities to resort to more invasive measures, including letting officers perform blood draws with very little training.
Recent research proves that measuring breath to determine actual BAC is a horrendously flawed concept. Errors can approach 50 percent! Still, even 15 years ago it was known and could be proven that in almost one quarter of Breathalyzer tests the readings were higher than the actual BAC.
How many thousands of people had their lives turned upside down, suffered major financial losses, lost jobs, and had their reputations destroyed by a system that used junk science to push its agenda?
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
i agree with everyone on the issue of faulty equip. and w/ the cops in that you shouldn’t
drink and drive. what i have a problem with is that your fst’s should not hold up in court. the whole count from 31 to 61 then 61 to 31, and abc’s backwards,c’mon i can count and spell so when has knowing tha abc’s backwards ever been relevant in life other than your stupid fst’s.i know you’re just stalling to get an innacurate reading on the breathalyzer and to get a good laugh but c’mon if you really need to do those tests to tell if the person is drunk he/she shouldn’t be pulled over in the first place.
i have a ton of respect for what you guys do but there are too many crooked cops.
So why gripe about this so-called breath alcohol testing problem? If you are so confident they don’t accurately work, why aren’t you filing a federal lawsuit against (1) the manufacturers, (2) NHTSA (the Federal agency that approves their use and (3) every individual State that uses them?
If your “science” is solid, stop wasting our time crying about this issue. If you science is solid you should have no difficulty at all proving your case in court. Until then shut up already.
Lousiana, as you stated you’ve been a police officer for a short time but arrested more DWI offenders than most veteran officers. Ever wonder what the veteran officers’ know that you as a young inexperienced rookie officer don’t know. Your just another young, cocky, testosterone driven officer with a attitude that would probably arrest anybody who looked cross-eyed at you regardless if they had anything to drink. After all, we are all impaired in some way so that opens us all up to your zealous behavior. Galen_Cop and some of the rest of you also fit some of these characteristics as well. You guys are simply prohibitionists with a badge. As a non-drinker you guys scare the hell out of me as a driver because I don’t think you’d restrict your attitude to so-called drunk drivers.
[...] Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers | National Motorists Association Blog An interesting little story about how breathalysers were put into use by making a mistake with a dec… Posted by Robin at [...]
So I read through alot of this and see ignorance abound. To those of you who are clean and straight officers kudos to you. To those arguing on how to beat the system, your idiots. I was a police officer for 11 years and left the force to to the double standards I saw from the majority of officers. If I had to guess based off of my experiences I would say that 75-80% of cops are the biggest perpetraors of petty crimes (especially driving impared). However none of that pertains to this article, and I have seen a BAC level blown at .09 (above my states legal limit) from someone who had not had anything to drink. So the whole philosphy of beating a breathalyzer based off of not drinking is bull.
Louisiana and Galen_Cop – kudos to you both.
Those who go into detail about how to beat the system or how to delay a test display a level of selfishness beyond that of your average peon. What makes your right to drive drunk more important than someone else’s right to live?
Alcohol impairs judgment and skews your reaction time. This is a well-known, well-documented fact. Combine this with your childish notions that you can do whatever you want without facing consequences and you have people like Galen_Cop and Louisiana pulling you (and whoever else you may have hit) out of a vehicle and working their hardest to keep you alive – despite the fact that you’ve shown yourself to be a pathetic excuse for a human being.
To the cop-haters: as terrible as it sounds, I sincerely hope that you face a situation some day that makes you realize how important our police really are.
I’ve only been able to legally drink in the US for three years and yet I seem to have more sense than these people who have obviously been through the system several times over. Maybe all the drinking has done some serious damage to their grey matter; best way to avoid getting a DUI is to not drive drunk.
Lousiana,
Right on you got it together! Very true about not really needing a breath test. By the time I’m done with someone I’ve got so much on them that no one will care too much about BAC. The key element is the IMPAIRMENT. Seems like the people who think driving ‘buzzed’ is ok don’t understand that if you can’t pass SFSTs and you’re say, a .04, it doesn’t matter. Your ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired.
Our cameras passively record all the time. They save the video from one minute before you activate any emergency equipment and you can manually begin recording if you want. It allows you to record all the weaving and other signs prior to the stop. I stop anyone who seems to be having a hard time driving. I’d rather stop dozens of sober people just to check than to let them go and have some ‘buzzed’ idiot kill an innocent family.
Hey, Lousiana
Keep up the good work! You sound like the type of young officer we need out their on our streets, awesome!
I know what you are saying about some veteran officers, some that I have encountered have no other training than what they received while at the police academy when they were first hired. Pathetic!
Tom,
There are many,many,many everday people that vote in this country, I am one of them.
You are right though, Porn is a Multi-Billion Dollar a Year Business, and their are a lot of old farts with fat butts, other than that… :)
I’ve been a police officer for a short time but I’ve arrested more DWI offenders than most veteran officers in my department. My record thus far is perfect, 100% convictions. In every report that I’ve ever written, the paragraph pertaining to the Intoxilyzer 5000 test(we don’t use breathalyzer) is very brief. It’s my observations, from the moment I first observe a vehicle, to coming into personal contact with the driver, to pre arrest screening (field sobriety test) that I’ll use to write an in depth detailed report. And that report alone will get a conviction. Good officers don’t need to rely on a breath test. Outlaw them all together, fine with me. Since our patrol units are all equipped with in car camera systems, a DWI defendant will have one hell of a time explaining him/herself to the judge once we pop in the tape.
For those out there that think driving “buzzed” isn’t driving drunk: changing the name of the condition doesn’t change the condition. If an officer observes signs of impaired driving (riding the center line, swerving from lane to lane, etc) and observes clues of impairment during a field sobriety test (eye nystagmus, poor balance, etc) that gives the officer probable cause to arrest you under suspicion of DWI. I have yet to see a defendant or defense attorney establish reasonable doubt when all the signs are there and it’s captured on video.
Fellow officers, if you have cameras in your units, USE THEM! Record it all, tapes are cheap. Start that camera rolling the second you hit the street. Get that PC for your traffic stop on tape. Record that SFST. Review that tape and submit it for evidence. Write a flawless report. It’s your report that can make or break the case.
Scott,
First of all, unless you have ever put on the badge and delt with idiots under the influence, you really have no idea what my job entails.
I am not saying it needs to be easier in terms of acutal work preformed, what I am talking about is all the “red-tape” we have to go through just to get a drunk driver off the road, not to mention if it goes to court and the hoops you have to jump through there.
As far as your comment: “How about at what level a driver is measurably impaired?” Explain to me what you think “measurably impaired” means? You sound like a resonalbly intelligent person, Scott, but it also sounds as if you have had a bad experience with law enforcement as some point in your life.
It’s funny how people love the law and law enforcement until it is applied to them. What I have found is that for the most part, people in general have a problem with accepting responsibility for their own actions, which in lies the “problem” with law enforcement that most people have.
Now, David Rockne-Semkow, what exactly does being a “christian” have to do with being a cop or law enforcement. Ever hear of seperation of church and state?
As far as I’m concerned, What I do as a cop is collect evidence, make arrests if needed, and present that evdidence in a reasonable and responsible manner. If someone thinks or believes otherwise, then that is beyond my control!
See ya on the road!
~Galen
I’m with everyone that said, “the point is…2.3 and 23%” is a big f@@king deal!
but i would also like to point out…all these law are in effect because the only people that vote are crusty old farts and zelots and other groups! real everyday people dont vote. just think about, porn is a malti-billion dollar bissness and yet there are all kinds of laws jacking with it. everyones whats this or that but they never get off their fat butts and vote. so you have old people and madd moms and crap like that making all the rules!
Galen:
Making your job easier? That’s what you’re concerned about? Sounds like a typical cop attitude. How about at what level a driver is measurably impaired?
Not taking the breathalyser is the best advice anyone can get.
When someone starts treating the cops as their adversary, then they begin to protect their own rights.
Again people pay attention. If your arrested based on an inaccurate test then you may well not be drunk. I’m reading confused responses from peope who think that there is someone defending drunk driving. Someone arrested and/or convicted based on a test that may have a 40% margin of error doesn’t have anything to do with someone being killed by a drunk driver. If a cop helps old ladies accross the street when everyone is looking does that make it ok if he beats handcuffed prisoners in a dark alley? Would it be ok if he charges you with a murder you didn’t commit because he responded to a homicide last week? Why not eliminate all the cops and courts and just have everybody take lie detectors? 20 to 40 percent of the people we locked up would be innocent but what the hell crime would drop. None of you cops bothered to mention the growing trend of municipal governments to start billing people for breathylizers that they passed(yes this is happening). What were their grounds for probable suspicion when they made the stop?
You know, a lot of grief would be saved all around if townships sprung for subsidized night transportation — mini-busses that made the rounds of local taverns, or subsidized taxis, or even volunteers.
Why should you pay for the drunks to get home? Well, you certainly wind up paying when they get on the road drunk, and you also pay for DUI prevention — all those cops looking for drunks, setting up roadblocks, etc.
Alternatively, if you don’t want to tap into the public till, it might be in the taverns’ interests to collectively fund a system to drive people home who are leaving the bars.
The fact is that there are few places to relax, socialize and meet other people — taverns have been around for thousands of years, and shouldn’t be outlawed. But in most parts of the US, you have to drive to get to a tavern, and probably have to drive back.
So, since you know that people are always going to want to go to bars and may have to drive there, systems should be put into place to make it much easier to get home without driving.
[...] demonstrated that to me during a radio show in Boston. As it turns out, he was right…. Breathalyzers get it wrong 23% percent of the time and register a higher Blood Alcolhol Count than is really present.  The error rate can approach [...]
I want my DUI reversed damnit.
I think everybody here is totally missing the point. The point is the scientist made an error in his reporting and never corrected it even after discovering it was wrong. Instead he covered his tracks.
I am all for ACCURATE testing but to knowingly falsify your report is criminal in itself.
In Pennsylvania the accuracy of radar guns was challenged in court as to their true accuracy. An expert who worked for the State Police had to testify in court. He testified under oath that his findings showed a high rate of inaccuracy and that it was brought to the attention of the manufacturer. All of this was swept under the rug. His superiors told him to shut up and go away. He was removed from his position and forced to resign and sue the state.
One of their own was treated like a criminal for telling the truth under oath. All you have to do is follow the money trail and see who benefits the most from it.
We need to get drunk drivers off of the road but lets not hide the true facts to further the agenda of any organization.
Only the Ted Kennedy’s of the world can get away with faulty judgement, faulty data and a faulty public who doesn’t demand more honesty.
To CopNow and Nobody Knows, etc: right-wing zealots.
Look, a lot of you are going to drink and then drive. It is a fact. You need to make a educated decision now to determine what you will do if and when you get pulled over for alleged DUI. Here are some points you should consider.
-Get a license from a non-reciprocating state. The state you live in cannot take away your license from another state, they can only take away your right to drive in their state. There are still some states that do not reciprocate with others, meaning, they will not revoke your license because another state revoked your privilege to drive in that state. Should you get your privilege suspended, you just move out of that state.
-Hire the best lawyer in town/state. A good attorney will make all of the difference in the world. You will never regret spending that extra money. Do your research now and find the lawyer in your area that wins cases!
-Keep your mouth shut during a stop/incarceration! This is the best advice EVAR! Do not offer any information. The only reason you should be talking is to demand your lawyer. EVERYTHING you say WILL be used AGAINST you!
-Refuse to take any ‘test’ performed by the cops. What sounds better in court, “He refused all tests” OR “He f-a-i-l-e-d nine out of ten tests?” Yes, they can take away your license for refusal, but it is an ‘administrative’ revocation, not a ‘criminal’ revocation! An administrative revocation means you will only pay to have your license reinstated, you will not have to pay for(in my state): ASAP classes, Mental Health group therapy, mandatory AA meetings, SR-22 insurance, etc. AND, you will not have a criminal DUI offense on your record!
Alcoholism is a disease that is beyond the control of many. I do not advocate driving drunk. But, I also do not advocate a right-wing controlled police state our country has turned into. I hope my thoughts help you in some way on your road to recovery.
To CopNow and Nobody Knows, etc: So at what point after being shoved into lockers and made fun of in school did you decide to become such upstanding reps for the law. I’m glad to know we have such aggressive, condescending aces protecting the streets. I’d swerve by you sober just get you off the streets. I know, to catch a criminal you must think like one. In other words, to act like a cop you must you must have the mind of a criminal.
For those of you who think it is acceptable to drink ANYTHING and drive: I hope you never have to identify a dead parent at the morgue and explain to your younger siblings that Mom is dead because of a drunk. I did.
If the science behind breathalyzers is faulty, so be it. If you haven’t had anything to drink, you have nothing to worry about.
In response to Copnow…I can definitely tell you are an officer. If you’re not you sure sound close. I’m an officer too and it’s the same way here. Refuse the test, you just bought yourself an aggravated DUI, up from the original DUI charge.
And to address most of the other idiotic things I’m seeing here…
Billy on Nov 2nd: You’d take 1st place for dumbest! Even though keys aren’t in ignition, you’re still in control of the vehicle. I’d hit you with original DUI and be able to add open container in vehicle and bet you I could get either drinking in public or disorderly. Idiot.
Bob Stickley: When a drunk driver has a head-on collision with you wife/son/daughter/mother/father and kills that persons (or people), let’s see what you say then. You not an idiot like Billy, just ignorant to reality.
Clean and Sober on Oct 31: In a few years when you turn 21, then wait a few more years before you can put in a word.
Hilarious!!! on Oct 31st: Whoever you are, you rock!
[...] link Published 03 November 2007 12:06 AM by mycall [...]
why don’t people just request the source code of the device which all the cases are dropped so far because most states would rather drop the case than have you or anyone else know how they assemble their information. who knows it might just be a random number generator?
I wonder how long MADD would stay in business if a class action lawsuit were filed against it under the RICO statute for racketeering? The cop with the adittude for arresting someone with a 0.00 BAC for dui should be stripped of his badge and never again be given a position of authority ever again. Think you’ve got constitutional rights for dui? Think again. MADD, lawyers, politicians and judges are stripping us of them. It’s time we took our rights back from those who would oppress us given the chance.