DUI Breathalyzer Test in Tampa, Florida
DUI Breath Test Attorney in Tampa, FL
Many people believe that if they blew over the legal limit of .08 that they will not be able to win their DUI case in Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL. The truth is that many of these cases, even those involving high readings over .15, might be dismissed during pre-trial motion hearings or reduced to reckless driving so the DUI conviction can be avoided.
Contact the Sammis Law Firm to discuss ways that you can fights your drunk driving case involving a high breath alcohol content test result.
It seems to us that one should not have privileges and freedom jeopardized by the results of a mystical machine that is immune from discovery, that inhales breath samples and that produces a report specifying a degree of intoxication.
State v. Muldowney, 871 So.2d 911, 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Fighting to exclude the breath test results remains the most important defense in these cases because the results from this "mystical machine" are used to create a presumption under Florida law that the person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired if the intoxilyzer tests shows that the amount of alcohol in the person's breath is 0.08 or higher.
At the Sammis Law Firm our DUI lawyers take a scholarly approach to attacking the Intoxilyzer 8000, which is the breath test machine currently used in Tampa, Hillsborough County and throughout the State of Florida. This machine has serious flaws which can only be truly understood by looking at the "source code" of the machine which the prosecutors are refusing to release to the public in general and DUI Defense Expert Witnesses in particular.
DUI Breath Test and Problems with the Intoxilyzer 8000
- The Common Factual Issues Leading to Challenges Under Florida Law
- Problems with the Breath Test
- Attacking the Breath Test Machines in Hillsborough County
- Twenty Minute Observation Period
- Problem with the Breath Test Technician
- Problems with the Intoxilyzer 8000
- FDLE Acknowledges Glitches in the Machine
- How the Inability to Measure Breath Test Volume Makes the Results Unreliable
- Due Process Requires Disclosure of the Source Code
- Reasons Why Production of the Source Code is Necessary
- Resources for Contesting DUI Cases Involving a Breath Test Readings
- DUI Attorneys Challenging Breath Tests in DUI Cases
- The breath test was given prior to the driver being arrested for DUI;
- The driver took the breath test without the arresting officer reading the Implied Consent Warning;
- The driver is advised of the Implied Consent Warning but does not understand it before taking the breath test;
- The arresting officer fails to read Miranda;
- The driver invokes his right to Miranda;
- The driver asks for an attorney before deciding whether to take the breath test;
- The Defendant asks for an independent urine test;
- The Intoxilyzer 8000 was not in substantial compliance for any of the following reasons;
- The first two breath sample readings are not within .02 agreement;
- The driver was told to blow into the machine until told to stop;
- The first two samples did not occur within 15 minutes of each other;
- The driver was wearing Back to top
Our DUI Attorneys are actively involved in currently litigation to throw out the breath test readings is numerous cases pending in Hillsborough County, FL. In every breath test case we file the following motions specifically designed to attack the Intoxilyzer 8000 so that the breath test results will be excluded by the Court:
- Motion for Production of the Source Code or in the Alternative Motion for Exclusion of Breath Test Results;
- Motion to Suppress the Breath Test Intoxilyzer Results Because of the Failure of the State of Florida to Release the Source Code;
- The legality of the promulgation of the FDLE rules pertaining to the Intoxilyzer 8000 and its use in the State of Florida including:
- Whether the FDLE Rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under Chapter 120 of the Florida Administrative Act;
- Whether the FDLE Rules were properly promulgated;
- Whether the FDLE Rules are scientifically sufficient to ensure reliability;
- Whether the FDLE made "substantial modifications" to the Intoxilyzer 8000;
- Whether it is an approved machine under FDLE rules.
- Motion for Inspection giving the right to inspect the interior, electrical and computer components of the Intoxilyzer 8000, as well as the software and source code for the computer program used in the operation of the instrument and the instruments qualitative and quantitative analysis of and calculations of breath alcohol content to insure that it works in a scientific manner; and
- Motion to Suppress (Throw Out) the Breath Test Machine Because the Intoxilyer 8000 is not an "approved machine" under Florida law because the breath test was not actually approved since it was not in compliance with the FDLE Rules.
Many of these motions have been successful in counties throughout Florida including Sarasota, Orlando and Seminole, Lake and Monroe County, Florida. Many say it is only a matter of time before judges in Hillsborough County, Florida, take similar positions on the Breath Test Machine or Intoxilyzer 8000 used in this county.
Contact a DUI attorney in Tampa at the Sammis Law Firm to fight your drunk driving case in Hillsborough County, FL. Call 813-250-0500 to discuss the particular facts of your case directly with a criminal defense attorney.
Did you know that Rule 11D-8.007 of Florida's Administrative requires that before the breath test is administered, the arresting officer (or another person designated for this job) "shall reasonably ensure" that the person getting ready to take the breath test has "not taken anything by mouth or has not regurgitated for at least 20 minutes before administering the test."
This rule should be strictly followed if the result of the breath test are admitted at trial. How can we prove whether the officer actually watched you during this period? We can obtain the video tape of the entire twenty (20) minute period if you took the breath test at central book at the Orient Road Jail after your DUI arrest. Find out more about how these innovate motions to suppress the breath test results might help you win your DUI case in Tampa, FL. Click here for the Article on Breath Test 20 Minute Observation Rule.
Under the Rule 14 enacted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the breath test technician or law enforcement officer has wide discretion in administering the breath test. The breath test technician can influence the reading, often causing a false high reading simply by telling the person taking the test to blow as much air as they possibly can. In fact, many breath test technicians will testify that they were specifically trained to encourge the subject to blow as much air as possible into the machine during each attempt.
The reason this advice is wrong and can lead to a false high reading is because the longer one blows into the machine, the higher the breach alcohol reading (BAC). The machine only requires a certain level of air which is typically far less than a person can blow if instructed to keep blowing as long as you can.
The statistical data complied by FDLE for the Intoxilyzer 8000 tests that have occurred on subjects throughout the state show that A.W. Jones, on the general issues surrounding the longer, harder blow explained the phenomenon this way:
The subject’s manner and mode of breathing just prior to providing breath for analysis can significantly alter the concentration of alcohol in the resulting exhalation. Hyperventilation lowers the breath alcohol concentration by as much as 20% compared with a single moderate inhalation and forced exhalation used as control tests. Holding breath for a short time (20 seconds) before exhalation increases the alcohol concentration in exhaled air by 15%.
JONES, A. W.. "Blood Alcohol Concentration, Measures of." Encyclopedia of Drugs, Alcohol, and Addictive Behavior. The Gale Group Inc. 2001. Encyclopedia.com. 3 Dec. 2009.
Throughout the State of Florida, DUI defense attorneys are demanding that the State of Florida provide the source code or the software program approved for use in 11D-8.003 along with the production of the source code or the software of the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in this case.
Without the production of the source code, the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine is no more than a "mystical machine" used to establish the Defendant's guilt. See State v. Muldowny, 871 So.2d 911 (Florida 5th DCA 2004).
The FDLE has not made a request of C.M.I. to produce the source code for its inspection. However, the purchase agreement between the State of Florida and C.M.I. regarding the Intoxilyzer 8000 provide that the State of Florida owns the version of the source code and software for the Intoxilyzer 8000 that was developed specifically for Florida. Representatives for C.M.I. have stated that the source code consist of approximately 50,000 lines of computer code written an assembly language.
Without the source code, the Defendant is unable to question and test the accuracy of the operations of the Intoxilyzer 8000 as well as the "fail safe" provisions in the computer program. Without this information, the Defendant's due process rights are violated because he is not given a sufficient opportunity to question the test results.
The Intoxilyzer 8000, in order to produce a breath alcohol level reading, utilizes a computer program, versions of which range from 8100.08 to 8100.27. One of the machines used in central booking at the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office is 80-003388 which contains software version 8100.27.
The manufacturer of the machine alleges that certain "fail safe" procedures were designed to flag malfunctions of the Intoxilyzer 8000, which are contained in and performed by the computer program contained within the machine. Without this computer program the machine will not operate.
The FDLE allegedly approved software versions 8100.09 and 8100.10 in 2002 version of FDLE Rule 11D-8.003. Since that time, there have been approximately 17 subsequent software revisions, one of which is the software version 8100.27, contained within the machine in Tampa found at central booking of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.
In a letter dated October 5, 2006 the FDLE admitted that it has discovered software flaws that allowed scientifically unreliable breath test results to be reported by the machine as scientifically reliable. The software flaws result from the Intoxilyzer 8000's ability to measure breath volume on any individual test in which a person blows into the device.
Many criminal defense attorneys involved in the DUI litigation for the source code in Florida argue that the various inspections performed on the machines are useless and irrelevant because the machine is not designed to measure the accuracy of the breath volume when simulators are used to test the accuracy of the machine.
One former FDLE Inspector, Roger Skipper (now the agency inspector for the breath test machines maintained by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office), had admitted in other litigation that the FDLE has made no attempt to use independent instrumentation to determine the accuracy of the value provided on any individual breath test administered by using a person's breath verses a simulator.
The former FDLE Commissioner Guy Tunnell, in a letter to the President of the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association, dated August 11, 2005, stated:
The Intoxilyzer 8000 requires minimum time, slope, flow and volume components. Only when those minimally acceptable requirements are met, will the breath sample be scientifically reliable and the quantitative result accurately reflect the alcohol concentration circulating in a person's body.
Volume is the key component in establishing reliability. Where a breath sample does not meet minimum volume requirements, the instrument cannot determine if there are interferents or mouth alcohol present, and cannot ensure that a deep lung breath sample has been obtained.
This explanation for these scientifically unreliable results contradicts actual test results that show that the missing instruction in the software was not the reason for the machine's inability to properly calculate the breath volume on a given sample. Instead, there is a computer glitch within the FDLE software which can the pinpointed without looking at the source code for the software contained in the machine.
One of the safeguards of the machine is the ability to record the volume of each breath. When that breath sample is less than 1.1 liters, the machine should report to the breath test operator the warning "volume not met." If that warning is not provided, then the machine should have calculated that the sample volume is greater than 1.1 liters. However, no methodology used by FDLE can verify the breath volume is accurate for any given breath sample.
For example, by inspecting the records pertaining to the Intoxilyzer 8000, experts have now established yet another software flaw that allows the machine to produce a breath alcohol level when the machine reports that no breath volume was submitted for analysis.
The Intoxilyzer 8000 Instrument Specification Sheets provided by C.M.I., the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 8000, C.M.I. has admitted that volume measurements accuracies on the machine are plus or minus 10%.
The FDLE and C.M.I. have established an arbitrary and capricious requirement of a breath volume of 1.1 liters of breath in order to have a valid sample. The machine has undergone numerous software changes which directly and indirectly affect the analytical portions of the software that has been modified.
Despite the changes to the software, FDLE has not, as required by C.M.I., had the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine re-calibrated. Without that re-calibration, there is no assurance that the breath test volumes for the breath test device are accurate.
Due process requires that the person accused have a "sufficient opportunity to question the rest results" which include making available for testing the breath test machine itself as well as its fail safe procedures." Houser v. State, 474 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 1985); Cloe v. State, 613 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
In Houser v. State, supra, the Florida Supreme Court stated that due process is met when:
The breath testing machine and calibrating records and samples were available to impeach the machine's reliability, and the defendant had the right to cross examine the machine operator to expose potential errors in the administration of the test.
Id. at 1195. Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court in Houser also empowered the defendant to obtain discovery concerning the devices used in testing pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 316.1932(1)(f)(4).
In Cloe v. State, supra, the Fourth District Court of Appeals found that due process was satisfied when "the machine could be tested, the test results were available, and the 'fail safe' procedures could be questioned."
DUI defense attorneys throughout the State of Florida are fighting for the source code of the Intoxilyzer 8000 because without it, the Defendant cannot determine the following:
- How the software in a particular intoxilyzer varies or was modified from the original software versions approved by the FDLE in 2002.
- Whether those modifications caused the approved software to have additional flaws or glitches;
- Whether the modification effect the reliability or operation of the Intoxilyzer 8000;
- Whether the software program itself gives a scientifically reliable result on a human breath sample as opposed to a simulator;
- Whether the changes in the various versions of the code are "substantial;"
- How the "fail safe" procedures work; and
- The extent that known and unknown flaws in the program affect the accuracy of the test results.
Expert Testimony from Harley R. Myler on Source Code for the Intoxilyzer 8000 - Read the request made to C.M.I., their response, and an affidavit from an expert witness explaining why disclosure of the source code is relevant and necessary to contest the breath test readings.
Guilty By Machine: The Problem of Source Code Discovery in Florida DUI Prosecutions - A must read for anyone interest in the current litigation. Article published in the Florida Law Review by Charles Short.
Recent DUI statistics collected in Florida show that in 2009 the State of Florida conducted 49,783 breath tests using the Intoxilyzer 8000. Of those breath tests, the average breath alcohol concentration reading was 0.147. More than 18% of the tests shows a breath alcohol reading of less than 0.08. Approximately, 82% of the breath test readings were between 0.08 and 0.20. The remaining 23% of the breath tests showed a reading of over .20. See Intoxilyzer 8000 Subject Tests Statistical Data Review Summary - 2009 Yearly Totals.
When we represent a client with a breath test reading on the Intoxilyzer 8000, we conduct a full audit and look at all of the Intoxilyzer 8000 was not in substantial compliance with the statutory and administrative rules.
Contact our attorneys to find out more about how represent our clients charged with DUI after a high breath test reading. If you were arrested for DUI in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, and submitted to a breath test, contact an experienced Back to top