Breath Machines are unreliable and invalid tests for alcohol Minnesota still uses a breath alcohol detecting machine, called the Intoxilyzer 5000, manufactured by a company called "CMI." (The government presumptously calls is a Minnesota "breath test.") The basic idea behind the machine is that alcohol vapor in a person's breath blocks infrared light. The whiz-bang "Intoxilyzer 5000," like similar machines used by police, traps the target person's breath in a glass tube, then directs infrared wavelength light through it. Sensors on the other side of the tube detect how much of the infrared light made it through.
Trial by Machine - the Age of the Machines The machinecontains aprimitive 1970s-era computerchip, programmed with a secret "source code." In part, the machine's Source Code is supposed to apply complex mathematical formulae, based upon flawed research on "average" breath-blood correlations across the wide spectrum human subject variations. CMI has sued to hide the truth - to prevent accused drivers from accessing their machine's secret source code. Based on this and other software programming, the machine reads and prints out a claimed breath alcohol level, which can be either a little inaccurate or wildly inaccurate.
Why have CMI and the state of Minnesota work so hard to hide the truth about the source code of the machine? Is it not reasonable to infer that the reason is that they know the breath machine is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate and unfair, and that they are hiding the truth from us to increase convictions regardless of innocence-in-fact, and to save money for the state in doing so, and make profits for CMI? The state of Minnesota has now decided to abandon the Intoxilyzer and CMI, and get a new infrared breath-alcohol machine. Stay tuned.
alcohol molecule
We know that numerous factors can cause the machine to report a greatly inaccurate alcohol level. One of these is the presence of interferents in the target's body and breath. Literally thousands of common household and industrial (work) chemical products contain Volatile Organic Compounds ("VOCs") which are absorbed into the target person's blood, and later are dissipated from the person's body, including out of their lungs and breath. These are termed "interferents" because they interfere with the desired operation of infrared breath alcohol machines like CMI's "Intoxilyzer 5000," by blocking the infrared light - the same way alcohol molecules do (see illustration to the right of an alcohol molecule).
Other problems with these machines include radio interference, inadequate observation periods by police, mouth alcohol contamination, including that caused by acid reflux, diabetes and rapid weight loss (ketones as an interferent), environmental factors during administration, as well as other factors relating to the targeted person.
In addition, police officers now have a legal incentive to label a person "a refusal" (whether true or not) to save themselves time and work, and punish the driver. Police are now trained by the State to blame machine malfunctions on the driver (i.e. mouth alcohol, blocked breath tubes, etc.) rather than try to troubleshoot the machine malfunctions.
General themes of DWI litigation are their prioritizing expediency above justice, and the deliberate efforts by the government to hide the truth, and deny accused drivers access to the truth. This contradicts a core purpose of the court: "the search for the truth." Examples of this are many. One example is the State of Minnesota's efforts in collusion with CMI, to deny access to the Intoxilyzer 5000 computer source code to accused drivers and their scientists. Why are they trying so hard to hide it? What is the purpose of their secrecy? A reasonable inference must be that they are so desperately fighting to keep it hidden, because they know that it is flawed, inaccurate, invalid and unreliable. Yet the lives of thousands of innocent Minnesotans are ruined by this so-called "evidence" every year.
Another example of how the government, and the anti-alcohol extremists who try to influence it, deliberately advocate to hide the truth in these cases, is the destruction and curtailment of pre-trial discovery in "implied consent" drivers license revocation cases.
Nothing on this website is legal advice. Only a lawyer fully informed about the facts of your potential case, after research of relevant law, can be in a position to give legal advice. Information here is for general information.
Serving The People of the local Mpls - St PaulTwin Cities metropolitan area in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Anoka, Wright, Carver, Scott, Dakota, and Washington Counties (greater Minnesota only upon special consideration).
