Breath Testing

Advanced Impaired Driving Technology Could Begin Stopping Drunk Drivers in Two Years

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Barone Defense Firm

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the bipartisan Investment Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA). This new law contains a provision requiring that all passenger vehicles eventually be equipped with technology that will stop drunk drivers. New cars may start utilizing such technology immediately, but the law won’t require this advanced impaired driving technology any sooner than 2 years from now, though it’s likely to take far longer.

What is the Timeline for Requiring Advanced Impairment Detection Technology?

As previously indicated in our previous article entitled Infrastructure Bill to Combat Drunk Driving by Requiring Alcohol Monitoring Technology the new law does not, with any degree of specificity, indicate what technologies are to be utilized for this purpose. Instead, the law sets forth a timeline for the Secretary of Transportation to write the specific motor vehicle safety standard. Section 24220(c) indicates that not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the IIJA, the Secretary of Transportation (SOT) shall issue a “final rule” requiring that a motor vehicle safety standard be added to the relevant section of the federal code.

Meaning of “INTERFERENCE DETECTED” in DUI Breath Testing

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

Michigan exclusively uses the DataMaster DUI breath test machine to measure the breath alcohol of all persons arrested for OWI Michigan. The DataMaster operates on the scientifically accepted principle of absorption of infrared energy.

Michigan DUI attorney near me Patrick Barone explains the DataMaster breath test machine.
Michigan recently put into service a new DataMaster called the DataMaster DMT. The analytical portion of the DMT is essentially identical to the analytical portion of BAC DataMaster and DataMaster CDM. The following explanation therefore applies to both breath analyzers.

DataMaster Breath Analyzer – How It Works

Infrastructure Bill to Combat Drunk Driving by Requiring Alcohol Monitoring Technology

Published on: December 29, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The bipartisan Investment Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) seeks to combat drunk driving by requiring all new passenger vehicles be equipped with Advanced Alcohol Monitoring Technology. The drive behind this section of the 2702-page IIJA was led by Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. MADD also played a significant role in the development of this law.

However, until now, their efforts have focused on requiring all first-time drunk driving offenders to use Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIID). The IIJA instead focuses on different type of technology and this technology will be required in all passenger vehicles, regardless of whether the driver has ever been charged with drunk driving.

Congresswoman Dingell and MADD’s combined efforts bore fruit on November 15, 2021, when President Joe Biden signed into IIJA into law. Section 24220 of the Act is entitled “Advanced Impaired Driving Technology” (AIDP) and requires that “drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” become standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.

Biden Administration Seeks to End Drunk Driving in Five Years

Published on: August 6, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The infrastructure spending bill now pending before the United States Senate contains a provision requiring that all manufacturers selling cars in the Unites States install technology that will preclude the vehicle from being operated by an intoxicated driver. This provision was sponsored by Michigan’s Rep. Debbie Dingell, D, among others.

According to the 2702-page bill, the Department of Transportation will be charged with the responsibility to determine the safety standards applicable to the technology and are required to do so within three years. Car manufacturers will then be given an additional two years to comply with these standards. However, if the DOT fails to finalize the rules within 10 years, the agency must report to the US Congress why they failed to comply.

There is little guidance in the bill relative to how the DOT should exercise their authority other than to say that whatever technology they settle on should “passively” and “accurately” monitor a driver’s performance and determine whether the driver is impaired. Furthermore, the technology must “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of the driver of a motor vehicle” is too high.

Michigan Breath Test Fraud Leads to Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages and Attorney Fees

Published on: January 28, 2021 | by Barone Defense Firm

In January 2020 it came to light that employees of Intoximeters, the company retained by the Michigan State Police to maintain all the alcohol breath testing devices used in Michigan’s DUI investigations, had committed fraud. This fraud included the falsification of the documentation necessary to confirm that the breath test units were working properly. Much has happened and been learned about the fraud in the ensuing 12 months, and this has culminated in the recent filing of a complaint in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the Marko Law Firm. The Firm’s Federal Complaint alleging Fraud was filed January 26, 2021.

Lawsuit Background

The device used to test a driver’s breath in every drunk driving investigation involving breath evidence in Michigan is called the DataMaster DMT. In 2006 Michigan purchased approximately 160 of these devices and paid about $6,000.00 per unit. These devices were intended to replace the aging DataMasters then in use around the state.

How to Beat a Breathalyzer

Published on: January 11, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

Penalties for DUI in Michigan, top dui lawyer Michigan, Michigan DUI Lawyers, laws, driver license If you were arrested for DUI in Michigan, the police officer probably gave you a breath test at the police station. This is to determine if your breath alcohol level was above Michigan’s legal limit of .08.

While there is little question that juries tend to give breath test results a great deal of “weight” in deciding their verdicts, all breath test cases are defensible at trial. For example, the Top Michigan DUI lawyers at the Barone Defense Firm have successfully used the following defenses to beat the breathalyzer test:

Breath Test Operator Mistakes – the typical DUI law enforcement officer in Michigan has only attended a single one-day course after which they become certified class II operators of the breathalyzer. All officers pass this test and because the training is so inadequate, officers often make mistakes in administering the breath test. Some of these mistakes can lead to false and unreliable test results.

Breathalyzer Tests in Michigan DUI Cases Can be 230 Percent Too High!

Published on: January 1, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

According to science, breath alcohol tests in DUI cases can be as much as 230 percent higher than corresponding blood tests. Because blood transports consumed beverage alcohol from the stomach to the brain where it can reach sufficient levels to cause impairment, a person’s blood alcohol level is what really matters. Therefore, in the context of a DUI case, breath alcohol only relevant to the extent that it accurately reflects blood alcohol content. This is true because breath alcohol does not have the capacity to cause intoxication.

To understand just how significant this fact is, consider a hypothetical case where a driver’s breath test comes back at .18. This would likely result in the driver being charged with an enhanced DUI, or what Michigan calls “super drunk driving,” a charge applicable to drivers with a BAC of .17 or above. While this breath test evidence might look bad for the driver, it is well within the realm of scientific possibility that this same driver has corresponding or simultaneous blood alcohol level of .063, or well below the legal limit of .08. Understanding why this is so, and why breath testing can be so pernicious, requires a basic understanding of alcohol metabolism.

Pharmacokinetics and the Absorption, Distribution and Elimination of Alcohol

John Fusco Developer of DataMaster DMT Breath Test Instrument Passes Away

Published on: July 28, 2020 | by Barone Defense Firm

It is with sadness and a heavy heart that the Barone Defense Firm announces that on July 24, 2020, Mr. John Fusco, died at his home in Ohio. He was 77 years old.

John was the CEO and owner of National Patent Analytic Systems (NPAS) in Mansfield Ohio. John was a pilot and had a deep passion for flying. Under his leadership NPAS, located adjacent to an airstrip, successfully procured contracts to manufacture and test aircraft parts for the US Government and others. Also, in 1986 NPAS acquired an early version of the breath test instrument that became the NPAS DataMaster. Subsequently, NPAS continued to refine and improve the DataMaster and created several different iterations of the device, culminating in the DataMaster DMT, widely considered the best alcohol breath testing instrument available. Michigan and several other states use the DataMaster DMT exclusively for law enforcement purposes, including drunk driving arrests.

Dave Radomski, Patrick Barone, John Fusco

Historical Facts Related to Michigan State Police Breath Test Program 120-Day Inspection Fraud

Published on: May 28, 2020 | by Patrick Barone

All drivers arrested for DUI in Michigan will have their breath tested by a breath testing instrument called the DataMaster DMT. The evidence produced by this breath test device will become crucial evidence in their subsequent drunk driving charge, so it is essential that the breath test results produced be accurate, precise and reliable. The Michigan State Police are charged with the responsibility of maintaining these breath testing instruments so as to assure their accuracy, and it was recently discovered that MSP’s quality assurance program was marred by fraud.

Important Background Information Regarding Fraud in Michigan’s Alcohol Breath Testing Program

National Patent Analytic Systems (NPAS), a corporation headquartered in Mansfield Ohio, is the manufacturer of the infrared evidentiary breath testing instrument known as the DataMaster. These instruments began with the introduction of the BAC Verifier in 1981. The DataMaster predecessor was the BAC Verifier, which was originally manufactured by Verax Systems, Inc. of Fairport, New York. Verax sold the rights to the BAC Verifier to National Patent Analytical Systems (NPAS), who then moved their business, including the actual manufacturing processes, to Mansfield, Ohio.

Michigan Breath Test Fraud Results in Multiple Felony Charges and Multiple Dismissals of Drunk Driving Cases

Published on: May 27, 2020 | by Patrick Barone

Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel recently announced that two technicians, formerly responsible for the maintenance and calibration of hundreds of breath testing devices used throughout Michigan, have been charged with multiple felony counts for allegedly falsifying records. Their names are Andrew Clark and David John.

Mr. Clark and Mr. John were both “Class IV” operators of the DMT. Class IV is the highest of the four operator classes, and this level of certification allows the operator to perform 120-day inspections. During the 120-inspection the operator checks for linearity and if problems arise, it is possible for the inspector to re-calibrate the DMT. If done improperly, this could result in inaccurate breath test results, wrongful DUI arrests and wrongful DUI convictions. The criminal cases against them allege that Mr. Clark and Mr. John committed forgery in producing false documents indicating, among other things, that they had performed 120-day inspections when none had occurred.

The breath test device used to test drivers arrested for DUI in Michigan is called the DataMaster DMT. Michigan currently has more than 200 DMTs in service, and all of them are serviced by 3 technicians. The State was essentially divided in half north to south, creating an Eastern and Western side each of which was handled by a separate technician. The northern part of the State, including the upper peninsula, was handled by a third operator.